Thank you for your last couple of well-said posts. However, I believe that you (in very much the same manner as the creators of BOINC did and continue to do) have missed the 'third leg' of the science of DC projects. The first two legs seem clear: the substantive research of the specific project (gravitational waves here) and the general computer science that makes DC function (here the BOINC system, though other systems of course exist). What is missing is the third leg: the social science of DC. Interstingly, some of the points and examples in your posts are exactly unexplored questions that need social science research to understand how DC functions (and how it might function more efficiently). For example, it would seem to be very valuable information to know what motivates people to participate in DC (and I am sure that there are numerous reasons including some that would lead some volunteers to jump into your no-purpose credit-only example project). Likewise, it might be valuable to know who would spoof the project with their own hidden optimized routine and to understand what is actually in it for them.
I guess my point here is fairly simple. Projects are clearly moving to enhance their understanding of substantive science (e.g., moving from S4 to the more detailed analysis of S5) and are clearly interested in doing DC more efficiently via better computer science (e.g., the incorporation of optimizations into the S5 analysis). Why do all the projects contiue to ignore the possibility of increased efficiency through the social science of DC(with some exception to Rosetta, though their efforts are not scientific). For example, one could increase the throughput here at EAH by optimizing the client to be twice as fast or one could understand the who, where, and why of project participants and posibly gain the same increase by doubling the participant pool or increasing the number of large farm crunchers to effectively double the number of crunching hosts.
And so long you use unofficially clients....? I don't know what to say.
Akosf and the project leader asked us to stop using the opt clients.
I am not sure if the above was directed at my recent comments. But if it was I think I have again been misunderstood. I am not saying that we should wait for word from the developers before stopping our use of Akos applications. For the record, I have complied with Akos' request and quit using his applications. (However, I did choose to complete my WU's in cache first, rather trashing them. And, maybe I should have stopped immediately. But even that small point was not clear.)
I am saying that the developers should explain their reasoning on this issue. The speculation here has been rampant. I, for one, would like to know the facts. The people who read these threads demonstrate an interest and commitment to furthering scientific research beyond simply donating computer time. The developers need to recognize that and keep us informed. Doing so would go a long way towards keeping us active and enthusiastic. On the other hand, their continued silence is speaks loudly of their indifference (towards us).
Issues about the database surely need local accesss, but giving a statement just needs access to the internet.
Who says he has it? Maybe he's on vacation for a week, away from everything. Maybe that Mrs. Allen has locked away all his toys and taken in his monthly allowance so he can't even go to an internet Cafe. ;-)
Issues about the database surely need local accesss, but giving a statement just needs access to the internet.
Who says he has it? Maybe he's on vacation for a week, away from everything. Maybe that Mrs. Allen has locked away all his toys and taken in his monthly allowance so he can't even go to an internet Cafe. ;-)
Follow the link you have given and you will read, that Bernd wrote to him. ;)
Btw. the leading persons in probably every company/institution etc. will never be unavailable for some important situations.
Of cause you can say this situation isn't important, but in our team already about 5% of the members switched to other projects. Most of them pretty big contributors with small farms running 365/7. They and me too are not gone for ever, but they wait till "politics" at E@H get explained and maybe change.
I think the thoughts of Scott Brown about the third leg are very interesting and important, but my English is far to bad to answere that post, though I would like to. :(
Follow the link you have given and you will read, that Bernd wrote to him. ;)
Btw. the leading persons in probably every company/institution etc. will never be unavailable for some important situations.
Bernd emailed him yes. But to counter your next bit, last time around that EAH had problems for a couple of days with that blown up AC, Bruce was in Europe and David was on vacation. It took 3 days for Bruce to come back from overseas and get into action. He didn't post on the forums at that time either.
That was a major problem. Enough to get the main person home with, without people wondering what he may have been doing over there in Europe. Further fundraising maybe?
This minor problem of an optimized application on the other hand was started by Akos and ended by Akos. Everyone wants to see word of the project developers on this, yet they never saw it when Akos started it. So why question Akos when he wants it ended?
I presume you think that only Bruce should speak for the project. That's fine with me. I'm willing to wait. I just hope Bruce is willing to explain when he returns. BTW: I forgive you for editing my quote. ;-)
This minor problem of an optimized application on the other hand was started by Akos and ended by Akos. Everyone wants to see word of the project developers on this, yet they never saw it when Akos started it. So why question Akos when he wants it ended?
So true. Especially since Akos has been (and may still be) paid by E@H as a contractor. He has written code for them, he is talking to the developers on a regular basis. He is listened to (why do we have optimized apps in S5?). So if they told him to stop, and he made the request for all of us to stop, his word should not be questioned. His word is as good as Bruce's, Bernard's, etc. in my eyes.
Maybe that David can say something, if he's around. But as far as I know and read around here, Bernd is only the man to ask when it comes to the stock clients, not the person to ask for an official statement.
