Some thoughts:
One guy wrote " If we lose 50 crunchers and gain 100 have we really lost any?"
That depends on what those 50 prople brought to the project in the first place.
If you lose 50 people that had 6 top quality machines each and bring in 100 with their P4-2000's or in that area, then yes you have lost quite a bit.
The answer to this is that there is no answer that will please everyone.
There is a factor that should be considered by the developers though:
Think that you can make up the loss of the teams from adding Mary and Donnie's home PC and your dead wrong. Maybe with the numbers of people on the project yes, but as I showed in another post, just what came from my house and I am by no means a "big" cruncher, was app 1900 times what came from Saenger's and in this case I think you can look at him like the Mary and Donnie I mentioned.
That's not a slam on Saenger, I use him only as a known example of a single PC user involved in many projects.
Holding to that thought, how many Mary's or Donnie's do you need to sign up to equal one PY222 from FreeDC or a DDTUNG from XS: I can answer that, app 33,000 new single average PC users to equal either of those 2 guys.
I've heard many times people say here that every user is important and that is true to the extent that every user contributes, but to tell yourself when you have one machine on this project and then only part time that your as important as someone who has 100 top machines doing nothing but this project 24/7 is a delusion.
This is why it is and was a mistake for the developers to piss off the top teams. We do where others talk about it and thats not ego speaking, that is fact.
From everything I've been able to decipher, XS contributed app 8-10% of the total to Rostetta prior to the end of August and thats in work done not credits issued.That was done with app 220 active day in and day out people operating anywhere from 600-800 machines day in and out. At one point, as many as 2000 were on the project for XS but as you all know, people drift in and out as their needs and likes change.

---

See, I was saying that on the assumption that some of those 50 would be top-producers, and some would be lower-producers. Also, that the 100 coming in would have a similar spread (As I said, some who have been holding back are good-sized farms, as well.)

Also, I'd like to point out that we really do appreciate what you guys go through to produce what you do. Heck, I have to struggle to produce even the meager amount that I can. The last thing I want, to be perfectly honest, is to drive anyone away. The problem is that, as is becoming increasingly obvious, there's no "right" solution.

Over the course of this thread (and others I've been reading, these last few hours), I think I have changed my position. Perhaps it would be best to let Moore's Law run its course. Since this is, after all, a medical project, perhaps the "do no harm" philosophy is fitting.

Thought I'd point out, again, that none of my arguments were targeted at specific individuals. Even that comment about losing 50 and gaining 100 wasn't targeted at anyone (even though it has often been used that way, in the past). Mostly, I don't want any hard feelings, with anyone.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

See, I was saying that on the assumption that some of those 50 would be top-producers, and some would be lower-producers. Also, that the 100 coming in would have a similar spread (As I said, some who have been holding back are good-sized farms, as well.)

Also, I'd like to point out that we really do appreciate what you guys go through to produce what you do. Heck, I have to struggle to produce even the meager amount that I can. The last thing I want, to be perfectly honest, is to drive anyone away. The problem is that, as is becoming increasingly obvious, there's no "right" solution.

Over the course of this thread (and others I've been reading, these last few hours), I think I have changed my position. Perhaps it would be best to let Moore's Law run its course. Since this is, after all, a medical project, perhaps the "do no harm" philosophy is fitting.

Thought I'd point out, again, that none of my arguments were targeted at specific individuals. Even that comment about losing 50 and gaining 100 wasn't targeted at anyone (even though it has often been used that way, in the past). Mostly, I don't want any hard feelings, with anyone.

No problem between you and I..I didn't take that personal at all.
I'm off the project permanently. I can't work for someone who doesn't respect me as a person.
Nothing to do with credits I assure you, this is all about respect for your fellow man.
My gut feeling is that Dr. Baker isn't cut out to be a project manager. He doesn't have the skills for communication and should stick to what he does best and thats in the lab. That's not an insult, just my feelings from how I've seen him handle himself with the public.
What he needs is a good guy with some years of dealing with the public that he communicates with 2-3 times a week and then let that person be the front man for the project. A little less glory for him maybe but better overall for Rosetta.

