As Peter Seebach points out, there are data integrity problems.  (If you
watch their web-site, you've read about the unauthorized hacks.)  People
might hack a client simply to improve the stats for their
name/group/whatever, as well as for the reasons that Peter mentioned.

Their whole project is a farce if the returned results can't be counted
upon.


As for NetBSD endorsing binary-only releases...why not?  The NetBSD
Foundation isn't the FSF.  My understanding of the NetBSD project is that
it is to provide a reliable, advanced, useful, open-source OS that does
the right thing and runs on everything from an Alpha to your VCR.  Having
third-party software available for NetBSD increases its visibility and
allows its users to do more of the things that they want to do.

For the record, the only times that I had stability problems while
running the SETI@Home client were the times that I ran it (or much else
that was CPU-intensive) under NetBSD 1.4.  Once I built a 1.4.1 kernel,
the stability of the SETI@Home client has been impeccable.


As for trojans...well, I'm not so jaded that I don't trust anyone.  Not
yet, anyway.  (^&

I'll trust the SETI@Home site, and I'll trust a NetBSD package repository
(for NetBSD packages, we also have checksums...).  Of course, I still run
it under the aegis of its own user, rather than as me.


  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  --rkr@rkr.kcnet.com