What a bunch of whinning assholes these FAD guys are, at least the ones in here, especially carl.h. He thinks he owns the place. I think the Rosetta team is doing a fine job and should tell him to shut up. But that's just me, I have a low tolerance for arrogance. It's not about us and it's not *for* us. Grow up.

Have a nice day,

um well i guess im one of those FAD winers... but

lets face it we got spoiled by Think and FaD.

when FaD closed most of us serched all the difrent DC projects out here and posted on the FaD our opinions. and such.

Yes they are doing a marvolus job at Rosetta.
Alot of us are spoiled as a said and personaly i hate seeing no work from project but corse i expect it with alot of the projects i am attached to (Pirates, Burp<still havent goten a WU from them>, LHC ect...)

remember we are all doing this for our own personal reasons... and yes we are helping the scientis do there job and be able to help find cures and such.

gets off my soapbox

---

Most of the structures and gateways throughout the BOINC Standard Web Site are hard coded ... sorry about that ... so, "minor" changes aren't. You can download the software and look at it yourself.

Janus is working on some changes, but, I do not know what he is planning and where that set of changes are at ...

As far as the back end tools, I am not personally familiar with them, but, again, they are pretty redimentary as of now ...

And I did point to Einstein@Home as being one that was using some different styles. But, AS FAR AS I KNOW those changes are not in the baseline. So, Bruce Allen of EAH decided that the pain was worth the change. *I* don't think it would be. However, if Rosetta@Home wanted to do the same thing, perhaps with two projects wanting that format, a change could be made to the baseline.

The real point is I want the RAH guys focused on fixing and improving Rosetta, not the BOINC forum software. Then again, that does not seem to be a very popular idea at the moment. Sorry guys, the whole argument is that the RAH folks need to do 500 tasks, and oh, by the way, all by tomorrow or I will take my computers and leave ... again, whatever is "wrong" with the forums is not wrong enough to warrent 2 minutes of thier time right now, and not even in the foseeable future ...

Trying to not sound like a "Moses" here, but, guys, *ALL* I have done (just about) with my free time for the last 2 and a half years is look at BOINC source code, think about BOINC, write about BOINC, and run the dang thing ... so, though I do make mistakes ... system engineering is what I used to do ... now I do it with BOINC ... if I say it is not easy ... it probably is not easy ...

Of course, the source code is available, the Wiki tells you how to get it ... prove me wrong ... :)

---

Most of the structures and gateways throughout the BOINC Standard Web Site are hard coded ..

Nobody said they were'nt.

And I did point to Einstein@Home as being one that was using some different styles. But, AS FAR AS I KNOW those changes are not in the baseline. So, Bruce Allen of EAH decided that the pain was worth the change. *I* don't think it would be......

Why not ?

The real point is I want the RAH guys focused on fixing and improving Rosetta, not the BOINC forum software. Then again, that does not seem to be a very popular idea at the moment. Sorry guys, the whole argument is that the RAH folks need to do 500 tasks, and oh, by the way, all by tomorrow or I will take my computers and leave ... again, whatever is "wrong" with the forums is not wrong enough to warrent 2 minutes of thier time right now, and not even in the foseeable future ...

You are probably right there about priorities, but David Kim asked for suggestions that he and his team could consider. Nobody expects instant action on this. All they want is what the team consider the best suggestions to be put on a 'to do' list for future action when time allows.

Trying to not sound like a "Moses" here, but, guys, *ALL* I have done (just about) with my free time for the last 2 and a half years is look at BOINC source code, think about BOINC, write about BOINC, and run the dang thing ... so, though I do make mistakes ... system engineering is what I used to do ... now I do it with BOINC ... if I say it is not easy ... it probably is not easy ...

We are only talking about adding a few more forum sections to make navigation and finding info easier remember. We are not talking about re-writing BOINC.

Of course, the source code is available, the Wiki tells you how to get it ... prove me wrong ... :)

This is not some competition to see who is the best at writing code, or who can p1ss the highest. A few extra forum sections, that is all.