---

XS_VS: Well, I'm sorry to see you go. I hope you find another project (BOINC or otherwise) that appeals to you, and I wish you the best. You've set a shining example of dedication, during your time here (even if we didn't always agree), and one that'll be tough to follow.

---

"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)

XS_VS: Well, I'm sorry to see you go. I hope you find another project (BOINC or otherwise) that appeals to you, and I wish you the best. You've set a shining example of dedication, during your time here (even if we didn't always agree), and one that'll be tough to follow.

Thank you. Everything I have and quite a bit of the XS Rosetta team is now on WCG. Yes, a DC app with a quorum system and we are running the stock BOINC app on it and after 3 weeks are up to #2-3 in the dailies.
People say that all we are after is #1 in a project but they forget the huge amount of work that gets done for that project while we do so.
We stayed in force on Rosetta well after we'd made #1( june6) and would still be there had not all this crap happenned.
I'm sure we'll see one another around..Just look for a good medical app and I'll probably be there.

---

@XS_VS

While I agree that not all crunchers contribute equally to the work done and top-crunchers are more valuable to the project from a strict crnching-time-perspective I disagree with your numbers:

a) XS got about 8-10% of the granted credits - in real work done it was probably closer to 3%.
b) To replace a top-cruncher like PY222 or DDTung you don't need about 33.000 average cruncher but more likely about 500-1000 or one other top-cruncher like UW-Madison CAE who joined AFTER the change to the new credit system.

Teams and top-crunchers are valuable to a project but I came to the conclusion not as much as one could think at first. Teams and top-crunchers often (not always) change the project and if one team reduces his output another one ups it. There are many teams which upped their production AFTER the credit system change (Czech-National, TSC! Russia, Planet3D etc.).

I don't want to imply with what I said that a project should not care for his top-teams and top-crunchers and for those mostly interested in the discussion but it should never subordinate to the demands of any team or cruncher even when he thinks he is irreplaceable.

@XS_VS

While I agree that not all crunchers contribute equally to the work done and top-crunchers are more valuable to the project from a strict crnching-time-perspective I disagree with your numbers:

a) XS got about 8-10% of the granted credits - in real work done it was probably closer to 3%.

I disagree but your entitled to your opinion. I'll run some numbers over the next couple days to try and get as exact a figure as possible.

b) To replace a top-cruncher like PY222 or DDTung you don't need about 33.000 average cruncher but more likely about 500-1000 or one other top-cruncher like UW-Madison CAE who joined AFTER the change to the new credit system.

My 33,000 figure was a fast appoximation using saengers numbers vs mine vs DDTUNGS, all known figures to me. That figure is very close but again, to satisfy both our curiousities I will run some numbers on this.
As to UW-Madison, thats a University and I think thats stretching the word "cruncher" a bit but ok, lets accept that. They signed on after the change because it is a school and the timing was that the schools didn't open until after the change. It would have been dificult for them to sign up in July when they were closed wouldn't you agree?

Teams and top-crunchers are valuable to a project but I came to the conclusion not as much as one could think at first. Teams and top-crunchers often (not always) change the project and if one team reduces his output another one ups it. There are many teams which upped their production AFTER the credit system change (Czech-National, TSC! Russia, Planet3D etc.).

I don't want to imply with what I said that a project should not care for his top-teams and top-crunchers and for those mostly interested in the discussion but it should never subordinate to the demands of any team or cruncher even when he thinks he is irreplaceable.

