I'd still love to see online auto-update integrated into BOINC, where it'll go fetch and installed the latest appropriate version of BOINC. But, you could specify auto-update preferences by machine (client-end, I guess), in case you prefer to do your own builds based on the latest current, or if you want to keep a specific version because you know it runs stably (barring and REQUIRED upgrades to work properly with upgradedWU's in the future or what have you).

I just hink it would make keeping people up-to-date a whole lot simpler and then everyone could theoretically be on the same page, performance tweaks, better new processor timings / multi-core processor support and interface streamlining could be automatically propagated, etc. I mean why not build that into BOINC's download process? One could even modularize it to include certain uploads/downloads and exclude others.

* Download *
[ ] BOINC Client udates
[x] Seti@Home Updates
[x] Einstein@Home Updates
[ ] New Work Units
[x] Statistics
[ ] Etc.

* Upload *
[x] Results
[ ] Preferences (for account managers? like BAM or whatever)

That way folks could get only what they're looking for, updates [for BOINC and project-specific updates] could be propagated automatically, people can avoid getting work units if they're not wanting to potentially get overcommitted, people can just request stats updates without wasting bandwidth on their side or server side on other issues...

I think that would handily streamline the interface.

Right now there's only the one 'Update' button. Usually the first tiem you click it it tries to report and download new WU's (whici is annoying since I usually only want to get any new stats that were pending), after upload/download is complete, THEN it'll try for stats or whatever. It's just a weird interface to have one button do like 2-3 different things depending on the time of day and how recently you already pushed it. ;o)

Hmm, I guess the above examnple was two-fold... It would be nice of the 'update' button were replaced with more of a wizard-style interface for manual uploads/downloads.

And supplementing that it would be nice if there was a way to set auto-update preferences by machine so things automatically get downloaded when available and the machine has an open internet connection and the server isn't too busy...

Don't know if this was on the agenda or not. If so, sorry, didn't see it in my list of most currently posted stuff for this forum. If not, maybe an idea for future version so everyone can more easily get onto the same page in terms of client revisions, updates to specific projects for improved functionality, etc.

Cheers!

---

If there were no time, how old would YOU be? ~Me

BOINC Seti@Home Stats:

Classic Seti@Home Stats:

NO NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Sorry for the caps, I am NOT hsouting, I am "emphasing". The problem is too many people run Boinc on computers that are "critical" to their work. Berkeley has agreed to only auto update, and you can turn it off, the underlying Seti software. The Boinc software is manually updated ONLY and probably will be forever.
Would you want MS updating Windows for you? Oh it does you say, yes but from one version to another it doesn't. It updates only the underlying software, not the main program. MS will NOT auto upgrade from 98 to 2k to XP. And no you can't say because they want to make money, Linux does not do it either, and it IS free.

---

NO NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Sorry for the caps, I am NOT hsouting, I am "emphasing". The problem is too many people run Boinc on computers that are "critical" to their work. Berkeley has agreed to only auto update, and you can turn it off, the underlying Seti software. The Boinc software is manually updated ONLY and probably will be forever.
Would you want MS updating Windows for you? Oh it does you say, yes but from one version to another it doesn't. It updates only the underlying software, not the main program. MS will NOT auto upgrade from 98 to 2k to XP. And no you can't say because they want to make money, Linux does not do it either, and it IS free.

Hmm, alrighty, though I can see myriad flaws in the logic. Must challenge a few assertions (sorry it got wordy, I runneth over at the mouth sometimes).

I think I already said there should be an option to DISABLE auto-updates, so whoever installs it should be able to set it so it CAN'T update itself without permission (intended precisely to NOT disrupt critical systems with unauthorized updates). However the option should exist for those who WANT it (I'm guessing it's more than just me).

Secondly, Microsoft DOES issue patches for security and for usability. (HELLO!! XP SP2, anyone??) Critical updates can be and routinely ARE downloaded automatically for those who have it set up (they update and upgrade me weekly it seems, and I'm fine with it; XP is actually quite stable from an end users perspective [mine], I've never had a problem with auto-updates and they've never caused issues for me). And YES, there's an option (default option, as I recall) to NOT have it automatically updated, but only MANUALLY updated. This request is NO DIFFERENT from M$'s own policies.

Why can we not set up a system like M$'s? I mean right tyhere in the Automatic Updates control panel it says (Bottom to top) 1) Turn off Automatic Updates. 2) Notify me of, but do not automatically download, available updates. 3) Downloads updates automatically, but allow me to select whether/when to install updates. 4) Automatically download and apply critical updates. This actually seems like a logical way to do it. It gives the user or system admin choices of how to update (manually through varying degrees of automation).

Similarly, for a non M$ perspective/approach to the issue, Symantec's Live Update functionality works in much the same way. You log in you select what stuff you want it to look for, it tells you what's available, and if you want to you select what to download. User has complete control and is in charge of their own destiny.
Apple also has auto-update functionality for their OSX products (it's not just an M$ thing, everyone's doing it).

I'm not ostensibly asking for a complete redesign of the software every 5 months as your erroneous 95 -> 98 -> XP analogy seems to indicate (or similarly BOINC 3.01 -> 5.4). I'm asking for an in-version update patch scenario such as XP -> XP SP1 -> XP SP2 (Or BOINC 5.2.13 -> 5.4.9).

