I am trying to figure out which of the einstein_S5R1_4.02_windows_intelx86.exe executables is the current official version.
Can somebody please post the date/time info for the official .exe file and ideally the md5 for the .exe file as well. I have two that look identical to me, but they produce different md5 results: 471a77198ab4b32f4fe7d73c6693cb74 for one and 47eba297198d5ebfa202c575ab4dcdb3 the other ... and therefore they can't both be the real thing.
I am trying to figure out which of the einstein_S5R1_4.02_windows_intelx86.exe executables is the current official version.
Can somebody please post the date/time info for the official .exe file and ideally the md5 for the .exe file as well. I have two that look identical to me, but they produce different md5 results: 471a77198ab4b32f4fe7d73c6693cb74 for one and 47eba297198d5ebfa202c575ab4dcdb3 the other ... and therefore they can't both be the real thing.
since you are unsure as to which file is the official app, the easy thing to do is just delete the apps and boinc will see the app is missing and download it agian for you.
unexpected news for sure!!!! Not sure where all the anger and animosity is coming from........disappointment sure.......but I don't think any of the Einstein team did anything malicious, or hid things from us......
The jump from 'maybe we should use a different version number' to 'knock it off!' Cluelessness and indecisiveness by responsible people. People went to a lot of trouble to try and comply, partly because some people got totally the wrong idea and couldn't be disabused (ie 'the validation will be relaxed for 4.10' - how wrong was that!)
Quote:
They seemed fully on board too for the most part, and then came to the realization that unofficial apps may taint the legitimacy of the results.....I'm sure they are as shocked as we are...
Should they be? I don't know about this project, but there are certainly others that give this as the very reason for not making their app open source. This is not a sudden realisation, unless the team are completely brain dead, and even I don't believe that.
Quote:
we've learned a lesson here.......perhaps we were a bit hasty, but we must go back to the official apps.......regardless of what we think, Einstein team thinks, or how valid the opt. apps really are.......it's all a waste of time if the outside scientific community will question the results by using an unofficial app..
Absolutely correct. Anyone staying with the project should use the official app.
Quote:
doesn't matter how fast we crunch them, if they won't hold under peer review.
we have to produce results that can withstand outside scrutiny. The Einstein team seems to have realized that this won't hold true if the results aren't from official apps.
Back to the official!
I'm stayin'!!!!!!
I wish everyone else would too! After all, we are here to do some science. And we want that science to be deemed credible by others.
[edited bored --> board] I'm pretty postive they aren't bored!!!
There are other places to do science. I am still here, but I'm not crunching here for now. The science will get done with or without me.
There are other places to do science. I am still here, but I'm not crunching here for now. The science will get done with or without me.
Oh lord... give us all a break will ya? We're simply reverting back to the same science application we were all using two days ago anyway. So what if the optimized test apps didn't work out so well? Who cares! We're no further behind than we were then, and I think we all know Akos will continue to work on these optimized apps anyway. Give the man a break and stay with the project, huh?
The 'problem' with the whole 'optimized app' fiasco is that NO ONE ever said that results accepted as VALID would not be accepted as such for science purposes. This *is* important. If that in capitals and bold text it is likely that fewer people would have ever used such an app.
It's also a problem because we now have people running optimized apps who might take awhile to find out that they shouldn't be using them. Or they might not stop using them at all....
I'm all for alpha/beta projects to test 'optimizations' with applications but there is a proper place to do such a thing: an optimized alpha project. There are many of these and Rosetta is one such example.
We have spent needless computer resources in the STABLE project on results that are UNACCEPTABLE and have also forced other stable machines to 'validate' our work.
Now this might not have been the initial intention; it may have been thought this would be accepted by the scientific community (which I doubt). Either way, it'd be helpful to think about the consequences of this stuff - test early stage applications in a SEPERATE project until it becomes clear that they will be acceptable and are stable.
One reason, which you can see in these threads, is that this whole deal has really turned off a number of users which is sad. Gravitational waves are something I'm keenly interested in and would like to have the project detect quickly as the necessary refinements are made. There's no need to 'turn off' users.
I used the optimized app to help Akos in what I thought was a project leading somewhere in S5 (not a subsequent version). This is all good and I have no problem having spent a few days on it - but I will be going back to 'spreading' my time across projects now.
There are other places to do science. I am still here, but I'm not crunching here for now. The science will get done with or without me.
Oh lord... give us all a break will ya? We're simply reverting back to the same science application we were all using two days ago anyway. So what if the optimized test apps didn't work out so well? Who cares! We're no further behind than we were then, and I think we all know Akos will continue to work on these optimized apps anyway. Give the man a break and stay with the project, huh?
Dig
Yeah, I am going on a bit aren't I? I would have joined you for a Jack Daniels, but I feel more like a Wild Turkey right now. I will keep an eye on developments, and I imagine I'll weaken and reattach when it looks like the team actually know what they are doing.
There are other places to do science. I am still here, but I'm not crunching here for now. The science will get done with or without me.
Oh lord... give us all a break will ya? We're simply reverting back to the same science application we were all using two days ago anyway. So what if the optimized test apps didn't work out so well? Who cares! We're no further behind than we were then, and I think we all know Akos will continue to work on these optimized apps anyway. Give the man a break and stay with the project, huh?
Dig
LOL, agreed.
Even if 25% of the WU's done already are "tainted", that's still only 0.60% of the total work which needs to be resent.