I never stated or implied that any team is irreplaceable as that is not the case.What I said is that a project should not give in to a few who essentially contribute very little but are very vocal. If you have forgotten, I did not come to this forum to start a problem, I came here only after I was told that a few people had come here with the agenda to change the rosetta system to what they wanted it to be and then started using the C word in regard to a team that I was co-captain of. I never had an issue with a work based credit system. My issues were with people with private agendas changing things to what they wanted and much more than that, being called a cheat and then having the project manager do nothing about it.
The timing of this change took place JUST as the schools were starting to reopen and that in itself masked the actual drop in work done. Had this change taken place in June or July I think you'll agree that the effect would have shown more clearly.
Whatever percentage the numbers will show will not be truly seen until next summer when the schools again close. Now Rosetta may well grow before then as this past year it has gathered much national attention and then again when people hear of what went on here they may go to other projects.
Time will only answer that question.
What can't be denied is that the project lost a huge resource in the people of the top teams that have left and that is not just XS. Many other teams saw what went on here and have cut their contribution by varing amounts.

---

To just reset everything back to 0 would make a mockery of any claim that credits represent "work done", for it would imply that no one had done any work over the last year.

Just leave things as they are now, move on, and change the record.

---

@XS_VS

While I agree that not all crunchers contribute equally to the work done and top-crunchers are more valuable to the project from a strict crnching-time-perspective I disagree with your numbers:

a) XS got about 8-10% of the granted credits - in real work done it was probably closer to 3%.

I disagree but your entitled to your opinion. I'll run some numbers over the next couple days to try and get as exact a figure as possible.

b) To replace a top-cruncher like PY222 or DDTung you don't need about 33.000 average cruncher but more likely about 500-1000 or one other top-cruncher like UW-Madison CAE who joined AFTER the change to the new credit system.

My 33,000 figure was a fast appoximation using saengers numbers vs mine vs DDTUNGS, all known figures to me. That figure is very close but again, to satisfy both our curiousities I will run some numbers on this.

I don't think Saenger qualifies as the average cruncher, he is sharing his rather slow computer between various projects. I calculated the average cruncher produces about 100 new_credits/day, which means 500 of them produce 50k new_credits/day.

As to UW-Madison, thats a University and I think thats stretching the word "cruncher" a bit but ok, lets accept that. They signed on after the change because it is a school and the timing was that the schools didn't open until after the change. It would have been dificult for them to sign up in July when they were closed wouldn't you agree?

UW-Madison was active on other projects for a long time. He included Rosetta in his mix just after the new credit system was invented. It is not unlikely that this is connected. Of course it's speculation, but I just wanted to point out, that new top-crunchers come occasionally.

Teams and top-crunchers are valuable to a project but I came to the conclusion not as much as one could think at first. Teams and top-crunchers often (not always) change the project and if one team reduces his output another one ups it. There are many teams which upped their production AFTER the credit system change (Czech-National, TSC! Russia, Planet3D etc.).

I don't want to imply with what I said that a project should not care for his top-teams and top-crunchers and for those mostly interested in the discussion but it should never subordinate to the demands of any team or cruncher even when he thinks he is irreplaceable.

I never stated or implied that any team is irreplaceable as that is not the case.What I said is that a project should not give in to a few who essentially contribute very little but are very vocal. If you have forgotten, I did not come to this forum to start a problem, I came here only after I was told that a few people had come here with the agenda to change the rosetta system to what they wanted it to be and then started using the C word in regard to a team that I was co-captain of. I never had an issue with a work based credit system. My issues were with people with private agendas changing things to what they wanted and much more than that, being called a cheat and then having the project manager do nothing about it.

Well that is the core of our disagreement. I just recall it radically different. IMHO the project did not follow a "vocal minority" but did what was the wish of the overwhelming majority (fair work based credit system). There was a debate whether to backdate and/or whether to grant more like the standard boinc client or like the optimized one. In the course of the debate some called users of 5.5.0 cheaters and some of XS and others flamed back. The project than listened to your complaints, forbid cheating accusations, retreated on the idea of backdating and Dr. Baker made a special appearance in your board, however you were angered to a level where you demanded the condemnation of specific posters which was inappropriate.

