Official YURT Design Thread (Development Discussion ONLY)

[MN Scout]

That yurt created per machine non-user-seeable password sounds like a great idea.

 

[AtomicMoose]

• Still waiting for artwork decision

So am I. I need some guidelines to work within...

Sizes, colors, what do you want the images to present? Do you just want banners? I need input.

I am not going to just blindly design stuff and have it shot down. Too time consuming.

Input, input, input.

 

[mikeblas]

So am I. I need some guidelines to work within...

Sizes, colors, what do you want the images to present? Do you just want banners? I need input.

I am not going to just blindly design stuff and have it shot down. Too time consuming.

Still no response from the collective? That's frustrating -- it's part of what's been bothering me for the work on the code.

The website is black-and-white right now, and I don't think it would be too hard to change it using the CSS that I've written.

The banners that went by were fine by me; we could put 'em at the top of each page. I thought we were headded for another bake off.

 

[AtomicMoose]

Still no response from the collective? That's frustrating -- it's part of what's been bothering me for the work on the code.

The website is black-and-white right now, and I don't think it would be too hard to change it using the CSS that I've written.

The banners that went by were fine by me; we could put 'em at the top of each page. I thought we were headded for another bake off.

I am fully willing to work for this project within guidelines. But I don't have the time to spin my wheels.

 

[amenthes]

In regards to the machine password function, what would happen if someone uninstalls and reinstalls YURT? The site would already have a password logged for that machine id, if I understand correctly, so it would want that password to authenticate. However the program would think it was a new install, and try to create a new password to send to the site, not knowing the old one.

 

[mikeblas]

I am fully willing to work for this project within guidelines. But I don't have the time to spin my wheels.

Then I guess you'll have to hold off until somoene gives you the guidelines you want. I've given you everything I know, and I'm in enough hot water with the decisions I'm already making for the code.

In regards to the machine password function, what would happen if someone uninstalls and reinstalls YURT? The site would already have a password logged for that machine id, if I understand correctly, so it would want that password to authenticate. However the program would think it was a new install, and try to create a new password to send to the site, not knowing the old one.

How frequently do you think users will uninstall and reinstall Yurt, cleaning the registry inbetween? I think we'd leave the password in the registry on the machine so that a reinstall would not generate a new one.

 

[blakex]

Sorry I don't have time to read all 18+ pages, but if there's any need for beta testers, let me know. I've got 9 machines running 24/7 all on my internal network at home that I can use YURT with.

Contact via PM or e-mail blakek / gmail.com or reply here. I'll pay more attention to this thread

 

[OSUguy98]

How frequently do you think users will uninstall and reinstall Yurt, cleaning the registry inbetween? I think we'd leave the password in the registry on the machine so that a reinstall would not generate a new one.

What about the case of a complete format/reinstall? some are known to do that reather frequently....



Keep on Folding!! For the [H]orde!!

 

[mikeblas]

What about the case of a complete format/reinstall? some are known to do that reather frequently....

Then I'd expect a new machine because there'd be a new FAH ID after FAH itself was reconfigured.

 

[amenthes]

As long as the password is left in the registry, then I imagine this wouldn't be much of a problem. I can still see it happening though.

What you say about the format/reinstall case should be true, I'd expect a new machine ID from stanford, thus no issues with YURT.

Would it be possible to generate the "password" based on the existing machine id? Something that the user couldn't replicate too easily, but something that would stay consistant with the machine ID even if the registry data were lost. I'm not very familiar with this area of programming, but the thing that comes to mind is MD5 hashes, for instance used to verify the integrity of a file. Probably not at all applicable here, but thats the lines I'm thinking along.

 

[mikeblas]

Would it be possible to generate the "password" based on the existing machine id? Something that the user couldn't replicate too easily, but something that would stay consistant with the machine ID even if the registry data were lost.

Of course it is possible, but I don't think it's a very good idea. As soon as someone figures out the algorithm by which the password is generated from the ID, they protection is rendered useless. This is security by obfuscation.

