Same here, the Win Cliets will stay and Linux will go.
But I also expect a new Linux app that is comparable to the alberts, otherwise I will not come back. And because I am going to swich all my hosts to Linux, Win just for gaming or development if asked for, this can mean a total cut.
But surely we will get a good opimized Linux client too. :)
Of course, if your philosophy allows for no MS software at all - well, that's an entirely different matter.
It is not a matter of philosophy, it is just a whole bulk of software which is running on the box. I do not want to spend Euros over Euros just to be able to switch from free software to whatever paysoft.
Currently windows boxes do a better job, so let them do the job. Time will come and Bruce will provide a faster Linux client, I have plenty of time to wait.
While I'm not suggesting that you have to switch, my point of view follows closely to the saying that "There's no such thing as a free lunch." I've found that saying to be true throughout my life experience, which is why in my mindset it is a philosophical difference.
Regardless, I wish you happiness and increased productivity wherever you go with your Linux boxes.
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
If its about credits, then I cannot relate to your objection.
If its about completing the science bit faster, then I cannot relate either.
If its about that windows boxes complete it faster atm, yes then I can relate.
I know, elaboration is needed.
About credits. The optimized crunchers complete a wu much faster, hence claiming FAR FAR less credit. That is unless you cheat, and use something like trux calibrating CC. In that case, an optimized cruncher will claim the same as the standard after adjusting. That could be considered as cheating. But as I complete a wu in xxx secs and the standard CC claims credits for what I actually have spent, and yours do exactly the same. Then I cannot see the difference.
With regards to completing the science bit faster, then I cannot see why anyone should object for any reason what so ever.
If its about the promise that an optimized Linux cruncher should be there shortly, yes then I defo see your disappointment.
Yup me too - I went through the whole compiling thing with Gentoo (around 3 days in total) - (still my favourite Linux due to fiddle-ability) in the hopes of getting an "edge".
At the end of the day, windows xp (for now) runs a faster client thanks to Akosf's efforts (well done, that man !) despite an antivirus and a software firewall (and Skype) in Windows.
I am sure that when the linux app gets optimised, Linux should be faster on the same hardware, but for now I gotta go back to XP :(
Gray
best wishes tae ya all - and a glass of red wine raised to Akosf !
If its about credits, then I cannot relate to your objection.
Win boxes get a lot more credits.
Quote:
If its about completing the science bit faster, then I cannot relate either.
It seems to be a waste of energy and costs, if the same host with a different OS crunches 4 times faster.
Quote:
If its about that windows boxes complete it faster atm, yes then I can relate.
I know, elaboration is needed.
About credits. The optimized crunchers complete a wu much faster, hence claiming FAR FAR less credit. That is unless you cheat, and use something like trux calibrating CC. In that case, an optimized cruncher will claim the same as the standard after adjusting. That could be considered as cheating. But as I complete a wu in xxx secs and the standard CC claims credits for what I actually have spent, and yours do exactly the same. Then I cannot see the difference.
Imho that is absolutely no cheating, but being fair to the other people who do not use a turboalbert. Otherwise, if one regular albert meets two fast ones, the former will get a ulta low credit. Furthermore every WU of the same size should get about the same credits independent of the CPU, the OS and the time it took to finish. It should be no difference between crunching more WUs because of overclocking or using some faster app.
Quote:
With regards to completing the science bit faster, then I cannot see why anyone should object for any reason what so ever.
I see this quite different.
Quote:
If its about the promise that an optimized Linux cruncher should be there shortly, yes then I defo see your disappointment.
Have been rambling enough now.
I think you should think again about your point of view.
If its about that windows boxes complete it faster atm, yes then I can relate.
Something like that.
My box can help another project more, when I relatively compare it with Windows. In other projects it is a lightning¹ fast machine, in this project it cannot even beat a uniprozessor machine, build in 1999.
¹) Actually one year ago it was :-(
So a WU I crunch here is much more expensive (in terms of electrical bill) compared to the other operating system, whereas it is as expensive in other projects.
Imho that is absolutely no cheating, but being fair to the other people who do not use a turboalbert. Otherwise, if one regular albert meets two fast ones, the former will get a ulta low credit.