<snip>
What can't be denied is that the project lost a huge resource in the people of the top teams that have left and that is not just XS. Many other teams saw what went on here and have cut their contribution by varing amounts.

... and many other teams have upped their contribution by varying amounts. In fact it can't be denied that the project lost a huge resource but I think it'll pay off long-term. If the new credit system would not have been invented, or Dr. Baker would have taken sides in favor of XS or the project would now grant 3 times the credit it does now it would have created more harm than to loose XS (and Teddies). Between various bad the project choose the best option (but did many mistakes in the course of the events).

<snip>
What can't be denied is that the project lost a huge resource in the people of the top teams that have left and that is not just XS. Many other teams saw what went on here and have cut their contribution by varing amounts.

... and many other teams have upped their contribution by varying amounts.

Good, then we won't have to worry about Rosetta's servers being idled and thats a good thing.

Well that is the core of our disagreement. I just recall it radically different. IMHO the project did not follow a "vocal minority" but did what was the wish of the overwhelming majority (fair work based credit system). There was a debate whether to backdate and/or whether to grant more like the standard boinc client or like the optimized one. In the course of the debate some called users of 5.5.0 cheaters and some of XS and others flamed back. The project than listened to your complaints, forbid cheating accusations, retreated on the idea of backdating and Dr. Baker made a special appearance in your board, however you were angered to a level where you demanded the condemnation of specific posters which was inappropriate.

As I remember it, it saw T.Castro,Saenger,Thierry and yourself that seemed especially hot to see this new system in place. If there were others forgive me but is was the first two of those individuals that did the most talking on this point.
The project ONLY forbid the cheating acusations after XS had left and Dr. Baker's 3 minute appearance on the XS forum was made just to make a statement and then leave. He answered nothing and his statement carried no ring of truth in it. The issue of "condemnation" as you but it was brought up to him in an email BUT was also accompanied with the thought that we understood that he would not be able to do that and retain the groups that they belonged to.
The and I repeat THE issue that was a deal breaker was HIS refusal to come to the crunching section and put a stop to the cheating acusations.
I can back up what I am telling you as it was I that wrote those emails to him and I have mine and his responses and will be more than happy to post them here.He might not appreciate it but it would back up every word I have said.

---

Tralala, can I just reiterate a point or two re the Teddies as you saw fit to mention them.

Not all Teddies left the project, same with XS, you`re generalising. Those that did, left for reasons other than a change in the credit system.

Teddies output is still higher than the Baker Lab team. In fact looking at the scores for the Baker Lab team, perhaps they`re at WCG too !

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

carl: I have something for you that you will get the biggest kick out of.
you'll have a PM in 3 minutes.

---

@XS_VS

While I agree that not all crunchers contribute equally to the work done and top-crunchers are more valuable to the project from a strict crnching-time-perspective I disagree with your numbers:

a) XS got about 8-10% of the granted credits - in real work done it was probably closer to 3%.

I disagree but your entitled to your opinion. I'll run some numbers over the next couple days to try and get as exact a figure as possible.

b) To replace a top-cruncher like PY222 or DDTung you don't need about 33.000 average cruncher but more likely about 500-1000 or one other top-cruncher like UW-Madison CAE who joined AFTER the change to the new credit system.

My 33,000 figure was a fast appoximation using saengers numbers vs mine vs DDTUNGS, all known figures to me. That figure is very close but again, to satisfy both our curiousities I will run some numbers on this.

I don't think Saenger qualifies as the average cruncher, he is sharing his rather slow computer between various projects. I calculated the average cruncher produces about 100 new_credits/day, which means 500 of them produce 50k new_credits/day.

As to UW-Madison, thats a University and I think thats stretching the word "cruncher" a bit but ok, lets accept that. They signed on after the change because it is a school and the timing was that the schools didn't open until after the change. It would have been dificult for them to sign up in July when they were closed wouldn't you agree?

