I agree with gas giant.
Also I would add the simple thought, that if a project were only for itself, than they could reduce the credits even better.
All those who cry for high credits are exactly those who do compare a lot between projects and are involved in racing the stats.
Else it would be totally absurd to demand any special level of crediting.

I agree whole heartedly with The Gas giant & Kalessin. Like it or not, the stats sites are used to compare projects. Therefore projects should offer similar credit to one another. Projects offering good worthwhile science would then get more crunchers & worthless ones would have just a few devoted fans.
This next comment will probably earn me a lot of scorn, but I refuse to download the unofficial app. I'm just uneasy about the way the whole things been handled. Seems like 2 or 3 people have held the project to ransom.
Fair enough if you think an app is inefficient, you can design a better one and submit it to the project or make suggestions to how they could improve it. Then it's up to the project whether they use it or not. They may have reasons for using the old inefficient app. If your not happy with there response you could post in the forum & let other people know, then everyone could vote with there computers. If people aren't happy with the way a project is run, there's always plenty of other projects to choose from.
Just my two cents worth :-)

---

Each project can choose to either make the stats files available or not. It is their choice. As soon as they choose to, then they should have to play by the same RULES* (or close enough). If not then it would be like each state in the US having a different currency where 1 Texan dollar may not be worth the same as 1 Georgia dollar etc.

(*my capitals and bold)

Where are these 'Rules', may I ask? Could you please supply a link to these 'Rules'? Because I don't remember any tick box concerning 'Credit Rules' when I signed up to BOINC 9yrs ago!

---

It's all about the Science, isn't it?

Projects offering good worthwhile science would then get more crunchers & worthless ones would have just a few devoted fans.

Rofl, so following your reasoning seti@home is currently THE project offering the most worthwhile science...

In an utopian world people might all crunch for the scientific most worthwile project but that's just not the case.

Where are these 'Rules', may I ask? Could you please supply a link to these 'Rules'? Because I don't remember any tick box concerning 'Credit Rules' when I signed up to BOINC 9yrs ago!

boinc rule for computing credits:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Computation_credit

(Whetstone + Dhrystone) / 480 = credits per cpu-hour

whet- and dhrystone values can be read out of the boinc benchmark.

Where are these 'Rules', may I ask? Could you please supply a link to these 'Rules'? Because I don't remember any tick box concerning 'Credit Rules' when I signed up to BOINC 9yrs ago!

boinc rule for computing credits:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/Computation_credit

(Whetstone + Dhrystone) / 480 = credits per cpu-hour

whet- and dhrystone values can be read out of the boinc benchmark.

Whetstone/Dhrystone BOINC benchmarks are rubbish because they aren't exact and "fair" enough. *LOL*


EDIT: That's why many projects switched to fixed credits. ;-)

---

Lovely greetings, Cori

Rofl, so following your reasoning seti@home is currently THE project offering the most worthwhile science...

No it's just been around the longest & is one of the most stable.

In an utopian world people might all crunch for the scientific most worthwile project but that's just not the case.

Agreed. but that doesn't mean we should just give up & have open slather on credits.
Anyway. I don't have the temperament for an ongoing argument, so I'm going to bow out of the discussion. Feel free to tear strips of me :-)

---

This next comment will probably earn me a lot of scorn, but I refuse to download the unofficial app. I'm just uneasy about the way the whole things been handled. Seems like 2 or 3 people have held the project to ransom.
Fair enough if you think an app is inefficient, you can design a better one and submit it to the project or make suggestions to how they could improve it. Then it's up to the project whether they use it or not. They may have reasons for using the old inefficient app. If your not happy with there response you could post in the forum & let other people know, then everyone could vote with there computers. If people aren't happy with the way a project is run, there's always plenty of other projects to choose from.
Just my two cents worth :-)

Actually, what you propose is what was done :o

I (and independently some others too) have designed a better app, I made suggestions to the project how to improve the app. And it is of course up to the project to decide what of these suggestions they implement. And I clearly communicated here in the forum what I think about the decisions of the project. But actually I was not *that* unhappy with the *latest* decisions.

But just to quote one of the PMs I got before the release of the faster app (I gave the apps to them before, so they were able to evaluate it):

greetings. if you want to release your binary to the public. give the people what they want! we'll be releasing a new version within the next week but if you want to release yours in the midterm be my guest. ive checked it over and it looks in order.

Another one even sounded somehow enthusiastic ;)

Your applications are indeed working great!

So don't tell me I held the project to ransom!

Thanks for this improvement. I was a little worried that most of the workunits that were downloaded to my computer were not going to finish by the (too short) reporting deadlines, even with them "Running, high priority", running 100% of the time and using both processors. I'll see how much the time completion goes down now, but the workunits said one small number when originally downloaded, then almost 13 hours each after the computation was started. I'm not at all concerned with how long something would take if it needed that amount of time, and I am not really very concerned about points, but it would seem a shame to have all of the work treated as moot because of a too-short deadline.

Thanks again,

Matt Chambers

--It seems to be taking about 13 to 18 minutes now (so, up to 60 times faster).

The obvious question that comes to mind is, why not just use your app as the official project app?

The obvious question that comes to mind is, why not just use your app as the official project app?

That is what I proposed to the project.

Btw. as it is now possible again, I've updated my profile.
The files linked there contain a fixed app_info.xml.

Or as a short cut:
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions
application for Linux 32 and 64Bit versions

Just a minor observation.