As long as the password is left in the registry, then I imagine this wouldn't be much of a problem. I can still see it happening though.

That's surprising. Under what circumstances do you see it happening that a user uninstalls YURT, hunts down the registry key, deletes it, then later decides they want to start using YURT again? How often do you see this happening?

With the solution proposed so far, if a user deletes the password out of the registry, but wants to reclaim the machine, they're out of luck. I suppose, on a case-by-case basis, I could diddle the database to reset the password and let the user re-register the machine with a new password and reclaim the work. Between the diddle and the reclaim, the machine account is vulnerable. But nobody knows it is vulnerable, so maybe it is unlikely to be attacked.

Before doing the diddle, I would want to verify the requester's identity. joe@acme.com writes and says he really owns machine 0x12345678, and he deleted his registry entry and wants to reclaim the machine. Before I reset the record in the database and allow him to claim the work and take ownership of the machine, how do I verify that he's really the original owner of 0x12345678? How do I know that it does not belong to victim@innocent.org?

To make the accounts resettable, then, we have to provide a real registration mechanism; emails, email verification, associate the machine with the email address, don't enable it until verification is done, and so on. It is doable, but it is a lot of extra work.

Hence, my question: how often do you figure that will happen? In other words, is it really worth going though the extra complexity to set up all the extra validation and establish owner identity? Why would users hunt down the registry key and kill it, then expect to get their work back?

 

[MN Scout]

If they uninstall Yurt and then go through the extra work to remove the registry entry, and then want to reinstall I think they'll just have to live with the fact that hey now I have two machines on the Yurt list. Put it in the FAQ that if this happens then they'll have 2 machines. It's the same line of doing a complete reinstall, new folding comp id new Yurt machine id.

The stats will still be good, and the total protein time information should be still good. So people should be happy. I don't hunt around in my registry and delete stuff, maybe I'm not [H]ard enough...

 

[amenthes]

Just trying to foresee a possible issue if this program becomes widespread. I certainly don't imagine mikeblas or anyone else has the time to sit around and answer user requests for "lost passwords".

As for how often do I think it will happen? I have no idea, but if it can be done people will do it.

So I guess the item to put in the manual would be, if you uninstall YURT and remove the registry keys, then you must also remove and reinstall F@H, thus getting a new machine ID. Correct?

 

[mikeblas]

So I guess the item to put in the manual would be, if you uninstall YURT and remove the registry keys, then you must also remove and reinstall F@H, thus getting a new machine ID. Correct?

Yep.

You don't seem to have a very strong scenario, so I'm not going to plan on spending time implementing any secondary identification or validation mechanisms.

 

[mikeblas]

I've spent the evening (about three hours) converting the monitor to run as a service. It installs and uninstalls itself, can still be run in a console window, and seems to be working OK when launched as a service. It shuts down in a tidy way, too.

Moving to a service means that the registry keys the installer writes has to move from HKCU to HKLM; otherwise, the service can't get them. I've manually copied my registry keys to make progress converting the monitor. With that done, I can work on the installer to change it to write the data to HKLM.

Then, I'll want to implement the password idea and directory count. Once I get through all that, I can refresh the beta.

 

[blakex]

Regarding registry keys, I install everything on my computer through Total Uninstall, so when/if I do decide to uninstall something, it is completely uninstalled - registry keys, files, everything.

I know I'm in the minority, but it is a possibility that someone could uninstall YURT and take the registry key with them.

 

[amenthes]

Regarding registry keys, I install everything on my computer through Total Uninstall, so when/if I do decide to uninstall something, it is completely uninstalled - registry keys, files, everything.

I know I'm in the minority, but it is a possibility that someone could uninstall YURT and take the registry key with them.

That's the kind of situation I'm thinking might happen.... someone who is anal about programs not completely removing themselves. But with the disclaimer in the manual, that would be addressed.

 

[mikeblas]

I know I'm in the minority, but it is a possibility that someone could uninstall YURT and take the registry key with them.