I don't see that as being worth even a "micro" panic! ;-)
Very sad too see that we have too stop using the patch version when it speeds up so much, but if the result can´t be used becuase it was done with an unnofficial app then we have too stop using it until it can be named official. I think einstein hopefully will make the optimized cade a part of the official soon, they too must want to have this done as fast as possible. It shouldn´t be too hard bacuase akosf allready has hepled with the fisrt official app what I have understood. I will now go back too official and hope for a faster one soon or Einstein probably will lose a lot of computing power, bacause credithunters and others that are sad that thay can´t use the fastest way their is too get it done.
I, too, will comply with the project's wishes and go back to the official app. I had two computers that I was stepping through the patches very slowly (one was on S5T0001, the other on S5T0002) to verify both stability and performance on my hardware, and so I had not yet reached the patches that began producing invalid results. FWIW, all my optimized wu's validated against computers running the official app, so perhaps they won't need to be reissued.
-- Tony, patiently awaiting an official optimized app...
I am trying to figure out
)
I am trying to figure out which of the einstein_S5R1_4.02_windows_intelx86.exe executables is the current official version.
Can somebody please post the date/time info for the official .exe file and ideally the md5 for the .exe file as well. I have two that look identical to me, but they produce different md5 results: 471a77198ab4b32f4fe7d73c6693cb74 for one and 47eba297198d5ebfa202c575ab4dcdb3 the other ... and therefore they can't both be the real thing.
aborting and then detaching &
)
aborting and then detaching & reattaching seemed to be a quick easy fix for me....
RE: I am trying to figure
)
since you are unsure as to which file is the official app, the easy thing to do is just delete the apps and boinc will see the app is missing and download it agian for you.
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8
RE: unexpected news for
)
The jump from 'maybe we should use a different version number' to 'knock it off!' Cluelessness and indecisiveness by responsible people. People went to a lot of trouble to try and comply, partly because some people got totally the wrong idea and couldn't be disabused (ie 'the validation will be relaxed for 4.10' - how wrong was that!)
Should they be? I don't know about this project, but there are certainly others that give this as the very reason for not making their app open source. This is not a sudden realisation, unless the team are completely brain dead, and even I don't believe that.
Absolutely correct. Anyone staying with the project should use the official app.
There are other places to do science. I am still here, but I'm not crunching here for now. The science will get done with or without me.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
RE: There are other places
)
Oh lord... give us all a break will ya? We're simply reverting back to the same science application we were all using two days ago anyway. So what if the optimized test apps didn't work out so well? Who cares! We're no further behind than we were then, and I think we all know Akos will continue to work on these optimized apps anyway. Give the man a break and stay with the project, huh?
Dig
The 'problem' with the whole
)
The 'problem' with the whole 'optimized app' fiasco is that NO ONE ever said that results accepted as VALID would not be accepted as such for science purposes. This *is* important. If that in capitals and bold text it is likely that fewer people would have ever used such an app.
It's also a problem because we now have people running optimized apps who might take awhile to find out that they shouldn't be using them. Or they might not stop using them at all....
I'm all for alpha/beta projects to test 'optimizations' with applications but there is a proper place to do such a thing: an optimized alpha project. There are many of these and Rosetta is one such example.
We have spent needless computer resources in the STABLE project on results that are UNACCEPTABLE and have also forced other stable machines to 'validate' our work.
Now this might not have been the initial intention; it may have been thought this would be accepted by the scientific community (which I doubt). Either way, it'd be helpful to think about the consequences of this stuff - test early stage applications in a SEPERATE project until it becomes clear that they will be acceptable and are stable.
One reason, which you can see in these threads, is that this whole deal has really turned off a number of users which is sad. Gravitational waves are something I'm keenly interested in and would like to have the project detect quickly as the necessary refinements are made. There's no need to 'turn off' users.
I used the optimized app to help Akos in what I thought was a project leading somewhere in S5 (not a subsequent version). This is all good and I have no problem having spent a few days on it - but I will be going back to 'spreading' my time across projects now.
RE: RE: There are other
)
Yeah, I am going on a bit aren't I? I would have joined you for a Jack Daniels, but I feel more like a Wild Turkey right now. I will keep an eye on developments, and I imagine I'll weaken and reattach when it looks like the team actually know what they are doing.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
RE: RE: There are other
)
LOL, agreed.
Even if 25% of the WU's done already are "tainted", that's still only 0.60% of the total work which needs to be resent.
I don't see that as being worth even a "micro" panic! ;-)
Alinator
PS: Well, maybe a pico panic. :-)
Very sad too see that we have
)
Very sad too see that we have too stop using the patch version when it speeds up so much, but if the result can´t be used becuase it was done with an unnofficial app then we have too stop using it until it can be named official. I think einstein hopefully will make the optimized cade a part of the official soon, they too must want to have this done as fast as possible. It shouldn´t be too hard bacuase akosf allready has hepled with the fisrt official app what I have understood. I will now go back too official and hope for a faster one soon or Einstein probably will lose a lot of computing power, bacause credithunters and others that are sad that thay can´t use the fastest way their is too get it done.
I, too, will comply with the
)
I, too, will comply with the project's wishes and go back to the official app. I had two computers that I was stepping through the patches very slowly (one was on S5T0001, the other on S5T0002) to verify both stability and performance on my hardware, and so I had not yet reached the patches that began producing invalid results. FWIW, all my optimized wu's validated against computers running the official app, so perhaps they won't need to be reissued.
-- Tony, patiently awaiting an official optimized app...