UW-Madison was active on other projects for a long time. He included Rosetta in his mix just after the new credit system was invented. It is not unlikely that this is connected. Of course it's speculation, but I just wanted to point out, that new top-crunchers come occasionally.

Teams and top-crunchers are valuable to a project but I came to the conclusion not as much as one could think at first. Teams and top-crunchers often (not always) change the project and if one team reduces his output another one ups it. There are many teams which upped their production AFTER the credit system change (Czech-National, TSC! Russia, Planet3D etc.).

I don't want to imply with what I said that a project should not care for his top-teams and top-crunchers and for those mostly interested in the discussion but it should never subordinate to the demands of any team or cruncher even when he thinks he is irreplaceable.

I never stated or implied that any team is irreplaceable as that is not the case.What I said is that a project should not give in to a few who essentially contribute very little but are very vocal. If you have forgotten, I did not come to this forum to start a problem, I came here only after I was told that a few people had come here with the agenda to change the rosetta system to what they wanted it to be and then started using the C word in regard to a team that I was co-captain of. I never had an issue with a work based credit system. My issues were with people with private agendas changing things to what they wanted and much more than that, being called a cheat and then having the project manager do nothing about it.

Well that is the core of our disagreement. I just recall it radically different. IMHO the project did not follow a "vocal minority" but did what was the wish of the overwhelming majority (fair work based credit system). There was a debate whether to backdate and/or whether to grant more like the standard boinc client or like the optimized one. In the course of the debate some called users of 5.5.0 cheaters and some of XS and others flamed back. The project than listened to your complaints, forbid cheating accusations, retreated on the idea of backdating and Dr. Baker made a special appearance in your board, however you were angered to a level where you demanded the condemnation of specific posters which was inappropriate.

<snip>
What can't be denied is that the project lost a huge resource in the people of the top teams that have left and that is not just XS. Many other teams saw what went on here and have cut their contribution by varing amounts.

... and many other teams have upped their contribution by varying amounts. In fact it can't be denied that the project lost a huge resource but I think it'll pay off long-term. If the new credit system would not have been invented, or Dr. Baker would have taken sides in favor of XS or the project would now grant 3 times the credit it does now it would have created more harm than to loose XS (and Teddies). Between various bad the project choose the best option (but did many mistakes in the course of the events).

Mod.Sense, how come you can rake all of this up and I cant even have a single line post that used no names and was deleted as "flaimbait" ?

---

I will now produce some links that show the hypocrisy that went on in this forum.

http://docking.utep.edu/forum_thread.php?id=53#560 Amazingly this is dated yesterday.....After all that has gone on I`m astonished.

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2307&start=0

http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10543&highlight=optimised

And from Ars technica we have

The BOINC client has 2 parts, the "core client" that is a cli preferably installed as service, and the "Manager", a gui, that is used to monitor/control core client. Normally you don't need to run the Manager at all, can even use example BoincView instead.


For optimized seti-applications, and BOINC core client to go along (if wanted), look at
http://www.marisan.nl/seti/
http://www.guntec.de/Crunch3r/

Use at own risk...

Note, Seti_Enhanced is expected released in a couple weeks time, if you're running optimized seti-application you must remove this again (or download a new), so it's possibly easier to wait a couple weeks...

With Seti_Enhanced, optimized core client will not change claimed credit anyway so isn't really needed.


Just like "classic", the SETI@Home/BOINC-application likes large cache-memory and fast memory-speed.
If uses optimized seti-application Intel-cpu's normally has a slight advantage.

I see teams out there this week, the ones supposedly whiter than white, clambering for new optimised Einstein and Seti and still links to general optimised Boinc clients available on most team forum.

Truth be known the more I look the more it looks like the calls for a fair system were sour grapes. Which is a shame. Saenger I expected better from, I took him at his word.

And yes Teddies and XS had their links too but not taken up by all.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I will now produce some links that show the hypocrisy that went on in this forum.

http://docking.utep.edu/forum_thread.php?id=53#560 Amazingly this is dated yesterday.....After all that has gone on I`m astonished.