You've already read about the problems that can cause for you here. Hopefully, other users will read the manual before they decide to do that.

And maybe you'll even reconsider the practice for the rest of your software. Software vendors test their install and uninstall programs by running them. They don't test them by running them using some random third-party utility.

 

[mikeblas]

I've converted YURTMonitor.EXE to work as a service, fully. I also put it on a diet; it dropped to 143360 bytes from 230000-something bytes.

I'll get YURTInstaller.EXE fixed up some time this weekend, unless something funny happens.

 

[ICE_9]

I've converted YURTMonitor.EXE to work as a service, fully. I also put it on a diet; it dropped to 143360 bytes from 230000-something bytes.

I'll get YURTInstaller.EXE fixed up some time this weekend, unless something funny happens.

Awesome! I will be waiting patiently for the email on the upgrade. This will be a good test of the capabilities. Will this require a restart of the stats?

 

[mikeblas]

Will this require a restart of the stats?

I'm thinking not. But you'll find your current client gets an error every thing it tries to send since the passwords will be turned on. I think I can make that work without deleting all the machine records, but we'll see.

 

[blakex]

And maybe you'll even reconsider the practice for the rest of your software. Software vendors test their install and uninstall programs by running them. They don't test them by running them using some random third-party utility.

[offtopic]Software vendors may test their install and uninstall programs, but that doesn't mean that when they do so, they clean up after themselves properly. All most third-party programs do is take an inventory of your system before the install, let the install run as normal, and then take an inventory afterwards. Then, if you want to uninstall it, you just run the uninstall as normal and you can then run the program and see what was left behind - registry keys, files, etc.

I'm anal about my system. I don't let anyone on it, nor will I install any programs that I can't fully monitor. Personally, I don't see any harm in it - if a software vendor wants to leave registry keys behind, tell me that and I'll allow them to stay if necessary. Otherwise, if I uninstall, I want it gone COMPLETELY - not just partially.[/offtopic]

Back to YURT... Looking forward to getting this going - should be quite interesting to see the stats that come from it.

 

[mikeblas]

I've sent beta build 0.15 out to the beta testers. I'm hoping this'll be our last round of narrow betas; we should probably do a larger beta after that. If that larger beta goes well, we're ready to release.

Looking forward to getting this going - should be quite interesting to see the stats that come from it.

The stats are already public. Check them out by starting at http://beta.blaszczak.com/ShowListOfMachines.asp .

 

[MN Scout]

I got your email about the new version with the service. I'm now testing that. I noticed in the help file that there is a spelling error on the service install section. "Yurtmoitor install" is missing the "n" in monitor. Otherwise nothing else jumped out at me.

When I went to the website I noticed one error report, this was within minutes of me registering.

Then on the teams list, if you click under the teams list on a team and then click on the machine count, there is not a link to the user list at the top of the page.

 

[mikeblas]

I noticed in the help file that there is a spelling error on the service install section.

Huh? What help file?

When I went to the website I noticed one error report, this was within minutes of me registering.

This is already fixed.

Then on the teams list, if you click under the teams list on a team and then click on the machine count, there is not a link to the user list at the top of the page.

I don't understand what you mean by "click under the teams list on a team". But I think I fixed what you're asking about. Let me know if that wasn't it.

 

[MN Scout]

the manual is what I meant.

Everything else looks fixed. Nothing like finding the bugs as they are being fixed.

 

[mikeblas]

the manual

Oh, I see. It'll be fixed in the next drop.

These are the two other things I know about:

• "Directories" shows up a zero in the machines list, even if you're monitoring more than one directory. I'll look into it ...
• There's a funny, complicated bug in the stats. If you finish a complete work unit in one sitting without bailing out, then we'll notice 100 frames and 1 whole work unit. We'll report both, and that means your machine is credited with twice as many points. This doesn't happen often, and what happens otherwise is by design. If you reboot, or stop and start the client, then the whole work unit time isn't reported because we can't factor out the clock time that went by while the click wasn't running; only the frame times are reported. To fix this, I have to figure out a way to report individual frames, but not report them until the overall work unit time is known to be discardable.

