Micro management doesn't mean lots of interventions. Even one is a case of micro management.

Well I see both sides saying the same thing: Direct 'User' micromanagement is awkward/inefficient/not-generally accepted, and external tools to facilitate such perhaps a little clumsy, maybe not.

'In application' is probably the best place for them, because the application has domain specific knowledge about the tasks, project, and user needs.

On the same token, I see no functional difference between [some tool] doing the job by switching out apps wired differently, the user using tools to shovel tasks one way or another, or manual editing of client state.

There are obvious advantages to the level of integration/automation we see in stock CPU, and the GPU third party apps do this to some extent (OpenCL compiles its own binaries at runtime, Cuda chooses from a selection of embedded ones or builds its own via the driver). The possible remaining exception then is AKv8 CPU, which doesn't use explicit inbuilt dispatch for the main codepath, but then delegates that choice to the user to select the SSE level of application (apart from the fftw library which has full internal runtime dispatch)

So all I'm getting at, is that it isn't anything special shovelling code to the right device/code. It's Boinc, yet again, making assumptions about things it has no control of.

Why Boinc should need to know anything about how I run, other than possibly providing valid results [within deadline], is completely at odds with its design principle that users' hosts are inherently untrustworthy. [ <--- That's micromanagement]

Lieutenant Tuvok: It is illogical to dwell on situations beyond your control. It will only serve to heighten your anxiety, which, if I may say so, is heightened enough.
Sklar: Oh. Well, thank you, for the reassurance.

---

"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.

So as I mentioned to Kevvy, been running this on 5 crunchers since the release of 0.51, and RAC was 84k or so when I started. Over 90 now, I think. For just a few days, that's substantial.
As I may have mentioned, I'm working with Stubbles to further develop his front end script, which I guess we're going to call DQO (Device Queue Oprimizer). I dived in because it's been a while since I had a fun project to dive into.
Is it micromanaging? Not to my definition, because to me micromanaging implies an excessive amount of effort relative to the results obtained. Stepping up to each of 5 machines 2-3 times a day, at most, and clicking a shortcut to watch a script run to completion doesn't seem that excessive:)
As long as we're not in any way impacting the Project or the Science, it's hard to see this as a bad thing, imho.
Later, ...

. . I agree, it is no bad thing. And when the whole process takes a few minutes a couple or three times a day it certainly doesn't qualify as micromanaging. But I do see how Grant perceives it that way. To each his or her own.

.

To each his or her own.

Roger that ...

---

And when the whole process takes a few minutes a couple or three times a day it certainly doesn't qualify as micromanaging. But I do see how Grant perceives it that way.

Because, by definition, it is.
What you appear to call micro management, is a subset of what micro management actually is.
I could probably post the definition again, but as people are using their own in preference to the actual definition it would just be further wasted effort.
*shrug*

---

Grant
Darwin NT

And when the whole process takes a few minutes a couple or three times a day it certainly doesn't qualify as micromanaging. But I do see how Grant perceives it that way.

Because, by definition, it is.
What you appear to call micro management, is a subset of what micro management actually is.
I could probably post the definition again, but as people are using their own in preference to the actual definition it would just be further wasted effort.
*shrug*

. . It has gotten too quiet in here ... dare I poke the bear? :)

. . Hi Grant :)

. . Just a point. By your own interpretation there is a timeframe factor between "configuring" and "micromanaging". Tweaking the app in initial setup, and presumably at other times when required, is not micromanagement, but adjusting it on a daily basis is. I think the key part of the dissention is the interpretation of the word "closely" in the definition on which you are relying. I feel that most people would not consider minor adjustments once or twice a day actually qualifies as "monitoring closely", at least not sufficiently so to make the definition of micromanaging. Though personally I am comfortable either way.

. . Happy crunching dude :)

.

... and here I was enjoying the sounds of silence ...

---

... and here I was enjoying the sounds of silence ...

I think that the quest for efficiency isn't going to go away, until such time as the human race finds some practical source for unlimited energy. The missing piece here is the raw cost to acheive the computation, and for most of us this is growing faster than the technology is pushing the cost down.

---

"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.

The missing piece here is the raw cost to acheive the computation, and for most of us this is growing faster than the technology is pushing the cost down.

Exactly right ...

---

The missing piece here is the raw cost to achieve the computation, and for most of us this is growing faster than the technology is pushing the cost down.

Exactly right ...

. . Aaaahh! It's only money :)

.

The missing piece here is the raw cost to achieve the computation, and for most of us this is growing faster than the technology is pushing the cost down.

Exactly right ...

. . Aaaahh! It's only money :)

.

And the nasty letters from the power company ... ;)

---

The missing piece here is the raw cost to achieve the computation, and for most of us this is growing faster than the technology is pushing the cost down.

Exactly right ...

. . Aaaahh! It's only money :)

.

And the nasty letters from the power company ... ;)

. . Yes that can be unpleasant :)

.