There would probably just as many complaints about the lab cruncher as there are about credits now. OS/RAM/cache memory/number of cpu's/family of cpu etc. etc.
More than that, the informal survey that was done some time ago showed that "credit granted vs. another project" was a very small reason for people...
I keep asking, why is this so darned important to David Anderson and an equally small subset of the user base as the group that he/they are so against (people who pick projects based on credit)???
Ok, I'll rise to the bait (after many months of ignoring it).
If the evidence is that very few people change project for granted-credit reasons, WTF does any proposal to change the status quo generate so many angst-laden posts? Credit doesn't matter. It's just a bit of fun. Ergo, DA's proposal to change credit rules doen't matter either. We could have fun with it, or we could ignore it. What we can't do is get worked up about it.
I keep asking, why is this so darned important to David Anderson and an equally small subset of the user base as the group that he/they are so against (people who pick projects based on credit)???
I start a project where I am trying to find a way to turn common sand into gold. My standard credit is 200 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
100% of the people flocks to my project.
Then you start a project that tries to find a way to grow oranges on Mars. Your standard credit is 300 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
How much percent of the people on my project flocks to yours?
Then comes Bikeman who starts a project looking for ways to cross-breed a chicken with a pickle, cos he likes the the taste of both together. His standard credit is 1,000 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
How much percent of the people on either of our projects flock to Bikeman's?
What do we do in the mean time? Do we stay at our cr/hr or do we increase to match Bikeman's?
If we match... then what's the difference between what we're doing to that of what is trying to be done at this moment? Or do you stay at 300 cr/hr even while I go up and match Bikeman's? Do you really think that any of those people crunching for us is in the least interested in our "science"?
I think you can compare it to any market salesman. If he sees the prices of the same stuff he's trying to sell at a lower price in the stall across from him, won't he try to either match the other's price or go under it? Will you buy at the expensive stall, or at the cheaper stall? You have the choice.
You'll always find the one that wants golden Martian chickens, sans pickles, sans sand. Or an explanation from on high of why their reasonable request is being ignored. Ignored I say! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
If we match... then what's the difference between what we're doing to that of what is trying to be done at this moment? Or do you stay at 300 cr/hr even while I go up and match Bikeman's? Do you really think that any of those people crunching for us is in the least interested in our "science"?
DOH! The "Doomsday scenario" just isn't happening. Projects that have been way lower than SETI still have participants. The "Doomsday scenario" is all nice to point to for what could happen. Hell, Russia could decide that it's going nuclear in Georgia tomorrow. I'm not going to obsess over that and not go outside tomorrow though...
The actual behavior of the userbase clearly indicates that such migrations could've already happened, but did not happen. Projects that garner 1% of the active user base were not "flocked to". That figure needs to be up to at least 10%.
We're all smart enough to understand that the potential is there for such an event to happen, but some of us appear to be a bit more logical rather than emotional, since we don't run around telling everyone that the sky is falling or get all cranky because someone in another project is getting 10 times more than we're getting in this our project of choice. Some of us more logical folks also see flaws in the process currently being used to declare "parity".
There is a substantial difference in being utterly opposed to something and being opposed to a particular way of achieving a goal.
Quote:
Will you buy at the expensive stall, or at the cheaper stall? You have the choice.
Just like the thousands of people who still process Rosetta, LHC, WCG, Malaria, or Spinhenge...despite essentially "buying at the expensive stall". This shows that the vast majority of the user population is not "flocking" to projects based on credits.
As to what Richard said, again, one can be opposed to a specific approach, but not to the overall concept. There seems to be way too much "labeling" that goes on by those in favor of the "Cobblestone approach"...in that if you are not for their way, then you are completely against parity in any form and are thus in favor of credits all the way to Alpha Centauri (never mind "the moon").
The plain fact of the matter is, there isn't enough of a problem to justify doing what is currently proposed. A lot of the angst comes because you traditionally don't see the same crew that is picketing an "overpaying" project going over to an "underpaying" project and harassing those projects.
On to the world of Star Trek then. Down with the money. Away with the credits.
I for one wouldn't mind at all... but wait with this scenario until I have that Orbit task in, please. ;-)
Edit: Thinking about that, if credits were done away with, you'll see that the next point of attack is "He is turning out tasks way faster than I am, we have the same hardware. This is impossible. Stop him!"
On the up side: Hadn't it been for one of the projects where one doesn't get credits, a big bug in BOINC wouldn't have been found.
On the up side: Hadn't it been for one of the projects where one doesn't get credits, a big bug in BOINC wouldn't have been found.
What's that about?
Certain .xml files that grow bigger than 64KB make BOINC crash and it'll never start up again, until you either edit the file (and take out some info) or delete it. ;-)
On the up side: Hadn't it been for one of the projects where one doesn't get credits, a big bug in BOINC wouldn't have been found.
What's that about?
Cheers, Mike.
Yeah, I hate it when someone (like my wife) throws out a peanut and relishes in the fact that now you have to come begging for the rest of the bag. The phone rings, some juicy conversation I hear, not a word from my wife when she hangs up as she saunders around the house waiting for me to come calling and begging "Alright, who and what was that all about?" Arrgghh.
On the up side: Hadn't it been for one of the projects where one doesn't get credits, a big bug in BOINC wouldn't have been found.
On the up, up side: More and more I'm thinking about just not doing any BOINC projects, aside from perhaps Orbit once they get themselves straightened out. Then nobody will have to fret about my "emotional" responses...where "emotional" is actually merely "passionate about it being done right"...
