He won't. You know why? Because the new standard apps are getting the right amount of credits. Optimised apps are STILL GETTING MORE CREDITS, THERE JUST ISN'T AS MUCH TO OPTIMISE.

I'm going to leave now before this thread gives me an ulcer.

I'm going to leave now before this thread gives me an ulcer.

XD, that's great, sounds like good advise.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

set the credit back to fixed - it takes about 40 min now to crunch a WU. set the credit to 35 per WU and be done with it.

---

.

I'm done here until there is a level playing field as far as the apps go. The windows users are at a disadvantage as far as I can see. If there is an optimized app for them, then how about a sticky with links to the download site for all the optimized apps for each OS including specific instruction sets.

---

4870 GPU
4870 GPU

I'm done here until there is a level playing field as far as the apps go. The windows users are at a disadvantage as far as I can see. If there is an optimized app for them, then how about a sticky with links to the download site for all the optimized apps for each OS including specific instruction sets.

There is a level playing field. Optimized apps are just that, Optimized. CPU O/S specific. Just because you don't run that specific O/S it does not mean there is not a level playing field.

Hell, I wish I had GPU processors - but I don't. So do I give up on BOINC simply because I can not crunch GPUGrid? Nope. If I don't like it, I go out and get the equipment that I need to participate.

The stock Linux app grants about the same from what I can tell as the stock windows app.

---

.

I'm done here until there is a level playing field as far as the apps go. The windows users are at a disadvantage as far as I can see. If there is an optimized app for them, then how about a sticky with links to the download site for all the optimized apps for each OS including specific instruction sets.

I've made links sticky when someone has provided an optimized app and posted them on the forums (see the optimized linux apps in the code discussion forum). No one has posted anything for windows so there's nothing for me to sticky and verify.

---

I'm done here until there is a level playing field as far as the apps go. The windows users are at a disadvantage as far as I can see. If there is an optimized app for them, then how about a sticky with links to the download site for all the optimized apps for each OS including specific instruction sets.

I've made links sticky when someone has provided an optimized app and posted them on the forums (see the optimized linux apps in the code discussion forum). No one has posted anything for windows so there's nothing for me to sticky and verify.

And do you feel that is estrange...? :D :D :D :D

You can tell yourself why...

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Also, arguments that we're just trying to keep Dave Anderson happy are probably directed at the wrong person, because he's on my PhD thesis committee :P

My university would consider that a conflict of interest.

Anyplace that holds ethics to any sort of standard would call that a conflict of interest. I would like to say a lot more, but I will bite my tongue and keep quiet.

Travis you say this is an alpha project and if we can't handle it go elsewhere! I think maybe you need to start looking for some common sense. In alpha there are bound to be problems with the "Official" application amoung platforms, servers running properly, assimilators/validators working correctly and workunit production and distribution. Credit is relative.

While I obviously can't speak for Travis, I know that I'm not talking about the credit level when I talk about people not running this project until it is beta. What I'm seeing are a lot of people who are getting upset at the fact that they're having to update clients frequently or that there are crashes or other performance issues with the newer versions. If one was using only the stock application, there would not be any effort invovled in updating the application, as BOINC would take care of it. It is those of us who read these forums and know how to get an anonymous platform (app_info.xml) version running who would be having to spend extra effort. Does that give us the right to kick and scream when things don't go perfectly? I don't think it does, not when the project has said that they do not have access to a lot of systems, which is why the project is "alpha", so that those of us who test running the software on architectures they don't have can help them get to "beta" and then to a full stable release.

The credit discussion is something that is a no-win, so long as it goes the same way as all the other discussions on the same subject have gone in the past. As I said, the best thing to do is to disassociate projects from each other by getting rid of the shared currency ("cobblestone") and let each project come up with their own scoring. After that, no longer compare between projects unless some independent external entity (not anyone from BOINC / UCB) comes up with a composite index / exchange rate.

Travis you say this is an alpha project and if we can't handle it go elsewhere! I think maybe you need to start looking for some common sense. In alpha there are bound to be problems with the "Official" application amoung platforms, servers running properly, assimilators/validators working correctly and workunit production and distribution. Credit is relative.

While I obviously can't speak for Travis, I know that I'm not talking about the credit level when I talk about people not running this project until it is beta. What I'm seeing are a lot of people who are getting upset at the fact that they're having to update clients frequently or that there are crashes or other performance issues with the newer versions. If one was using only the stock application, there would not be any effort invovled in updating the application, as BOINC would take care of it. It is those of us who read these forums and know how to get an anonymous platform (app_info.xml) version running who would be having to spend extra effort. Does that give us the right to kick and scream when things don't go perfectly? I don't think it does, not when the project has said that they do not have access to a lot of systems, which is why the project is "alpha", so that those of us who test running the software on architectures they don't have can help them get to "beta" and then to a full stable release.

