Here's a page describing some history:
Free=good
<RANT>
I'm new to SETI@Home but I'm quite irratated because I believe the client software is very poorly optimized (though I have no proof because I'm not an assembly guru and don't have the source code to look at).
Why would fixing a buffer overrun exploit make the client 5-10% slower? Does the client take advantage of MMX/SSE/SSE-2 extensions? (I don't think so... but I don't know if it could make use of them either). Why isn't there a version for Opteron's or Itanium's? Laziness? If the source was public all of this could be answered and the clients would be much more efficient.
The FAQ states they decided to make the code proprietary "for security reasons and for science reasons as well".
I can't concieve of a scientific reason to hide the code; I assume they think it would be more difficult for them to ferret out cheaters if the code was free. I'll bet they'd have an army of coders in line to help them with security concerns if the code was available.
My main gripes are that their software isn't available for the community to look at and improve, and I don't believe they're making efficient clients; they could go to a scheme like:
1) publish source code
2) release binaries for 1000's of configurations (instead of their current 60 or so) with a key built into them that isn't included with the source to help eliminate cheaters (cheaters can always modify the binary)
3) accept contributions from whoever that improves the code.
Mail these guys if you agree:
davea@ssl.berkeley.edu
danw@ssl.Berkeley.edu
</RANT>
Edits: My crappy spelling/grammar
Free=good
<RANT>
I'm new to SETI@Home but I'm quite irratated because I believe the client software is very poorly optimized (though I have no proof because I'm not an assembly guru and don't have the source code to look at).
Why would fixing a buffer overrun exploit make the client 5-10% slower? Does the client take advantage of MMX/SSE/SSE-2 extensions? (I don't think so... but I don't know if it could make use of them either). Why isn't there a version for Opteron's or Itanium's? Laziness? If the source was public all of this could be answered and the clients would be much more efficient.
The FAQ states they decided to make the code proprietary "for security reasons and for science reasons as well".
I can't concieve of a scientific reason to hide the code; I assume they think it would be more difficult for them to ferret out cheaters if the code was free. I'll bet they'd have an army of coders in line to help them with security concerns if the code was available.
My main gripes are that their software isn't available for the community to look at and improve, and I don't believe they're making efficient clients; they could go to a scheme like:
1) publish source code
2) release binaries for 1000's of configurations (instead of their current 60 or so) with a key built into them that isn't included with the source to help eliminate cheaters (cheaters can always modify the binary)
3) accept contributions from whoever that improves the code.
Mail these guys if you agree:
davea@ssl.berkeley.edu
danw@ssl.Berkeley.edu
</RANT>
Edits: My crappy spelling/grammar