Hmmm....Is it the old Lada joke in your profile? LoL
You can choose between 2 colors when you buy a Lada red or red.

Profile quote

The faster app comes in two flavors
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions and
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions

Thx again for the optimized app.

Mac-Nic

Just a minor observation.

Hmmm....Is it the old Lada joke in your profile? LoL
You can choose between 2 colors when you buy a Lada red or red.

Profile quote

The faster app comes in two flavors
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions and
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions

Thx again for the optimized app.

Mac-Nic

Either it was somehow cached, or you wrote 30 minutes on that few lines ;)
I changed the profile (and corrected that error) before I referred to it here in the thread (the message just above yours).

Either it was somehow cached, or you wrote 30 minutes on that few lines ;)

It was the first option,....honest or...ahem.. i need an optimizer between my fingers and brain. :)

Why not? Just go back to one credit for one completed WU.

Or just eliminate credits altogether - then we would really see who's here for the science and who's here for the credit.

I agree with gas giant.
Also I would add the simple thought, that if a project were only for itself, than they could reduce the credits even better.
All those who cry for high credits are exactly those who do compare a lot between projects and are involved in racing the stats.
Else it would be totally absurd to demand any special level of crediting.

Let's just go global with your analogy. You going to make all those countries around the world have one currency? Not happening.

Cross -project stats parity is a pipedream of David A and his komedic Kredit Kops. I shall assume you are a member of the group.

Each project can choose to either make the stats files available or not. It is their choice. As soon as they choose to, then they should have to play by the same rules (or close enough). If not then it would be like each state in the US having a different currency where 1 Texan dollar may not be worth the same as 1 Georgia dollar etc.

No. The stats sites can import and display all the stats they want.

The issue is that there is no need to compare stats from one project with any other projects. Maybe that makes the stats sites un-needed, but probably not. The good ones display stats from other non-Boinc projects as well and have no burning need to compare those. It's simply a convenient way to track your stats on all projects in one place.

No project is giving credit in isolation that allows their stats to be imported by the various stats sites. If a project operates in complete isolation then I agree, they can do what they like, but as soon as their stats start getting reported at the stats sites then they need to play fair in respect to the other projects. Nothing absurd in that, in fact quite reasonable.

That's totally absurd. There is no reason to think every group running a project on the BOINC platform has to meet some arbitrary credit award scheme.

These projects stand alone, the fact that they use BOINC is no more material than the fact that most PCs run on Windows. BOINC is freely availabe for anyone to use it the way they see fit. If they want to award 1000 times the credit of the other BOINC projects, so what? There is NOTHING that the megalomaniac David A can do to enforce his credit scheme.

I think it's a gross misrepresentation that Dr A wants everyone to do SETI, in fact, I believe, he doesn't want any single project giving more incentive to draw crunchers to a specific project to the detriment of other projects. That would be a failure of the BOINC concept. He is after the ideal, which doesn't exist, but he has every right to ask the projects to consider what they're doing taking into account how their actions impact other projects.

Fair enough I reckon.

BTW....love the optimised app. Thanks Milksop!

Live long and BOINC!

Paul.

I think I'll just stay within the US thanks Angus. If I was going to go global I'd start including folding@home and other private DC projects, but alas we are just talking BOINC. Cross-project parity may be a pipedream but it is one of the founding requirements of BOINC and it should be worked towards.

The interesting part in all this is the discussion regarding optimised apps versus standard project apps. My arguement previously has been that all standard project apps should aim for cross-project parity. Now if the projects release their code to the public who then optimise it and make it available for others to downlaod, then all bets are off.....

Live long and BOINC!

But that's the thing -- SETI and MilkyWay (and others -- not one's I've joined) DO HAVE 'regular' application code and available 'optimized' code.

I do take your point though, before the optimized code was readily available here, work units did get something like 2.5x credits per CPU cycle compared to non-optimized SETI. On the other hand, part of that might be a way of compensating for the reduced credit that AMD based systems get at projects like SETI and Einstein and others as the even the standard released applications are written in a way that is 'optimized' for Intel CPU's. So hoping for a 'level credit' playing field would also include hoping that the standard applications corrected for this. I don't expect that, but it seems the MilkyWay application (standard and optimized) doesn't have an 'AMD CPU penalty' attached. I like that.

To some degree for MilkyWay this may be moot, until the project folks here are able to cope with the significant efficiency improvements in the optimized application, folks credits will lag from what they were seeing simply because between the reduced credit per work unit (recognizing the major efficiency improvement) and 50X increase in work per CPU cycle, there simply isn't work to go around to keep crunchers busy. For me that means SETI (in spite of its ongoing server issues), Spinhenge, Rosetta and Climate are getting a major bump in work performed.

The interesting part in all this is the discussion regarding optimised apps versus standard project apps. My arguement previously has been that all standard project apps should aim for cross-project parity. Now if the projects release their code to the public who then optimise it and make it available for others to downlaod, then all bets are off.....

---

Cross -project stats parity is a pipedream of David A and his komedic Kredit Kops. I shall assume you are a member of the group.

emphasis of the incriminated expression added by me


Since I do assume that your are not dumb as a nutshell I believe that you are totally aware of your highly insulting expression.
The comparism to the Ku-Klux-Klan is overstepping every limit. I didn't do anything to you.
You just had no argument left, so you start insulting. This is very poor and not tolerable.

I hope you rethink your writing and consider to seriously apologize.

regards Kalessin

---

Dragons can fly because they don't fit into pirate ships!