On Sep 25, 2009, at 5:13 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Not all projects are appropriate for all machines. The change you are > proposing would mean that a large number of machines would be cut > off from > ALL projects, not just some projects. I have never said that slow > machines > would be able to do all projects.
If you would read what I am writing, not what you think I am writing, what I am proposing would not do anything of the sort. Yes I would be using real work, and yes it would take more time than the current benchmarks. But in no way would it disqualify machines from participating. Unless you mean that people would opt out of BOINC because you would champion the idea that testing machines and calibrating the system is somehow a communist plot .... But the frequency of the test can be adjusted and, though I would not do this because I think you are throwing up another straw-man issue that does not really exist today, an opt-out option could be included. I have said these things repeatedly ... and you have ignored it repeatedly. Like I said, I do find it funny that you are so concerned about efficiencies and "waste" here with this proposal (which could solve some real problems) and not at all in other places in the BOINC architecture. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
