Can't find anything here that says "Don't run any other app then the official ones". Looks rather like they encourage ppl to run whatever they like. Seems a bit risky to me but I guess they know what they are doing.

They are written as "scientist to scientist" - in other words, taking precision, accuracy, and good faith for granted. It will be a sad day when that can no longer be assumed.

A few of us clearly said on different threads what can be used and what not.

But some idiots will always try what they shouldn't and pollute the science. :-(

Cheers.

Can't find anything here that says "Don't run any other app then the official ones". Looks rather like they encourage ppl to run whatever they like. Seems a bit risky to me but I guess they know what they are doing.

Well it's pretty simple, beta apps are for beta, for testing.

If you are not specifically asked to test them on main, don't do it.

A few of us clearly said on different threads what can be used and what not.

Mike, don't get me wrong, but many ppl won't care what other users say. Most ppl don't even know that you or Richard or Jason or Raistmer etc. are involved in developement.

So if those in charge really want to avoid it would take at least a clear statement from Eric or Matt on the forums and the homepage + actions if somebody still does it. Best way would ofc be to prevent the use of unofficial apps on a technical level - confirmation of hash numbers or so.

But that's all just theory. Nobody really seems to have a problem with ppl running beta- alpha- or whatever here.

---

Well, the biggest risk is that they'll be thrown out by the validator, and simply have wasted their own electricity.

Sidenote: I actually find the idea that people will use software they have no idea where it came from as pretty scary...

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Sidenote: I actually find the idea that people will use software they have no idea where it came from as pretty scary...

Even more so with the installer, which asks for permission to do whatever it likes to your computer's insides - and people say yes!

Mike, don't get me wrong, but that's all just theory. Nobody really seems to have a problem with ppl running beta- alpha- or whatever here.

I certainly do have a problem them even if you don't, mainly because as I said earlier they, "pollute the science", and I very much hate being given invalids results by those who won't use approved apps.

So if you don't like that answer then you don't belong here full stop in my books.

We're here for the science itself, not for someone's ego to have the highest RAC or to keep themselves warm in winter no matter what they return.

Cheers.

Mike, don't get me wrong, but that's all just theory. Nobody really seems to have a problem with ppl running beta- alpha- or whatever here.

I certainly do have a problem them even if you don't, mainly because as I said earlier they, "pollute the science", and I very much hate being given invalids results by those who won't use approved apps.

So if you don't like that answer then you don't belong here full stop in my books.

We're here for the science itself, not for someone's ego to have the highest RAC or to keep themselves warm in winter no matter what they return.

Cheers.

I mostly agree, but it's neither your nor my project. Others have to make this decision.

---

Mike, don't get me wrong, but that's all just theory. Nobody really seems to have a problem with ppl running beta- alpha- or whatever here.

I certainly do have a problem them even if you don't, mainly because as I said earlier they, "pollute the science", and I very much hate being given invalids results by those who won't use approved apps.

So if you don't like that answer then you don't belong here full stop in my books.

We're here for the science itself, not for someone's ego to have the highest RAC or to keep themselves warm in winter no matter what they return.

Cheers.

I mostly agree, but it's neither your nor my project. Others have to make this decision.

Thankfully those "others" have more sense than you're showing here. ;-)

Now do you wish to continue your total lack of understanding of clean science?

Cheers.

I don't have any idea why you attack me personally now. What did I do?

---

I don't have any idea why you attack me personally now. What did I do?

There's nothing actually personal about my replies, it's just your attitude about using apps that arn't ready for main stream use and that gets my goat.

Unless you're an app developer and totally understand the ramifications involved you should just stick with what's approved for use here on main stream work. Otherwise alpha and beta apps should only be used in alpha and beta testing and no ad-hock work arounds trying to get new versions to run with old apps.

Now before you reply back have a real good think about what you have been saying here before digging yourself even deeper (take good note of Richard's & Jason's posts). ;-)

Cheers.

Actually I think NX was worried about people running 'unapproved' apps?

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

What's difficult is that there is no way to properly convey that v8 really is 'new' (i.e. more than a simple revision). New to users, but even more new to developers in other ways. For our usual Arecibo tasks the gold reference CPU builds have amped up precision. That's difficult to deal with. On top of this, these are expected to support GBT/Guppi data, potentially much larger datasets where precision concerns become even more pressing. While expectations from existing code (like XBranch) could reasonably be high, there is no such certainty in floating point arithmetic :D Apps need to go through the motions, even if supposedly 'perfect'

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

Unless you're an app developer and totally understand the ramifications involved you should just stick with what's approved for use here on main stream work. Otherwise alpha and beta apps should only be used in alpha and beta testing and no ad-hock work arounds trying to get new versions to run with old apps.