The credit discussion is something that is a no-win, so long as it goes the same way as all the other discussions on the same subject have gone in the past. As I said, the best thing to do is to disassociate projects from each other by getting rid of the shared currency ("cobblestone") and let each project come up with their own scoring. After that, no longer compare between projects unless some independent external entity (not anyone from BOINC / UCB) comes up with a composite index / exchange rate.

I agree, there should be no "comparisons" from one project to the next with a certain "person" with ties to all of them whining that one project is granting more credits than another. MilkyWay is not tied in scientifically with seti (as an example); they are 2 separate projects and SHOULD BE RUN INDEPENDENTLY !!!!

Travis you say this is an alpha project and if we can't handle it go elsewhere! I think maybe you need to start looking for some common sense. In alpha there are bound to be problems with the "Official" application amoung platforms, servers running properly, assimilators/validators working correctly and workunit production and distribution. Credit is relative.

While I obviously can't speak for Travis, I know that I'm not talking about the credit level when I talk about people not running this project until it is beta. What I'm seeing are a lot of people who are getting upset at the fact that they're having to update clients frequently or that there are crashes or other performance issues with the newer versions. If one was using only the stock application, there would not be any effort invovled in updating the application, as BOINC would take care of it. It is those of us who read these forums and know how to get an anonymous platform (app_info.xml) version running who would be having to spend extra effort. Does that give us the right to kick and scream when things don't go perfectly? I don't think it does, not when the project has said that they do not have access to a lot of systems, which is why the project is "alpha", so that those of us who test running the software on architectures they don't have can help them get to "beta" and then to a full stable release.

The credit discussion is something that is a no-win, so long as it goes the same way as all the other discussions on the same subject have gone in the past. As I said, the best thing to do is to disassociate projects from each other by getting rid of the shared currency ("cobblestone") and let each project come up with their own scoring. After that, no longer compare between projects unless some independent external entity (not anyone from BOINC / UCB) comes up with a composite index / exchange rate.

Brian, my friend, I think don't know about what we're talking...
In March of the last year Crunch3r did an advice to the admins saying their app were working wrong... Some time after he makes an opti app what can be done the same work of stock (hours) in 30 seconds...
Then, the admins takes the resolution to do a credits limit (only for the person who can reach it aka Crunch3r)
Before all that, Crunch3r was the person what give to the project a lot off apps for the plattaforms that the project didn't support...


Travis can confirm what I say...

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Starting a new thread for people to let out all their credit rage :)

Seems to have worked ;-)

---

Don't drink water, that's the stuff that rusts pipes

Starting a new thread for people to let out all their credit rage :)

Seems to have worked ;-)

Don't think that your Social Engeneering of the book is working...:D :D :D :D

:)

---

Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

In March of the last year Crunch3r did an advice to the admins saying their app were working wrong... Some time after he makes an opti app what can be done the same work of stock (hours) in 30 seconds...
Then, the admins takes the resolution to do a credits limit (only for the person who can reach it aka Crunch3r)

The reason we did this was because he was making 100s times more credit than the rest of our users (and way out of scale for BOINC projects). Additionally, since this code wasn't made available to us for verification and so we could make the updates to our stock app available to other people, we didn't have much choice to take this kind of action, due to complaints from users and other BOINC projects. Even with this change that application was generating quite a bit more credit than anything else out there.

We had shared the code with him because he was kind enough to offer his help compiling for architectures we didn't have access to; however then he made personal changes for personal gain and to the detriment of the project, mostly because he did not make these changes available. At this time our code wasn't yet open source so no other users had the ability to do the same thing.

After we updated our code to the latest version (milkyway v0.1) which had many of these changes (coming internally and from other more open sources), we had to bring the stock credit level down again because it was simply too high in comparison to other projects. The internal credit limit still is in place mainly for the reason that if anyone is hitting it our awarded credit is too high and needs to be scaled back a bit.

In the future as the application gets further optimized and things get out of scale for other projects, we'll change credit levels again. It's our policy to keep awarded credit in line with other projects, and that's not going to change. If it's too low (in comparison to other projects) we'll increase it, and if it's too high, we'll lower it.

I'm not quite sure why you guys are so against the concept of inter-project credit parity, but personally I think it's in the best interest of the BOINC community as a whole to try and work with it, until someone comes up with a better credit scheme.

I suppose since this thread has started to become way less than useful, as in not discussing credit comparison to other projects and our current credit rate, but rather bringing up old problems and the same tired argument that for some reason we should act contrary to the goals of BOINC and other projects as a whole, I'm going to shut this thread down and start a new one for credit comparison discussion.

---