This case is actually happening now. I've scanned my "results for computer" data and examined at least half a dozen result listings for which the granted credit was outlier low compared to the claimed credit. In every one of those cases, the lowest claimer was running an enhanced ap from akosf with a stock client. Usually the middle ap was also an akosf ap, though a few were Mac's.
I agree with Ziegenmelker that in the real case of Einstein@home and the akosf science aps operating in a mixed environment with the current distributed Albert science ap, use of trux's Calibrating Client contributes to more fairness, and is in no sense whatever cheating.
The counter-productive effects of compensation systems based on effort rather than output are pretty well known in economics.
If its about credits, then I cannot relate to your objection.
Win boxes get a lot more credits.
Quote:
If its about completing the science bit faster, then I cannot relate either.
It seems to be a waste of energy and costs, if the same host with a different OS crunches 4 times faster.
Quote:
If its about that windows boxes complete it faster atm, yes then I can relate.
I know, elaboration is needed.
About credits. The optimized crunchers complete a wu much faster, hence claiming FAR FAR less credit. That is unless you cheat, and use something like trux calibrating CC. In that case, an optimized cruncher will claim the same as the standard after adjusting. That could be considered as cheating. But as I complete a wu in xxx secs and the standard CC claims credits for what I actually have spent, and yours do exactly the same. Then I cannot see the difference.
Imho that is absolutely no cheating, but being fair to the other people who do not use a turboalbert. Otherwise, if one regular albert meets two fast ones, the former will get a ulta low credit. Furthermore every WU of the same size should get about the same credits independent of the CPU, the OS and the time it took to finish. It should be no difference between crunching more WUs because of overclocking or using some faster app.
Quote:
With regards to completing the science bit faster, then I cannot see why anyone should object for any reason what so ever.
I see this quite different.
Quote:
If its about the promise that an optimized Linux cruncher should be there shortly, yes then I defo see your disappointment.
Have been rambling enough now.
I think you should think again about your point of view.
cu,
Michael
Hi Michael
Did'nt wanna cut in all off this, but as I see your objections, then its not at all about a turboalbert, but about the Boinc CC ??
Meaning that in your opinion, then the CC should give equality to all.
The credit system is a steaming pile laying out in the pasture, and always has been. It tells me nothing about what my systems are doing on a daily basis. I'd gladly take one point/credit for each WU that validates, at least that way you can see what kind of actual work per day your systems are doing.
Check my boxes out, before the new app mine claimed high and those numbers got tossed. Now, they claim low, and that gets tossed. Do the numbers, RAC and credit, tell you or me anything about how many WU's my boxes actually do? Nope, not a bit! They are just "feel good" number and have no relationship to what is actually being done.
Anyone who wants my credits or RAC can have them, because they mean nothing. I'm here to crunch as many WU's a day as I can to move the project along. Nothing more and nothing less!
The credit system is a steaming pile laying out in the pasture, and always has been. It tells me nothing about what my systems are doing on a daily basis. I'd gladly take one point/credit for each WU that validates, at least that way you can see what kind of actual work per day your systems are doing.
Check my boxes out, before the new app mine claimed high and those numbers got tossed. Now, they claim low, and that gets tossed. Do the numbers, RAC and credit, tell you or me anything about how many WU's my boxes actually do? Nope, not a bit! They are just "feel good" number and have no relationship to what is actually being done.
Anyone who wants my credits or RAC can have them, because they mean nothing. I'm here to crunch as many WU's a day as I can to move the project along. Nothing more and nothing less!
Well said m8, and I totally agree. I for one are in these project for the science, NOT the credits.
Same here, the Win Cliets
)
Same here, the Win Cliets will stay and Linux will go.
But I also expect a new Linux app that is comparable to the alberts, otherwise I will not come back. And because I am going to swich all my hosts to Linux, Win just for gaming or development if asked for, this can mean a total cut.
But surely we will get a good opimized Linux client too. :)
cu,
Michael
RE: RE: Of course, if
)
While I'm not suggesting that you have to switch, my point of view follows closely to the saying that "There's no such thing as a free lunch." I've found that saying to be true throughout my life experience, which is why in my mindset it is a philosophical difference.