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2307&start=0

http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10543&highlight=optimised

And from Ars technica we have

The BOINC client has 2 parts, the "core client" that is a cli preferably installed as service, and the "Manager", a gui, that is used to monitor/control core client. Normally you don't need to run the Manager at all, can even use example BoincView instead.


For optimized seti-applications, and BOINC core client to go along (if wanted), look at
http://www.marisan.nl/seti/
http://www.guntec.de/Crunch3r/

Use at own risk...

Note, Seti_Enhanced is expected released in a couple weeks time, if you're running optimized seti-application you must remove this again (or download a new), so it's possibly easier to wait a couple weeks...

With Seti_Enhanced, optimized core client will not change claimed credit anyway so isn't really needed.


Just like "classic", the SETI@Home/BOINC-application likes large cache-memory and fast memory-speed.
If uses optimized seti-application Intel-cpu's normally has a slight advantage.

I see teams out there this week, the ones supposedly whiter than white, clambering for new optimised Einstein and Seti and still links to general optimised Boinc clients available on most team forum.

Truth be known the more I look the more it looks like the calls for a fair system were sour grapes. Which is a shame. Saenger I expected better from, I took him at his word.

And yes Teddies and XS had their links too but not taken up by all.

There was a part of me that thought from the beginning that this was a sour grapes thing but I buried that thought as I thought no rational adult male would be so in need of a ego boost as to stoop this low.
You guys need points this much that you modify the xml files of a app because Linux gets a bath compared to windows BUT you'd scream at XS for using crunch3r's 550 files because they made the AMD's and Intels equal?
I'm honest about what we did and why, but those here that played "holier than thou" and then modify the files should be ashamed to show their faces here.
To Dr. Baker:
This will make you very happy. I will never be back here again for any reason.
You now know the character of the people that you decided to side with.
I told you from the beginning that we came to help you and you just couldn't get that though your head.
Now you and David Kim will KNOW exactly the type of people you decided to side with.I hope your happy together. You deserve each other.
To the rest here, say what you want, I for damn sure won't read it.

---

Tralala: Your math game regarding 50 left , 100 entered as new , we gained 50 is very flawed.

That is the problem with number games anyone can play

First of all: Lets assume and this is a safe assumption that the 50 that left had more than one machine dedicated 24/7 to Rosetta . :

We know that at least one of the ones that left even had 100 by themselves: so right there you gained nothing in production by the addition of the 100 new computers : All 100 computers are being used to replace the work of that person and that person alone.

So lets assume the 50 that left averaged 6 computers each: That is 300 computers that left , the project is now 200 computers down.

But legs go further the computers that left many were double cores...lets for argument sake say 35 of the ones that left were double core ...that is the equivalent of 70 computers , so the project lost 235 computers crunching.

And since the majority of the computers of those 5o were faster , ore powerful by the reasons of their CPU , ram, motherboards and overclocking you have lost even more power

Assume 90 % of the 50 machines that left were 1.25 more faster than the ones that substituted them you actually have lost the equivalent of 225 computers .

So 50 left, 100 entered , the project lost the work of 225.

Not yet... Since hadn't they have left those computers would have still been crunching and their work being added , the project actually lost 225 more computers ...

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

http://docking.utep.edu/forum_thread.php?id=53#560 Amazingly this is dated yesterday.....After all that has gone on I`m astonished.

I think you've read my answer as well. I always knew my linux was a bit small changed by BOINC, but not that much to justify the "opt." client, those went too far. And the original poster went far too far.

I've tried to get my 1.5 in my client_state, and I say I won't do it again, it's far too much hassle, it's not worth it, and the quorum will do me a favour after the benchs will be back to my normal lin-size again.