You want an official statement? Wait until either Bruce or David say something.
@Mike Hewson Thank you for
)
@Mike Hewson
Thank you for your last couple of well-said posts. However, I believe that you (in very much the same manner as the creators of BOINC did and continue to do) have missed the 'third leg' of the science of DC projects. The first two legs seem clear: the substantive research of the specific project (gravitational waves here) and the general computer science that makes DC function (here the BOINC system, though other systems of course exist). What is missing is the third leg: the social science of DC. Interstingly, some of the points and examples in your posts are exactly unexplored questions that need social science research to understand how DC functions (and how it might function more efficiently). For example, it would seem to be very valuable information to know what motivates people to participate in DC (and I am sure that there are numerous reasons including some that would lead some volunteers to jump into your no-purpose credit-only example project). Likewise, it might be valuable to know who would spoof the project with their own hidden optimized routine and to understand what is actually in it for them.
I guess my point here is fairly simple. Projects are clearly moving to enhance their understanding of substantive science (e.g., moving from S4 to the more detailed analysis of S5) and are clearly interested in doing DC more efficiently via better computer science (e.g., the incorporation of optimizations into the S5 analysis). Why do all the projects contiue to ignore the possibility of increased efficiency through the social science of DC(with some exception to Rosetta, though their efforts are not scientific). For example, one could increase the throughput here at EAH by optimizing the client to be twice as fast or one could understand the who, where, and why of project participants and posibly gain the same increase by doubling the participant pool or increasing the number of large farm crunchers to effectively double the number of crunching hosts.
RE: And so long you use
)
I am not sure if the above was directed at my recent comments. But if it was I think I have again been misunderstood. I am not saying that we should wait for word from the developers before stopping our use of Akos applications. For the record, I have complied with Akos' request and quit using his applications. (However, I did choose to complete my WU's in cache first, rather trashing them. And, maybe I should have stopped immediately. But even that small point was not clear.)
I am saying that the developers should explain their reasoning on this issue. The speculation here has been rampant. I, for one, would like to know the facts. The people who read these threads demonstrate an interest and commitment to furthering scientific research beyond simply donating computer time. The developers need to recognize that and keep us informed. Doing so would go a long way towards keeping us active and enthusiastic. On the other hand, their continued silence is speaks loudly of their indifference (towards us).
RE: Bruce, could put this
)
The problem being, that Bruce isn't back until next week.
RE: RE: Bruce, could put
)
Issues about the database surely need local accesss, but giving a statement just needs access to the internet.
cu,
Michael
RE: Issues about the
)
Who says he has it? Maybe he's on vacation for a week, away from everything. Maybe that Mrs. Allen has locked away all his toys and taken in his monthly allowance so he can't even go to an internet Cafe. ;-)
RE: RE: Issues about the
)
Follow the link you have given and you will read, that Bernd wrote to him. ;)
Btw. the leading persons in probably every company/institution etc. will never be unavailable for some important situations.
Of cause you can say this situation isn't important, but in our team already about 5% of the members switched to other projects. Most of them pretty big contributors with small farms running 365/7. They and me too are not gone for ever, but they wait till "politics" at E@H get explained and maybe change.
I think the thoughts of Scott Brown about the third leg are very interesting and important, but my English is far to bad to answere that post, though I would like to. :(
cu,
Michael
RE: Follow the link you
)
Bernd emailed him yes. But to counter your next bit, last time around that EAH had problems for a couple of days with that blown up AC, Bruce was in Europe and David was on vacation. It took 3 days for Bruce to come back from overseas and get into action. He didn't post on the forums at that time either.
That was a major problem. Enough to get the main person home with, without people wondering what he may have been doing over there in Europe. Further fundraising maybe?
This minor problem of an optimized application on the other hand was started by Akos and ended by Akos. Everyone wants to see word of the project developers on this, yet they never saw it when Akos started it. So why question Akos when he wants it ended?
RE: RE: Bruce, could put
)
Jord,
I presume you think that only Bruce should speak for the project. That's fine with me. I'm willing to wait. I just hope Bruce is willing to explain when he returns. BTW: I forgive you for editing my quote. ;-)
Stick
RE: This minor problem of
)
So true. Especially since Akos has been (and may still be) paid by E@H as a contractor. He has written code for them, he is talking to the developers on a regular basis. He is listened to (why do we have optimized apps in S5?). So if they told him to stop, and he made the request for all of us to stop, his word should not be questioned. His word is as good as Bruce's, Bernard's, etc. in my eyes.
RE: BTW: I forgive you for
)
Thanks for forgiving me. :-)
Maybe that David can say something, if he's around. But as far as I know and read around here, Bernd is only the man to ask when it comes to the stock clients, not the person to ask for an official statement.
You want an official statement? Wait until either Bruce or David say something.
:-)