IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Running Multiple IC instances?, Is an IC/Agent a single activation progr
HatterMadness
post Apr 21 2007, 01:43 AM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 20-April 07
From: Rochester, NY
Member No.: 11,496



I was wondering if anyone knew if it was possible to run a single IC program in multiple instances? If i had a single IC program would i be able to have it running 3 instances of itself?...
(though i am doubtful that it works that way, i was still curious.)

And what about Agents? Can a single Agent program be run multiple times? Perhaps if each activation was released into a separate node?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MaxHunter
post Apr 21 2007, 01:51 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 718
Joined: 10-September 05
From: Montevideo, in the elusive shadows of Latin America
Member No.: 7,727



mmmm, No? I think not. But then, if you have the source code you could always pirate it and spawn infinite copies. (they are run as separate programs in the commlink, of course)

Anyway, that sprang directly from the top of my head, hopefully I'm right

Cheers,

Max
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wasabi
post Apr 21 2007, 02:58 AM
Post #3


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 11-September 04
From: GA
Member No.: 6,651



Its a program so yeah, thats legal by the RAW.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Apr 23 2007, 03:02 PM
Post #4


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



My interpretation is that when the Grid was rebuilt after the first crash, it had anti-self-replicating-code very much hard-wired into it at a fundamental level.
Therefore, you can't run multiple instances of anything in one place. Multiple instances in one host become, by fundamental matrix "rules", a single instance.
You could, however, load that IC onto several different hosts.
It's not official, and it probably doesn't even make sense, but at least it's a quick way of stopping several abuses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DigitEyez
post Apr 23 2007, 05:18 PM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 19-April 05
From: Amsterdam, UNL
Member No.: 7,347



That doesn't work either because it would involves a whopping number of code checking algorithms running continuously in the background of each node. Companies would have to buy each employee a 'in some way' different program to be able to access the same node with it. That's like having to buy a new operating system each time your hardware fails and needs to be replaced.
...
wait
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knasser
post Apr 23 2007, 06:13 PM
Post #6


Shadow Cartographer
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636



QUOTE (DigitEyez @ Apr 23 2007, 05:18 PM)
That doesn't work either because it would involves a whopping number of code checking algorithms running continuously in the background of each node. Companies would have to buy each employee a 'in some way' different program to be able to access the same node with it. That's like having to buy a new operating system each time your hardware fails and needs to be replaced.
...
wait


It makes excellent sense. If the World had been brought to its knees by a self-replicating program and the replacement system was re-designed from first principles then it's one of the first things you'd consider.

In fact a while ago, I wrote a full background fluff piece on it here. The gist was that the protocols that systems use to talk to each other are designed to inherently forbid replication. Certainly a node could refuse to operate in this secure manner, but then it wouldn't be part of the same protocol that is called the "Matrix."

I'm not saying that it is unassailable and uncrackable as a theory, but I reckon I can do a pretty good job with it and it's a very useful tool for preventing endlessly spawning agents. When a program crosses from node to node, the running process is "handed off" in a manner that prevents replication. I think we have to conclude from the RAW material (sorry) that the Matrix has a very high degree of interaction between the nodes existing on it. So I can allow that this functionality is implemented in it.

Note, we might be talking at slight cross-purposes as I'm purely focused on replicating running processes. If to take a specific example of your principle, perhaps a word processor program used my many employees in an office, I don't think it would be separate instances running for each worker. I think it would be an evolution of the thin client model we see today with lots of employees logging into the "Word Processor Program."

I may go back and extend the Matrix document I wrote at some point, but I don't have time at present.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 04:55 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.