Regardless, I wish you happiness and increased productivity wherever you go with your Linux boxes.
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
My few cents worth
)
My few cents worth here.
If its about credits, then I cannot relate to your objection.
If its about completing the science bit faster, then I cannot relate either.
If its about that windows boxes complete it faster atm, yes then I can relate.
I know, elaboration is needed.
About credits. The optimized crunchers complete a wu much faster, hence claiming FAR FAR less credit. That is unless you cheat, and use something like trux calibrating CC. In that case, an optimized cruncher will claim the same as the standard after adjusting. That could be considered as cheating. But as I complete a wu in xxx secs and the standard CC claims credits for what I actually have spent, and yours do exactly the same. Then I cannot see the difference.
With regards to completing the science bit faster, then I cannot see why anyone should object for any reason what so ever.
If its about the promise that an optimized Linux cruncher should be there shortly, yes then I defo see your disappointment.
Have been rambling enough now.
Yup me too - I went through
)
Yup me too - I went through the whole compiling thing with Gentoo (around 3 days in total) - (still my favourite Linux due to fiddle-ability) in the hopes of getting an "edge".
At the end of the day, windows xp (for now) runs a faster client thanks to Akosf's efforts (well done, that man !) despite an antivirus and a software firewall (and Skype) in Windows.
I am sure that when the linux app gets optimised, Linux should be faster on the same hardware, but for now I gotta go back to XP :(
Gray
best wishes tae ya all - and a glass of red wine raised to Akosf !
RE: My few cents worth
)
Win boxes get a lot more credits.
It seems to be a waste of energy and costs, if the same host with a different OS crunches 4 times faster.
Imho that is absolutely no cheating, but being fair to the other people who do not use a turboalbert. Otherwise, if one regular albert meets two fast ones, the former will get a ulta low credit. Furthermore every WU of the same size should get about the same credits independent of the CPU, the OS and the time it took to finish. It should be no difference between crunching more WUs because of overclocking or using some faster app.
I see this quite different.
I think you should think again about your point of view.
cu,
Michael
RE: If its about that
)
Something like that.
My box can help another project more, when I relatively compare it with Windows. In other projects it is a lightning¹ fast machine, in this project it cannot even beat a uniprozessor machine, build in 1999.
¹) Actually one year ago it was :-(
So a WU I crunch here is much more expensive (in terms of electrical bill) compared to the other operating system, whereas it is as expensive in other projects.
RE: Imho that is absolutely
)
This case is actually happening now. I've scanned my "results for computer" data and examined at least half a dozen result listings for which the granted credit was outlier low compared to the claimed credit. In every one of those cases, the lowest claimer was running an enhanced ap from akosf with a stock client. Usually the middle ap was also an akosf ap, though a few were Mac's.
I agree with Ziegenmelker that in the real case of Einstein@home and the akosf science aps operating in a mixed environment with the current distributed Albert science ap, use of trux's Calibrating Client contributes to more fairness, and is in no sense whatever cheating.
The counter-productive effects of compensation systems based on effort rather than output are pretty well known in economics.
RE: RE: My few cents
)
Hi Michael
Did'nt wanna cut in all off this, but as I see your objections, then its not at all about a turboalbert, but about the Boinc CC ??
Meaning that in your opinion, then the CC should give equality to all.
The credit system is a
)
The credit system is a steaming pile laying out in the pasture, and always has been. It tells me nothing about what my systems are doing on a daily basis. I'd gladly take one point/credit for each WU that validates, at least that way you can see what kind of actual work per day your systems are doing.
Check my boxes out, before the new app mine claimed high and those numbers got tossed. Now, they claim low, and that gets tossed. Do the numbers, RAC and credit, tell you or me anything about how many WU's my boxes actually do? Nope, not a bit! They are just "feel good" number and have no relationship to what is actually being done.
Anyone who wants my credits or RAC can have them, because they mean nothing. I'm here to crunch as many WU's a day as I can to move the project along. Nothing more and nothing less!
RE: The credit system is a
)
Well said m8, and I totally agree. I for one are in these project for the science, NOT the credits.