Open source

Started by dennisn

dennisn Lv 1

Is there a good reason why this program isn't open-source? I thought it was primarily a scientific thing, and thus should be as open as possible?

(The binary blob also doesn't work here in my x86_64 linux).

ipatrol Lv 1

Agreed. I understand the issues with scoring, but since we already have Lua scripting, there is no reason why users should not be able to use their own bioinformatics software. Our goal is first and foremost to develop ways to better predict protein folding, the scoring is for motivation. If we use a copyleft free-software license, any user will be able to pick up these modified clients and modify them further, a process that will lead to many features that can be integrated back into the main program. Bugfixes can be authored by users, and the development of more powerful automation will no doubt improve Rosetta@Home's performance by integrating the rich world of open-source bioinformatics software into the project. Now then, what are you waiting for?

P.S. Read http://catb.org/~esr/writings/quake-cheats.html for a word on cheating prevention in free game clients

Heinermann Lv 1

Just my input:

Even if there are problems with open-sourcing the scoring and/or networking systems, there's no reason to not open source the user interface. With the user interface open, people can submit patches that fix UI issues, add new UI features, or configure it to allow different types of input devices (each with unique input styles).

Like on google code, patches could first be reviewed. If the user has submitted more than one patch and is deemed a reliable developer, they can be promoted to committer so that their patches do not need to always be reviewed(by an existing foldit developer), and can review/apply patches made by other users.

Not only can this reduce the load on the team, but UI interfacing can be extended, and any new features that are later on the priority list can be implemented without hindering the work on more important feedback. Committers will normally review each others' work and that of new patch submissions, so the UI branch can effectively manage itself, once it gets going.

As a bonus, you will be providing these committers with a valuable resume entry.

Heinermann Lv 1

I noticed an issue concerning UI macro/scripting, and want to point out that this is NOT the same suggestion.

I forgot to mention, but by UI components I mean anything that isn't network/scoring related, including graphics rendering. I really believe the community can improve on rendering, increasing the performance of the game itself (I'm sure you've noticed larger proteins causing slowdowns).

Also don't forget, the community has some really smart people in it, some being computer science students at universities, others being professional programmers. They can and WILL produce high quality work (if that's what people are worried about, don't be).

phallicies Lv 1

Just felt the need to bump it, open sourcing things is a great way to increase community involvement and reduce the load of programming on your developers. Also you don't need to pay people when its open source, they do it because they want to make it better.

MrBrown77 Lv 1

Open source software is great, but for computer games where people compete with each other it's not always a good idea to do so. I know "security by obscurity" is frowned upon by most experts. From a security standpoint, the optimal solution would be if all calculations were done on the server, no savegames on the client, everything server-sided. But for most computer games, this way just isn't a practicable solution. Especially not for FoldIt, which combines gaming and distributed computing. This means the fight against cheaters will always be a cat and mice game. That's why it is important to keep some secrets to be able to keep the upper hand in the fight against cheaters. One might argue that cheaters are no real issue in FoldIt so far, but I would not underestimate the impact of open sourcing the whole code on this issue.

I think it's also a problem if people "improve" their client with new tools and features. I don't think the tools are meant to make it as easy as possible for us. As I understand it they're chosen in a way so that scientists can learn as much as possible from our manual folding. Perhaps there is some super handy tool which is intentionally kept away from us to see how we solve problems without it, to be able to improve some algorithms. If someone could "improve" the client on his own and still participate online and submit scores, that might totally ruin these intentions.

Open Sourcing the UI code only as Heinermann suggested seems like a good idea to me. There really is a lot of room for improvement in the user interface. But open sourcing the "core" of the game seems like a bad idea to me.