Re: SETI@home (history)

I wrote:
>
>> IIRC, there was a story somewhere that the SETI@home software 
>> included a bug (like a crippleware) that would make it run
>> _much slower_ than it could run, because there was not enough
>> data for the millions of computers that would process this
>> data.
>> 
>> I am confusing things? I couldn't find any reference for this.

David Hobby wrote: 
> 
> Got me, but there was a problem at the start.  The
> server kept send out the same data set over and over
> by mistake for a while.  So a few day's worth of
> computing was wasted, until that was fixed.
> 
Ok, but I was not thinking/misremembering a bug.
I was thinking about a malicious code.

> It's hard to see why they would cripple the program,
> though.  It's not like there aren't enough other
> distributed computing projects around.  (My office
> computer analyzes data looking for gravity waves,
> when I'm not using it.)
> 
IIRC, the reason for cripple the program was
that the SETI@home program was a huge success, they
got _much more_ volunteers than they planned, and
they didn't have enough data to feed all the volunteers
unless they crippled the program. So they did it.

John Williams wrote:
> 
> I do not know if that is true, but if it is true, I would call it a
> feature, not a bug. If there is no useful SETI data for my computer 
> to crunch, I'd rather have the CPU cycles available for something else.
> 
> Or did you mean that it consumed CPU cycles doing something useless,
> like calculating digits of PI repeatedly?
> 
Yes, something like that. The original program was so fast -
IIRC - that "them(tm)" projected that the SETI@home program
would soon finish. They didn't want that, they wanted major
press coverage, a program that would last years (and not days),
so they crippled the program.

This is the scenario I remember. I think I read it right here,
in this list. Or maybe I am confusing some X-Files episode with
truth.

  "Mendacem memorem esse oportet"

Alberto Monteiro