Community driven support forum for Folding@home
https://foldingforum.org/
There's a number of other places where there is confusing redundancy like that. I believe that all the GPU FAQs have the link, for example: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ ... PU3#ntoc10 plus it may occur on lots of other pages besides: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Sea ... wnload+GPUbruce wrote:OK. That just moves the web page in question one step earlier? Where did you find the link to http://folding.stanford.edu/English/DownloadWinOther? I can't seem to get to it from the home page. Moreover, the first thing it says on that page is to go to the home page.
The "older clients" link takes me to http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Download2011 which is the corrected version of "...DownloadWinOther" I guess we need to remove ...DownloadWInOther or redirect it to ...Download2011.
And sometimes those people are me! Yes, but doesn't Stanford/Pande Group actually own the software/files, not ~friedrim? He or she had the files in their personal directory, but they did not own the files, unless I'm missing something...Joe_H wrote:I know at my university it would take the permission of the nominal file owner before the campus IT people would restore a file and give it to another person or group.
Campus IT would not necessarily know that, basic assumption under privacy policies would be to treat any files in a defunct account as belonging exclusively to the account holder until told otherwise. University computer environments are not the same as corporate when determining such things, for instance my university has a privacy policy that normally keeps them from doing anything with files and email on my personal account. That applies even though my account exists on their servers. There are departmental accounts where I should place files to be used by others. It is the kind of policy that faculty at many institutions insist on.art_l_j_PlanetAMD64 wrote:Yes, but doesn't Stanford/Pande Group actually own the software/files, not ~friedrim? He or she had the files in their personal directory, but they did not own the files, unless I'm missing something...
Yes, that's all logical and reasonable, but surely with the weight/authority/standing of Pande Group at Stanford, it should not take weeks and weeks of effort to get the documentation/approvals/red tape cleared up? I realize that the wheels of authority move slowly, but really...Joe_H wrote:As to why the file was located there in the first place, no idea. It could have been initially easier to do for a beta which 6.41 was, with intent to move the file to a more normal download location and that was overlooked at some point. That is just speculation based on the kind of things I have seen happen in the past working at my school. But by having been located in a "private" account, I would be more surprised if complications had not occurred in getting the file back to be available for download.