I'm not asking for XP to Longhorn update, just for any major usability patches. I mean whoever is GOING TO UPDATE their system is going to do it however they can, they'll go and download the latest update and install it manually. But for the casual user, why would you want to do that if there's an automatic version that does EXACTLY THE SAME THING AUTOMATICALLY (*cough* emphasis added *cough* sorry, must be having trouble controlling the volume of my characters *wink*). ;o]

Even if I was asking for XP->Longhorn (or the BOINC equivalent), so what? BOINC isn't in it for profits like M$, BOINC/Seti@Home/Folding@Home, etc. have a vested interest in keeping their users up-to-date and able to run the latest version of their software; frankly, as long as it worked seamlessly and all things still worked properly, I'd be all for seeing a free XP -> Longhorn update from M$; just 'cause they decide NOT to do it doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T do it if it was feasible.

I mean seriously for the user who wants to be up-to-date and WILL download and install the update manually, why can there not be an automatic way to do the exact same thing. The administrator (usually the user who actively uses it), would have full control over how/when updates are updated. If they want to approve any/every update, they can micro-manage. If they assume it has been sufficiently well tested to be released for general consumption they can set it to auto update. I see little to no difference between that system and what's already in place (aside from the extra work created for end users).

And the problem with the M$ analogy is also the fact that M$ is operated for profit, thus has an interest in NOT distributing updates from version to version (XP -> Longhorn). However BOINC is innately open source and not profit-oriented (rather, science and knowledge oriented), and is innately aligned toward disseminating information, sourcing out its product to whever wants to participate. Aside from which perticipation is voluntary. The people who participate do so because they WANT to and assume the risks. Administrstors should be aware of the reisks before downloading any piece of software. If not, they shouldn't be admins. So, I see no inherent conflict with the auto-update approach so long as sufficient leverage and control is given to the users in how it is applied (if at all). If properly implemented, if you want to do it manually or compile your own version of the source, go right ahead. Nothing stopping you from disabling the auto-update and going about self-compiling, then you've REALLY got nobody to blame but yourself. *wink*

Sorry to be so wordy, I just hink that ease-of-use *IS* a valuable feature and will attract more users than it will driveaway. Especially if it has the features that many other 'modern' programs have already...

---

If there were no time, how old would YOU be? ~Me

BOINC Seti@Home Stats:

Classic Seti@Home Stats:

A) These are the Seti forums. Seti <> BOINC. Seti is only a project running under BOINC. So your best course of action is to ask about the auto-update on the BOINC developers email list. (needs registration)

B) Even if you were to post it on the BOINC forums as well, then I would still point you to the DEV list there, as the developers rarely read these forums and the Boinc forums.

---

A) These are the Seti forums. Seti <> BOINC. Seti is only a project running under BOINC. So your best course of action is to ask about the auto-update on the BOINC developers email list. (needs registration)

B) Even if you were to post it on the BOINC forums as well, then I would still point you to the DEV list there, as the developers rarely read these forums and the Boinc forums.

Hmm, a good distinction to make. Thankee. I still think it would be handy if there was a common interface that everyone (IE, projects too, not just end-users) could use for auto-update.

I'll see if I can track down the BOINC forums... If they're a separate entity.

Thx for the advice. :)

---

If there were no time, how old would YOU be? ~Me

BOINC Seti@Home Stats:

Classic Seti@Home Stats:

I'll see if I can track down the BOINC forums... If they're a separate entity.

I just gave you the link above. But since I moderate there as well... I'll still point you to the developers email list, which address I also linked you to. :-)

---

A) These are the Seti forums. Seti <> BOINC. Seti is only a project running under BOINC. So your best course of action is to ask about the auto-update on the BOINC developers email list. (needs registration)

B) Even if you were to post it on the BOINC forums as well, then I would still point you to the DEV list there, as the developers rarely read these forums and the Boinc forums.

Hmm, a good distinction to make. Thankee. I still think it would be handy if there was a common interface that everyone (IE, projects too, not just end-users) could use for auto-update.

I'll see if I can track down the BOINC forums... If they're a separate entity.

Thx for the advice. :)

Reposted thread over to BOINC forums.

BOINC Forum repost.

Thought maybe some of the stuff in these forums would get back to the developers, or that the SEti Admins would somehow communicate with the BOINC admins over features/usage/etc.

Thx guys.

~Michael

---

If there were no time, how old would YOU be? ~Me

BOINC Seti@Home Stats:

Classic Seti@Home Stats:

I'll see if I can track down the BOINC forums... If they're a separate entity.

I just gave you the link above. But since I moderate there as well... I'll still point you to the developers email list, which address I also linked you to. :-)

Well, yeah, I linked from your post ;] though I had to muddle for a bit to figure out where to go to create an account on that forum. Anywho.

So, the developers pretty much just keep to themselves? How do they get input if not through the forums? Seems silly to have forums where people give input if nobody reads them... =o] Guess that's just an extra 2c... (IEm not worth much, and nobody will stop to look at it unless they really want to rub two pennies together... Woo! Good times!)

---

If there were no time, how old would YOU be? ~Me

BOINC Seti@Home Stats:

Classic Seti@Home Stats:

So, the developers pretty much just keep to themselves? How do they get input if not through the forums? Seems silly to have forums where people give input if nobody reads them... =o]

Through the email lists. If they were to read and answer forums every day as well, there wouldn't be much developing of BOINC. Or at least, so they say. ;-)

These forums are mainly here to give help. By volunteers to volunteers.
Same with the Boinc forums.

There are about 6 people working for Seti. (Not me, I am a volunteer)
And there are about 4 people actively working on BOINC. With a day only having so many hours and all these people also having families and a life away from their work, can you blame them not to answer on here? :-)

---