I beg to differ. Some of us know exactly what we are doing.
How and when to run an alpha or beta build on main - especially at what stage the whole app is - how safe the app is.
As Richard said - watch the hosts like a hawk. Do offline runs of suspicious tasks. Keep a list of hosts that are 'known bad'. Yadda, yadda.
it's a hell of a lot of work and we know exactly what our responsibilities are.
It's them people running stuff for credits and not caring about the havoc they may wrecking that are the problem.

I'd say we have about a handful of Alpha testers, that fall into the 'know what they are doing' category.

As soon as you run anon, YOU become responsible for the apps you are running. That's what most people fail to recognise. Everybody is responsible for what they do.
Sadly a lot of people have no problem at all behaving irresponsibly.

IMO those that know they are doing something wrong and are STIL doing it are the worst - like running v8 with v7 apps (or back then v7 with v6 app 'because the are faster' of course they bloody were, they had a whole chunk of analysis missing!)

edit: for those who want to know what changed in v8 the main change is i n the 'beam width' parameter. iow you calculate slightly different chunks than before.
if you were using tiles for paving and looking for the tiles you need to omit to fit a lamppost, you just were handed a different size of tiles. 'second from the left, four up' would point to a very different spot indeed.
(NB there were more changes but that's the one most easy to explain)

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Picking up on something that appeared not too long ago.
The comment was along the lines that it is hard to know who has "any authority" within the project.
Now some of know that the likes of Jason, Mike, Raistmer & Richard have a level of skill and project knowledge that puts them far above that of the rest of us, and yet their "tag lines" just credit them with the same title as Chris & myself "volunteer tester" and or "volunteer developer", so why not give this small, select and skilled group a "more authoritative" title? Something along the lines "lead tester" or "lead developer" might be more appropriate?

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Most ppl don't even know that you or Richard or Jason or Raistmer etc. are involved in developement.

That's why we have special marker/tag implemented right below nickname.
And ones who can't read... well why to assume they can read something else?

And awaiting project scientists to make statement (maybe even notarially signed one, no?) on each and every question that arise on board... not too arrogantly?
It was stated too many times on this particular thread and few others by almost EVERY member of Lunatics crew what may and what shouldn't be run on main. The question completely exhausted.

Picking up on something that appeared not too long ago.
The comment was along the lines that it is hard to know who has "any authority" within the project.
Now some of know that the likes of Jason, Mike, Raistmer & Richard have a level of skill and project knowledge that puts them far above that of the rest of us, and yet their "tag lines" just credit them with the same title as Chris & myself "volunteer tester" and or "volunteer developer", so why not give this small, select and skilled group a "more authoritative" title? Something along the lines "lead tester" or "lead developer" might be more appropriate?

None of us is here for any sort of personal glory, but I do recognise that it can be a problem for new users, or occasional visitors to this forum, to decide who, out of the many, sometimes contradictory, 'advisers' to believe and follow.

I choose to post under the name I was given at birth, and I have the luck that it's distinctive. I hope that it's gained recognition amongst the regular users here, and that they accept that - while certainly not infallible - I do try to post from knowledge and experience.

I also post, using exactly the same user name, at a number of other project message boards, and also at BOINC's own message board. If you see me posting there, as in BOINC Message 66590, you'll see that I have the words 'Help desk expert' under my name - that means precisely nothing, except some small recognition of consistency over the years.

I once proposed that SETI should have a role like 'Technical mod': it would be helpful to be able to manage sticky and locked threads, and to be able to move posts between threads, without having to ask the help of one of the 'social mods' every time. But the proposal fell on stony ground.

Couldn't post it to the beta forums so let me use this one.

I just started crunching with the cuda50 app on beta, do i need to do anything else regarding the testing (taking notes, reporting stuff) or you get your info from some BOINC logging facilities? If I want to be useful that is...

---

Picking up on something that appeared not too long ago.
The comment was along the lines that it is hard to know who has "any authority" within the project.
Now some of know that the likes of Jason, Mike, Raistmer & Richard have a level of skill and project knowledge that puts them far above that of the rest of us, and yet their "tag lines" just credit them with the same title as Chris & myself "volunteer tester" and or "volunteer developer", so why not give this small, select and skilled group a "more authoritative" title? Something along the lines "lead tester" or "lead developer" might be more appropriate?

It is easy to know who has authority at a project. They will have titles such as:
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist

Lunatics members have been vital to app development. It is my understanding that we wouldn't have the past few versions of apps without them. What they say should be followed but there is almost no way for enforcement. Other than suggesting computers/users that are blatantly abusing the openness of the project. Another option would be moving Beta development to closed testing. Much like how Alpha testing is conducted. However I expect that would greatly slow down the development.

The only real way to prevent users from running apps that should not yet be used would be to disable the use of anonymous platform. There are some projects that do not allow anonymous platform & I would guess to prevent such issues.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[