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2307&start=0

That's a good thread, it started with the optimited Seti stuff, and the connected clients to get all sorted again. I havn't read all 21 pages, just the first and the last 2.
It's still about optimized applications, which never were any problem with me, as they improve the crunching. The optimization of the application is something that's needed here for PPC for example (with the caveat that it has to deliver proper science, not just speed).

http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10543&highlight=optimised

Never been there, never had any contact, but I would dump this in the "c"-pot. It's a total different discussion to that @BoincSynergy.

And from Ars technica we have

With Seti_Enhanced, optimized core client will not change claimed credit anyway so isn't really needed.

That has to be some month ago, as Seti_Enhanced is since quite a while ordinary Seti now. This was as well obviously something about the quest for people with optimized apps to get the credit at par with non-opt apps.

I admit, that the clients developed for this caused the recent problems here. Perhaps they should not have been developed, but they were intended for a fairer competition within Seti, not for other projects.

I see teams out there this week, the ones supposedly whiter than white, clambering for new optimised Einstein and Seti and still links to general optimised Boinc clients available on most team forum.

Truth be known the more I look the more it looks like the calls for a fair system were sour grapes. Which is a shame. Saenger I expected better from, I took him at his word.

Are you talking about the use of the "c"-word in another projects forum, or about my temporarily benchmark adjustment?

Most boards don't purge old threads (and the links therein, especially if they were valid and just at the time of posting. Why should they? Imho it's clear from the context to see the (un-)fairness of the use of different links over the time.

It`s interesting to note that when Boinc Synergy discuss it is science when Free-DC do..they are "C" from your perspective. Are you saying Boinc synergy were allowed to use it cos they justified it but others were not ?

From the first post at Boinc Synergy

Are they "legal" to use?
There are no objections about optimized applications from the project side, as far as I´m aware. They can recognize results that were produced by optimized applications and do rate them "valid". In fact, they profit most from the use of those, because it means more work being done in a shorter period of time.
Nevertheless there are people who criticize the use of optimised applications, as can be seen on the various Forums, mainly because of it´s impact on the credit system.

Again you state

It's still about optimized applications, which never were any problem with me, as they improve the crunching.

Yet still call Free-DC.... "C"....

It is clear from what I have evidenced that most teams have SOME members that have used optimised clients, yet they will insist on calling swathes of other teams "C".

Yes there are individuals that stand by their word and would never under any circumstance use an optimised client....We have them in Teddies.

I have taken this thread off topic now but just wanted to straighten the issue that NO TEAM afaik are whiter than white nor were ALL members of any team guilty of using optimised. I did this in an attempt to stop the generalisations.

IMHO

The credits across the whole of Boinc are skewed to SOME degree.
The new Rosetta credit system is fairer (afaik).
There is no way other than what is currently happening to HAPPILY rectify past scores.
No team was whiter than white.
Some individuals who called "C" were just as guilty to some degree.

Edit/addition

On the 1st Sept Saenger wrote :

I read "optimised" and thought about clients, as the use of optimised applications is imho in no doubt and I never thought it's worth a poll. So I quickly clicked "No", but even before the numbers appeared on the screen I regretted my fast (and wrong) decision.

It's definitely OK, as long as the science is not compromised, to use an optimised client. And with Seti it seems to be the case of no errors.

http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=42393&highlight=optimised#42393

I have to ask were FREE-DC compromising the science ?

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

IMHO

The credits across the whole of Boinc are skewed to SOME degree.
The new Rosetta credit system is fairer (afaik).
There is no way other than what is currently happening to HAPPILY rectify past scores.
No team was whiter than white.
Some individuals who called "C" were just as guilty to some degree.

I agree.
I would add: No team was blacker than black.


But I have one other thing to add:
There is a huge difference between the usage of optimized applications and "optimized" clients.
Applications do the work, their optimization will deliver more results if done properly, and thus it's good to have them.
Clients do no work whatsoever, the "optimization" does nothing to improve the result creation, so there's little justification for the use of them.

I refer you to my late edit/addition to my previous post.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.