A few extra forum sections, that is all.

Nobody wants to listen, nobody wants to learn ...

Oh, well ... have it your way ...

I suppose it was too good to last, we used to listen to each other here and learn ...

Last word on the subject, In software there is no such thing as a small change.

And you are suggesting a larger change than you think it is ...

---

Paul, this is not meant offensively.

Everytime someone writes something you come up with a block. It show`s in the way you are now saying we`re demanding changes yesterday which simply isn`t true.

I don`t doubt your skill, but David Kim himself said it needs alteration of some kind, which I take to mean it is possible. Moderator9 is already on a big tidy up and that might help enormously. The Wiki is great but at times it appears you`re talking for the project stating what can or can`t be done, please sit back for a while, relax and see what is said officially.

You keep stating the project officials haven`t time for this or that, how do you know ? Part of the project are these forum, I wouldn`t get a company bus without hiring a driver.

It is an important part of the project to get new crunchers and keep them, the bigger the engine the better as far as David Baker is concerned. What we have seen are people signing up, being unable to get good info so leaving and these are not newbies to crunching.

If you are truly concerned about the project, you all would have welcomed the FAD contingent and asked US, how are you finding it? Was it easy ? What can we do to make it easier / better ?

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

A few extra forum sections, that is all.

Nobody wants to listen, nobody wants to learn ...

Oh, well ... have it your way ...

I suppose it was too good to last, we used to listen to each other here and learn ...

Last word on the subject, In software there is no such thing as a small change.

And you are suggesting a larger change than you think it is ...

We know they're busy and the software/science side is the priority at the moment. I think everyone will be happy as long as it's noted as a concern/request by a number of members who have found it difficult to find/file info.

The fact that some of us feel it can be improved is one thing - the size of the task is another!

---

On the blackmail issue - it was pointed out that the owners of the 3 largest computer pharms/farms on the FadBeens team have had tremendous problems with the No Work issue.
...
Given that they like to focus on one project at a time, and don't want their pharms/farms idling

In the view of the BOINC mainstream, those folks have caused their own problem by insisting on the one project at a time principle.

BOINC was written to facilitate the many projects principle. Asking a BOINC project to prioritise the single project fan is asking BOINC to change what it is about at a fundamental level

... I've seen a number of people offering large collections of computers if changes were made to the client that made it easy/easier to run on those large collections of computers. (20, 100, more system in some cases.)
If Rosetta wants the large pharmers/farmers, then the stumbling blocks of No Work and excessive bandwidth usage need to be rectified.

We can turn this around. If you want to contribute to a BOINC project, which offers large ranges of backup projects, then the stumbling block of one-project-at-a-time needs to be rectified.

Secondly, I would hope that no DC project would be swayed by this kind of argument. It is not blackmail but it is an attempt to let those with the biggest budget rule the roost. Actually the vast proportion of WU that are crunched (on BOINC and non-BOINC projects) are by single box contributors. If we are going to go by the size of the contribution then collectively those with the small units contribute far more.

Thirdly, and this is the main point I want to make in the rest of this posting: the main idea of DC is to use otherwise wasted cpu cycles. Those of us (including me) with multiple machines that are only kept running for the stats are not actually what DC is about. We are the 'outsiders' and we should not expect the mainstream to change for our own convenience. Ask: yes; expect: no.

We should not therefore use the fact of our multiplke boxes as a bargaining chip. State our views yes -- I do so often -- but never try to underline those views with a comment that I have so many boxes. That is irrelevant: if my view is right it is right whether I have 1 Pentium 75MHz or a hundred quad core G5's. And if it is wrong, it is even more wrong for my bringing the size of my contribution into the argument.

So yes, if you really want to run in a project that caters primarily for big farms, look for one elsewhere. If you want a project that is tweaked up to run in single project mode, take your boxes to almost any non-BOINC project. Not because I don't like you, not because I don't like your suggestions, but because what you are looking for is the opposite of what was behind the whole BOINC project. There is room on this planet for both kinds of project, without trying to change the flavour of this one.

Multi projects (either as routine or if not certainly as backup); each user counts equal regardless of contribution; stats for fun not for bargaining. That is the culture here, and as far as I know on other BOINC projects.

You are not wrong to want something different but you are wasting your time looking for something different here.

And I, speaking personally now, resent your trying to change BOINC into single-project focus when I like the multi project attitude that is part of our culture. There is no need to try to change us in this respect: there are plenty of single-project projects available as alternatives. To join us you don't have to take pride in what we take pride in; but if you actively oppose it you will not be popular here, nor happy.

River~~

---

And I, speaking personally now, resent your trying to change BOINC into single-project focus when I like the multi project attitude that is part of our culture. There is no need to try to change us in this respect: there are plenty of single-project projects available as alternatives. To join us you don't have to take pride in what we take pride in; but if you actively oppose it you will not be popular here, nor happy.

River~~

My bold BTW.

Our ? Us ? We ? Does that include me and everyone else ?

I dont see anyone here trying to change BOINC into single project focus ?

People have had problems and the staff are trying to solve these. Why the big fuss ?

Why not try putting a more friendly face on this forum and making it more welcoming for users ?

...it may be just me but what has SIMAP problems to do with this thread?


Confused of Winsford!

---

I`m very much afraid this is turning into a them and us situation...old V new.

It isn`t good for the project either way cos neither appear happy. I have stated time and again that David Kim can see the forum isn`t up to what it should be. I have stated David Kim applied a fix for the no work when we asked.

Is it sour grapes, or just we were here first. We are patiently waiting and have said so. So what is all this griping about I ask myself. It isn`t the new group griping or causing argument now or even shouting at David Kim......

I have been around various forum of different teams looking at how they feel...it aint good I tell you.....So what ! you say....you`re happy...then the project will never be as D. Baker intended.

Take a step back and take a third person perspective on this. You`re not doing yourselves any favours in being prejudice against change or new members in general which is the flavour I get from travelling the team forums.

I am not going to go away and I will argue till the cows come home if you wish it...IMHO it is time to stop, take a step back and wait or better still actually go help someone who may have problems.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

I dont see anyone here trying to change BOINC into single project focus ?

People have had problems and the staff are trying to solve these. Why the big fuss ?

The solution is offered to run a backup project and that suggestion is refused. I'd have no problem with that if it stopped there. My problem starts when the refusal is expressed as what sounds to me like "BOINC ought to change..." - and it is refusal in those terms that I'd describe as making a fuss. I had the impression (forgive me if I was wrong) that some of the posts had been made in that tone. Certainly I and others have read them that way.

BOINC is built around the idea of multi-projecting. That was one of its original design strategies and one that attracted me to the platform.

Doesn't mean people are unwelcome if they want to run in single project mode, but they can easily make themselves unwelcome if they try to insist on a multi-project system to bend to fit their single project needs. And if you can accept that sometimes the BOINC answer to an issue is "run a backup project" and/or accept the consequesnces if you choose otherwise, fine.

If you can't accept the idea or the consequences then everyone is better off if you find somewhere to donate your cycles that was built around the single-project model - those DC projects are still the majority they are not hard to find. There is no one right way to run DC, and we all are happier if everyone joins projects built around the ideas that matter to them.

I'd also like to add that I totally deplore the insults that have been hurled at carl.h and others whether made with bad language or not.

Carl is clearly a forthrightly honest person who also has a different idea from me about what he wants from a DC project. Even those of us who disagree with him - as I do - can benefit from giving his points a respectful airing and thoughtful reflection.

River~~

Mind you if you really want to see folks in a hissin' fit when it is suggested they run another project when theirs fails....you should read the SETI forums.....that place is packed with 'single projectors'....

I'm another of those people who run one project and one project only. I have preferences set to 3 days work and we have yet to run out of work. so increasing the size of your q may help some.
I also do not agree with insults and name calling. There is no reason for it and there should be no place for it on these forums.
I also looked around other teams and there seems to be a growing dislike for the attuide of the Rosetta forums. They was described as a battlefield at one place.
I hope the Mods put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.

---

I also do not agree with insults and name calling. There is no reason for it and there should be no place for it on these forums.
I also looked around other teams and there seems to be a growing dislike for the attuide of the Rosetta forums. They was described as a battlefield at one place.
I hope the Mods put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.

This is a recent phenomenon - Until about a month ago this was the most harmonious and pleasant BOINC forum of the lot.

It was the main reason I switched most of my CPU power to this project.

It may have something to do with growing pains - a sudden increase in participants will stress any project. (And DO NOT read anything team- or user-specific into that statement - I am NOT pointing fingers!)

---

Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)



"You can't fix stupid" (Ron White)

I also do not agree with insults and name calling. There is no reason for it and there should be no place for it on these forums.
I also looked around other teams and there seems to be a growing dislike for the attuide of the Rosetta forums. They was described as a battlefield at one place.
I hope the Mods put a stop to this before it gets out of hand.

This is a recent phenomenon - Until about a month ago this was the most harmonious and pleasant BOINC forum of the lot.

It was the main reason I switched most of my CPU power to this project.

It may have something to do with growing pains - a sudden increase in participants will stress any project. (And DO NOT read anything team- or user-specific into that statement - I am NOT pointing fingers!)

I agree with you on that Angus. It was a very friendly forum even if a little confusing and that as well as the quick replies by the Rosetta is a big reason the RA moved to Rosetta after FaD ended. I would hate for it to turn into the Folding@home forums and that is why I believe steps should ne taken now to stop that from happening.

---

I would hate for it to turn into the Folding@home forums and that is why I believe steps should ne taken now to stop that from happening.

Folding@Home don't even have their own forum ;-)

---

Team mauisun.org

Paul, this is not meant offensively.

Everytime someone writes something you come up with a block. It show`s in the way you are now saying we`re demanding changes yesterday which simply isn`t true.

Not offended. Just tired.

The gist of the whole thread is negative. starting with the concept that people are leaving because the team is not responsive. Not true ... in my opinion.

Most of the rest of the comments I made simply state that trying to "bend" the BOINC software past what is in the base line is high risk and cost. Nothing more, nothing less. And, I also explained why when asked.

If you are serious that there needs to be a change, convince Janus, and then Dr. Anderson. Get it into the baseline.

Since I agree with the sentiment that RAH has gone downhill, and possibly partly my fault (all my fault?) ... time to do something different ...

---

Since I agree with the sentiment that RAH has gone downhill, and possibly partly my fault (all my fault?) ... time to do something different ...

One thread get`s heated and your quitting cos you think you`re at fault?

You`re a bigger man than that Paul.

---

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

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

It may have something to do with growing pains - a sudden increase in participants will stress any project. (And DO NOT read anything team- or user-specific into that statement - I am NOT pointing fingers!)

Dr. Baker wanted the crunchers from FAD with their power and he got the power....
So it's his problem to keep the crunching customer satisfied....

But for days now there's silence in the forest regarding the staff.....

---

Teddies....

I would hate for it to turn into the Folding@home forums and that is why I believe steps should ne taken now to stop that from happening.

Folding@Home don't even have their own forum ;-)

If you look to the top left of this page you will see a link by the name of "forum".
http://folding.stanford.edu/
When you click on that link it takes you to this site
http://forum.folding-community.org/
This site has the offical folding at home logo with the words "Support Forum"
The first subforum on this site is
http://forum.folding-community.org/viewforum.php?f=40&sid=4fc575cae51cadcfb12af42132583559
This subforum is titled Pandegroup which we all know is the people who runs folding@home.
Please quit splitting hairs with me. Even though they aren't hosted by Stanford they are the offical forums for folding@home and I'm sure everyone knew which forums I meant for they are a big reason some of us are here or at WCG instead of at Folding@home.
Thanks

---