 

[OSUguy98]

One suggestion on installing YURT as a service... Can we make that a decision in the installer? it would just cut out an extra step for the user.... A simple "do you want this installed as a service" pick box or something would work.... then, to uninstall, just rerun the installer and uncheck the box....

edit---- Either that..... or use something similar to the flags that FAH uses.... just create a shortcut to YURTmonitor, and add "install" to the shortcut.... or does that work now?

edit #2---- I'm having some problems with "foldingbox1" (one of my PCs).... here's a pic of the error I'm getting.....

it says I'm lacking a dll file and should reinstall the program....

edit #3----- It also happens on my "Foldingbox2".... both I access through VNC.... a reboot, with keyboard/etc attached still didn't help.... But I tried it on my mom's PC, ("B") and it worked..... also worked on my PC ("A")..... so I'm not sure if it's a VNC thing (doesn't seem like it would effect anything?).... I'm not sure what the problem might be


Keep on Folding!!

 

[mikeblas]

One suggestion on installing YURT as a service... Can we make that a decision in the installer? it would just cut out an extra step for the user.... A simple "do you want this installed as a service" pick box or something would work.... then, to uninstall, just rerun the installer and uncheck the box....

It would be neat, but I'm more interested in getting everything else working for now. Remember, I'm the only guy doing dev work here and I've written upwards of 15,000 lines of code in three different languages during my spare time in the last month or so.

edit---- Either that..... or use something similar to the flags that FAH uses.... just create a shortcut to YURTmonitor, and add "install" to the shortcut.... or does that work now?

YURTMonitor supports an install comand on its command line. The docs explain how to use it. I don't understand what you mean by "create a shortcut"; who creates a shortcut for what? When, and why?

edit #2---- I'm having some problems with "foldingbox1" (one of my PCs).... here's a pic of the error I'm getting.....

Did you know that you can press CTRL+INS when a message box has focus? That copies the content of the message box to the clipboard as text. Then, you can paste it into a message and not have to worry about screwing around with an image.

It's nice and neat; the text looks like this:

---------------------------
Notepad
---------------------------
The text in the Untitled file has changed.

Do you want to save the changes?
---------------------------
Yes   No   Cancel   
---------------------------

Anyway, for this one, I'll need more information. What version of Windows are you using on that? Which patch level, exactly?

 

[OSUguy98]

Using WinXP Pro SP0 for "Foldingbox1", "Foldingbox2" and "B"...... my PC "A" is WinXP Pro SP2.....

also... see edit #3 from my previous post


Keep on Folding!!

 

[mikeblas]

Using WinXP Pro SP0 for "Foldingbox1", "Foldingbox2" and "B"...... my PC "A" is WinXP Pro SP2.....

Previous betas were using WinINET. This library isn't supported for use in a service. To make the application work as a service, I have no choice but to use something else.

If you upgrade to SP1, you'll find that WINHTTP is installed as a part of the OS. The minimum OSes and patch levels are listed here.

also... see edit #3 from my previous post

What is VNC? I've never heard of it, so it's unlikely that I'll support it if it is something that's going to get in the way.

 

[OSUguy98]

quick and dirty fix was just to copy that dll file to the system32 directory.... After I searched on my PC, I saw it was in there and in "WINDOWS\ServicePackFiles\i386", so I figured it was an SP1 thing...

VNC is a virtual network connection.... I use Tight VNC.... It's just a way to control a PC remotely over a LAN.... with only 2 monitors and 3 keyboards in the house.... along with 4 PCs, it comes in handy.... especially when all they do is sit in the corner and fold...... most of the time I only log in with VNC to update the client, or in this case, upgrade YURT....


Keep on Folding!!

 

[mikeblas]

quick and dirty fix was just to copy that dll file to the system32 directory.... After I searched on my PC, I saw it was in there and in "WINDOWS\ServicePackFiles\i386", so I figured it was an SP1 thing...

Sorry, but there's just no way I'll support that.

