![]() I want that the nodes run and run and run with high CPU load. On the XU4Q a sudo apt install openjdk-11-jre-headless does the job. For older Raspberry Pis on their Zulu Community Downloads page choose "Java 11 (LTS)", "Linux", "ARM 32-bit HF" and "JDK" as filters. For the Windows tablet and the Raspberry Pi 2 I downloaded it from Azul. But it uses heterogenous hardware, isn't centrally managed, every node can operate independently, and I will write the software so that it doesn't trust the nodes - let's call it a grid. It will use my (W)LAN and not the internet - that's an argument for a cluster. What to do with 16 CPU cores? Use them for experiments with grid computing! But an old Windows tablet and a Raspberry Pi 2 were laying unused in my shelf. I bought it when I saw that it had a special price in Hardkernels shop. I think there's a lot of headache due to "armchair lawyers" not understanding the nuances of the law or the LICENSE as it pertains to the software image and misapplying their incorrect assumptions.That nice XU4Q on the picture above was not waiting in a shelf. People are free to modify their GPL software. Nothing in my license takes away existing GPL licenses. Just because I have a custom license and not a boilerplate GPL or MIT license keeps it from being open source. And my source code is open for inspection. It negates the six months of time I took to build the image and discourages me from sharing in the future. But to take the choice away from me as the author of the creation is to strip away my rights that I worked hard for. So if they approached me with a good reason to disable it, I would grant that request. If people have issues running BOINC, I'm not such an unreasonable person that if they approached me directly that i wouldn't force them to run it. What I wonder about is how petty a person can get that would complain about such a small thing? And if they choose not to send the postcard? Well, the nag dialog isn't going to prevent them from using the image. I don't think asking for a postcard to remove a nag dialog is out of the question. I think there's a lot of headache due to "armchair lawyers" not understanding the nuances of the law or the LICENSE as it pertains to the software image and misapplying their incorrect assumptions. ![]() On Thu, at 02:57 PM, thegadget techie wrote: some implied remuneration herein
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |