On Sep 28, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: > > > Paul D. Buck wrote: >> Lynn took me out to the wood shed because he feels my tone is >> wrong ... I have to ask myself why he did not do the same with you? > > You opened the door. > > Because I've watched you, Paul, and your accusations and your > personal attacks and your constant complaints that the BOINC world > would be much better off if the world would just adopt your grand > schemes.
Actually I have maintained that it would be better off if it would also do some of the things other shave suggested. Nick has had many good ideas, so has John, at least two of which have never been adopted. > ... and I've watched John, who has had some ideas, presented them > based only on the facts, and then did the work. > > I've watched John in other fora where, when he points out the flaw > in someones logic (frequently, mine) he always does so based on > actual logic. He's taken the time to explain why things are a > certain way, and he's open to the possibility that someone, someday, > might find something better. Unless, I have suggested it. You say you have watched me... for how many years? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ? Just to take one not at random example last may or so I pointed out that there was a flaw in the way we schedule with fast wide systems. I documented several errors this process engendered... John objected based on, what to my mind is a lack of experience and a refusal to look at the logs and other evidence. Now, as you have pointed out you have some familiarity with software and as such you should recall the rule that you don't run routines any more often than is absolutely necessary. John insists that running the resource scheduler as often as once a second will never have negative effects, I demonstrated that it can and does... logical analysis and thinking would suggest that running the resource scheduler more often that necessary could lead to chaotic behaviors ... we have seen many manifestations of this kind of chaotic behavior ... and I am not the only one that has documented these manifestations ... His other rebuttal is about a project that is no longer extant but had an unrealistic 6 minute deadline. Now, BOINC is batch oriented and has always been designed so... this is clearly an unreasonable deadline and would cause collisions with TSI and checkpoints and would likely cause massive loss of calculation times because of these design constraints ... but to keep this 1 second cycle time no argument against is too illogical ... sorry, he is not arguing on solid technical merits ... and the capper, he is against it because he is not for improving efficiency! Yet this is the major objection to another proposal ... that it lowers efficiency ... like john or not ... he is not being intellectually honest ... and if you stopped evaluating things based on who you liked ... you might agree ... In that John does not have a system that is as "wide" as mine it is not likely that he would have personal experience with this ... in most cases I agree that John analysis is impeccable, but, unless he is more godlike than I know it is possible that he might be wrong on occasion as well ... Just as an aside, I pointed to part of this history of BOINC in another post... and I notice to this point you have still not answered the question posed. But, like John in my day when I had my health I worked just as hard at what I could and the UBW is still my legacy ... please don't tell me that all those years of 18 hour days and the pain I suffered to get that work done is not sufficient to prove that I have done my share ... I have done far more than most and for hours committed I probably could give most people a run for their money ... or had you forgotten my work? > As a result, I like John. Believe it or not I do as well ... just as I have no reason to dislike you... but ... this is not supposed to be about like and dislike... If I said you , or john did not read something, it is because it seems to me that by the answer or question it is obvious that you or he did not read what I wrote. When I suggested an opt out option and john wails once more about his theoretical system that can only do one task a month, and then notes that he did not see my post about the opt- out ... well, yes, I think I have a right to suggest that he is not reading what I have written ... just as you think you have the right to call me out. > Contrast that to your most recent response to me, which says that > the issue I raised isn't an issue because it isn't an issue. Which game we can play until eternity. I believe that you also did the same to me ... and just like two peoples at war we can point to the past and prove that the other party started it ... > Then, you complain because I'm not treating you kindly. > > You're right, of course, I'm not. I'm trying my best to make you > feel how I feel when you've dismissed my ideas with nothing more > than "mine's better" or "you're wrong." > > Besides, I believe in situational ethics. John is treating you the > way you treat others -- or maybe a tiny bit better. Except that you claim that he can treat me this way because you like him and I cannot respond in kind because you don't like me ... yes ... I can see how fair this is ... Actually I did not complain that you are not treating me well ... I just suggested that you are not following your own rules... _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