 

[OSUguy98]

I know... but there's no way I'm paying $100 for each of these PCs to sit in the corner and fold... and I haven't taken the time to learn linux well enough to switch


Keep on Folding!!

 

[mikeblas]

I know... but there's no way I'm paying $100 for each of these PCs to sit in the corner and fold... and I haven't taken the time to learn linux well enough to switch

SP1 (and, better yet, SP2) is free.

 

[ICE_9]

Did you know that you can press CTRL+INS when a message box has focus? That copies the content of the message box to the clipboard as text. Then, you can paste it into a message and not have to worry about screwing around with an image.

Wow. That is sooooo freaking cool!!! Gonna have to remember that one.

What is VNC? I've never heard of it, so it's unlikely that I'll support it if it is something that's going to get in the way.

Just like Remote Desktop Connection or Netmeeting Remote Desktop. It's a very good connection program. It has its pros and cons. Easier to run 6 pcs with one keyboard and mouse from a remote location.

 

[mikeblas]

There is now a work history by day report.

 

[unhappy_mage]

Freakin' sweet! The install process went easily this time, the manual documented all the changes, everything was great. There are only two things I'd like to see added in the client. First, in the "options" dialog for YURTInstaller, it'd be nice to have the FQDN and machine name for this machine displayed instead of examples. Would this be tricky to implement, or cause problems on some machines? Second, as OSUGuy mentioned, it'd be nice to have a method to install as a service without resorting to command line; for some users that's scary stuff. Even creating a .bat file with "yurtmonitor install/net start YURTMonitor" would do it.

Happy Easter (if that's your cup of tea), and thanks for the new version! It's awesome!

 

[enhanced08]

The idea behind the "shortcut" is to create a shortcut to the application and add "flags" to the target area. For instance with the folding client, you can add the "-config" flag to get the client to only run the configuration options then close the application. maybe something like this is what OSUguy was talking about.

mike, as a problem i see with your "funny problem" in post 387 is that a number of dedicated folders have dedicated machines in which they setup a system with no monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc and allow it to sit somewhere and do nothing but fold. They run 24/7 without any restarts if possible. I have talked to some who have gone for over 200 days without a restart. 200 days worth of "double points" could cause a problem. I know your working on the problem but I figured I would throw this out as well.

I have installed the new beta on one machine without any problems. Its lookin good!

 

[mikeblas]

First, in the "options" dialog for YURTInstaller, it'd be nice to have the FQDN and machine name for this machine displayed instead of examples. Would this be tricky to implement, or cause problems on some machines?

It would be kind of goofy. Some machines (most that aren't in a corporate environment; who runs a domain controller at home?) don't have a domain name. So giving the user the choice between registering "blah" and "blah" wouldn't make much sense.

Second, as OSUGuy mentioned, it'd be nice to have a method to install as a service without resorting to command line; for some users that's scary stuff. Even creating a .bat file with "yurtmonitor install/net start YURTMonitor" would do it.

The problem is that we don't know where the user has put YURTMonitor.EXE, so we can't run it from YURTIntaller.EXE. While most/many users would put them in the same directory, there's no guarantee they they did. To guarantee it, we'd need to write an instalaltion application, and I'm really not into signing up for even more work right now. The same problem applies to a shortcut; we'd need to know what the target of the shortcut is.

And, sorry to be dense, but I still don't understand what the shortcut does. What are "flags to the target area"? The only flags that YURTMonitor accepts are INSTALL and UNINSTALL. I would expect users to do INSTALL one, and that's that. Something that's done once doesn't seem like a great candidate for a shortcut.

YURT users are folders; they've managed to set up the FAH client, so I'm sure they're familiar with running a command-line program with some options.

and thanks for the new version! It's awesome!

Thank you for your kind words and encouragement.

I know your working on the problem but I figured I would throw this out as well

Indeed, I'm working on it. I already know (and have acknowledged) that it is a problem; after all, I was the one who noticed and diagnosed it. I'll fix it as soon as I can.