 _][_ [_Statement_] [_Supporters_] [_Supporting teams_] [_Your support?_] [_P-f-P teampage_]
|
|
Advanced Search... ©
|
|
Where do you stand?
P-f-P is about maintaining common sense when participating in the SETI@home project. P-f-P is about crunching clean!
First there was the illegal patch for the v1.x clients. Implementation of new science code was delayed by the Berkeley team because of this and resources had to be diverted into making the client more hack-proof. Then the patching issue reared its ugly head for a second time when a bogus 3.03 client was released. It doesn't even process the data but sends back empty resultfiles. Remember, using a modified client is against the will of the SETI@home project team.
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/license.html
SETI@home clearly states: "You may only use unmodified versions of SETI@home
obtained through authorized distributers to connect the SETI@home server."
An official SETI@home statement on patching, previously on their website, stresses the above:
< OFFICIAL SETI@home statement>
UNAUTHORIZED PATCHES TO CLIENT: It has come to
our attention that
some users are distributing unauthorized patches to the SETI@home client.
We cannot verify that these patches function properly and are virus free.
It is very important to the science of SETI@home that you
run only the unmodified SETI@home program.
</OFFICIAL SETI@home statement>
It seems to me that the above is absolutely clear. Now we ask you again.
Where do you stand?
You can demonstrate that you stand on the side of SETI@home by adding a simple statement to your emails and/or newsgroup postings in times of crisis. The two lines below may be used or any other similar statement of your choice.
Signed, the Patch-free-Processors.
ONLY USE OFFICIAL SETI@HOME SOFTWARE
DO NOT USE SETI@HOME PATCHES
Additional observations...
SETI@home will always publish their latest official software on their website: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/download.html
A FAQ: Why don't you release the source code?
" We decided not to make source code available for security reasons and for science reasons as well. We have to have everyone do the exact same analysis, or we can't have any control over our research and be confident in our results. We were also worried that there may be a few people that want to deliberately try to screw up our database and server. " http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/faq.html#q1.9
It is possible that the use of patches may produce wrong results. It could also prevent the work unit from being accepted and counted as completed in the user stats.
' This page represents our views on patching the SETI@home client. It saw first light on 1999.11.28, during the first patching crisis. '
- The Patch-free-Processors
' Scientific integrity of this effort depends on cooperation from the user-members to follow the rules of the organization that they subscribe to. For good or for bad, the processing decisions must be made by the top staff at SETI@home.
If a person wants to work with an altered process, he/she should go on and do their own project and be free to make their own decisions. But should no longer be associated with SETI@home. '
- Brian Uitti (S@h user)