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a poor schmuck with half a brain anyway...
...where "emotional" is actually merely "passionate about it being done right"...
And that's the rub, isn't it? As you have encountered through countless postings on various fora, just exactly what is "right"? "Right" is a concept of (controversial) opinion; the dilemma is to convince everyone else that your "right" is more acceptable than their "right". That's a hard sell since others are just as passionate as you. ;-)
RE: RE: There would
)
Ok, I'll rise to the bait (after many months of ignoring it).
If the evidence is that very few people change project for granted-credit reasons, WTF does any proposal to change the status quo generate so many angst-laden posts? Credit doesn't matter. It's just a bit of fun. Ergo, DA's proposal to change credit rules doen't matter either. We could have fun with it, or we could ignore it. What we can't do is get worked up about it.
RE: I keep asking, why is
)
I start a project where I am trying to find a way to turn common sand into gold. My standard credit is 200 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
100% of the people flocks to my project.
Then you start a project that tries to find a way to grow oranges on Mars. Your standard credit is 300 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
How much percent of the people on my project flocks to yours?
Then comes Bikeman who starts a project looking for ways to cross-breed a chicken with a pickle, cos he likes the the taste of both together. His standard credit is 1,000 cr/hr independent of what machine is used.
How much percent of the people on either of our projects flock to Bikeman's?
What do we do in the mean time? Do we stay at our cr/hr or do we increase to match Bikeman's?
If we match... then what's the difference between what we're doing to that of what is trying to be done at this moment? Or do you stay at 300 cr/hr even while I go up and match Bikeman's? Do you really think that any of those people crunching for us is in the least interested in our "science"?
I think you can compare it to any market salesman. If he sees the prices of the same stuff he's trying to sell at a lower price in the stall across from him, won't he try to either match the other's price or go under it? Will you buy at the expensive stall, or at the cheaper stall? You have the choice.
RE: I start a project
)
LOL :-)
You'll always find the one that wants golden Martian chickens, sans pickles, sans sand. Or an explanation from on high of why their reasonable request is being ignored. Ignored I say! :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: If we match... then
)
DOH! The "Doomsday scenario" just isn't happening. Projects that have been way lower than SETI still have participants. The "Doomsday scenario" is all nice to point to for what could happen. Hell, Russia could decide that it's going nuclear in Georgia tomorrow. I'm not going to obsess over that and not go outside tomorrow though...
The actual behavior of the userbase clearly indicates that such migrations could've already happened, but did not happen. Projects that garner 1% of the active user base were not "flocked to". That figure needs to be up to at least 10%.
We're all smart enough to understand that the potential is there for such an event to happen, but some of us appear to be a bit more logical rather than emotional, since we don't run around telling everyone that the sky is falling or get all cranky because someone in another project is getting 10 times more than we're getting in this our project of choice. Some of us more logical folks also see flaws in the process currently being used to declare "parity".
There is a substantial difference in being utterly opposed to something and being opposed to a particular way of achieving a goal.
Just like the thousands of people who still process Rosetta, LHC, WCG, Malaria, or Spinhenge...despite essentially "buying at the expensive stall". This shows that the vast majority of the user population is not "flocking" to projects based on credits.
As to what Richard said, again, one can be opposed to a specific approach, but not to the overall concept. There seems to be way too much "labeling" that goes on by those in favor of the "Cobblestone approach"...in that if you are not for their way, then you are completely against parity in any form and are thus in favor of credits all the way to Alpha Centauri (never mind "the moon").
The plain fact of the matter is, there isn't enough of a problem to justify doing what is currently proposed. A lot of the angst comes because you traditionally don't see the same crew that is picketing an "overpaying" project going over to an "underpaying" project and harassing those projects.
On to the world of Star Trek
)
On to the world of Star Trek then. Down with the money. Away with the credits.
I for one wouldn't mind at all... but wait with this scenario until I have that Orbit task in, please. ;-)
Edit: Thinking about that, if credits were done away with, you'll see that the next point of attack is "He is turning out tasks way faster than I am, we have the same hardware. This is impossible. Stop him!"
On the up side: Hadn't it been for one of the projects where one doesn't get credits, a big bug in BOINC wouldn't have been found.
RE: On the up side: Hadn't
)
What's that about?
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: On the up side:
)
Certain .xml files that grow bigger than 64KB make BOINC crash and it'll never start up again, until you either edit the file (and take out some info) or delete it. ;-)
RE: RE: On the up side:
)
Yeah, I hate it when someone (like my wife) throws out a peanut and relishes in the fact that now you have to come begging for the rest of the bag. The phone rings, some juicy conversation I hear, not a word from my wife when she hangs up as she saunders around the house waiting for me to come calling and begging "Alright, who and what was that all about?" Arrgghh.
RE: On the up side: Hadn't
)
On the up, up side: More and more I'm thinking about just not doing any BOINC projects, aside from perhaps Orbit once they get themselves straightened out. Then nobody will have to fret about my "emotional" responses...where "emotional" is actually merely "passionate about it being done right"...
But hey, what do I know? I'm just a poor schmuck with half a brain anyway...
RE: ...where "emotional" is
)
And that's the rub, isn't it? As you have encountered through countless postings on various fora, just exactly what is "right"? "Right" is a concept of (controversial) opinion; the dilemma is to convince everyone else that your "right" is more acceptable than their "right". That's a hard sell since others are just as passionate as you. ;-)