Please move distributed computing discussions to comp.distributed

Kirk Pearson wrote:
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:
John Donson wrote:
Kirk Pearson wrote:
As a friendly suggestion, please move discussions about
distributed computing projects and clients (and the BOINC aspects
of BOINC-based SETI@home) to the comp.distributed newsgroup.
You'll make the comp.distributed people happy by giving their
newsgroup more (and appropriate) traffic, and you'll make the
SETI purists here happy by not mentioning the word "BOINC" :-)
Thanks!


Oh? Are there many SETI-purists who object to BOINC?

If there are they're a dying breed. Or will be soon.

Kirk, stupid request mate. SETI is moving to BOINC, therefore
BOINC-based SETI@home is on-topic for these newsgroups buddy. You
want these NGs to die in a few months when SETI classic is turned
off?

Evolve or die.
--
~misfit~

G'day misfit,

Hi Kirk.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not a SETI purist. I am a
distributed computing zealot, as anyone who's visited my website in
the past 5 years can attest. BOINC is an important part of the
SETI@home project, and is making great contributions to the overall
SETI project. But, the two Usenet newsgroups created for seti were
created for discussing the science of SETI and not for discussing the
distributed computing client applications used
for SETI@home.

Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what happened
17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The original charter,
which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm not hunting for again,
said that the group was for the dicussion of all things SETI, including S@H.
It did mention that, if it was warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home
would be created for S@H in particular. Looks about I don't see that group
so I'm still using this group as per it's original charter.

You, and others who have not been here since these
newsgroups were created, need to remember that SETI@home is not all
of SETI--it is only a part of it.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not telling
you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very first post to
this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the condescending attitiude, I'm fully
aware that there is more to SETI than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard
the term SETI in the early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must
have read three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for some
global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a university
project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of SETI@home,
Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to further the study
of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical and user aspects of
SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed computing projects, to
comp.distributed, where they are more appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly planned.
You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you were here from
the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you posting here before
2000) I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is
off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC in and of itself, I'm interested
in SETI.

The SETI
newsgroups will not die, as you suggest. They will contain
conversations more in line with the original goals for the SETI
newsgroups, conversations in which the "SETI purists" to which I
referred previously, are more interested.

As I said, you seem to have an inaccurate grasp of the 'original goals' of
at least one of these newsgroups. I don't know about the charter for sas (I
don't post there per-se, my posts only appear there if I reply to a
cross-posted message) but maybe you can make that a group for the "SETI
purists" and leave ass to it's original charter. Surely the "SETI purists"
don't need two groups, it would be far easier for them to stick to just one.
Wanting two groups is just plain greedy. Anyway, my ISP doesn't carry the
"comp.distributed newsgroup" so I'm not going anywhere.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what is, and
what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick to the NG sas.
But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would you presume to be
speaking on their behalf then?

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Have a nice day.
--
~misfit~

Kirk Pearson wrote:
In article ,
ytrewq wrote:
Huh?
It seems to me that BOINC belongs here for the time being (for those
who choose to post here, of course).
Many Seti participants still running "stand alone" Seti (includes
me) read BOINC posts here.

BUT, nice try at a bit of self-promotion, Kirk!

Constrew it however you like, ytrewq, my main goal is to move
distributed computing software discussions to comp.distributed (which
I do not own), where they belong, and leave the SETI newsgroups for
the discussion of the science of SETI. Discussions of the science of
the BOINC SETI client (like whether it finds Gaussians accurately or
whether it should look for triplets) belog in the SETI newsgroups.
Discussions of when the BOINC client can't connect to the SETI@home
project server or how hot it makes some users' CPUs belong in the
comp.distributed newsgroup.

Your opinion and you're entitled to it. I have opinions too.
--
~misfit~ (BTW, it's "construe")

Kirk Pearson wrote:
In article ,
ytrewq wrote:
Huh?
It seems to me that BOINC belongs here for the time being (for those
who choose to post here, of course).
Many Seti participants still running "stand alone" Seti (includes
me) read BOINC posts here.

BUT, nice try at a bit of self-promotion, Kirk!

Constrew it however you like, ytrewq, my main goal is to move
distributed computing software discussions to comp.distributed (which
I do not own), where they belong, and leave the SETI newsgroups for
the discussion of the science of SETI. Discussions of the science of
the BOINC SETI client (like whether it finds Gaussians accurately or
whether it should look for triplets) belog in the SETI newsgroups.
Discussions of when the BOINC client can't connect to the SETI@home
project server or how hot it makes some users' CPUs belong in the
comp.distributed newsgroup.

Your opinion and you're entitled to it. I have opinions too.
--
~misfit~ (BTW, it's "construe")

In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:

Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what happened
17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The original charter,
which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm not hunting for again,
said that the group was for the dicussion of all things SETI, including S@H.
It did mention that, if it was warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home
would be created for S@H in particular. Looks about I don't see that group
so I'm still using this group as per it's original charter.

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power consumption and
human bikkie consumption relate to the group's original charter.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not telling
you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very first post to
this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the condescending attitiude, I'm fully
aware that there is more to SETI than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard
the term SETI in the early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must
have read three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for some
global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a university
project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of SETI@home,
Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to further the study
of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical and user aspects of
SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed computing projects, to
comp.distributed, where they are more appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly planned.
You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you were here from
the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you posting here before
2000) I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is
off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC in and of itself, I'm interested
in SETI.

Who is condescending now? I have been a Usenet reader and poster since 1988
(and yes, you will find postings from me in other newsgroups from back then).
"I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is off-topic
for me" is pretty much what many early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when
they were forced to wade through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic
discussions which didn't interest them. I find it interesting that you claim
to be interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've read),
yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications which will do
so much to advance science in the coming decades.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what is, and
what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick to the NG sas.
But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would you presume to be
speaking on their behalf then?

Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only to
be ignored by people like you.

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed computing
theorist who also has an interest in applications of distributed computing
like SETI@home.

Have a nice day.

You too, diddums. Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests. And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings. I'm sorry you don't have
anything more useful to do with your time.

--
Kirk Pearson, editor of Internet-based Distributed Computing Projects
http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed/
Time sneaks up on you like a windshield on a bug. -- John Lithgow

In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:

Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what happened
17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The original charter,
which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm not hunting for again,
said that the group was for the dicussion of all things SETI, including S@H.
It did mention that, if it was warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home
would be created for S@H in particular. Looks about I don't see that group
so I'm still using this group as per it's original charter.

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power consumption and
human bikkie consumption relate to the group's original charter.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not telling
you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very first post to
this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the condescending attitiude, I'm fully
aware that there is more to SETI than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard
the term SETI in the early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must
have read three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for some
global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a university
project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of SETI@home,
Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to further the study
of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical and user aspects of
SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed computing projects, to
comp.distributed, where they are more appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly planned.
You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you were here from
the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you posting here before
2000) I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is
off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC in and of itself, I'm interested
in SETI.

Who is condescending now? I have been a Usenet reader and poster since 1988
(and yes, you will find postings from me in other newsgroups from back then).
"I don't want to go to a group where over 50% of the discussion is off-topic
for me" is pretty much what many early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when
they were forced to wade through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic
discussions which didn't interest them. I find it interesting that you claim
to be interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've read),
yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications which will do
so much to advance science in the coming decades.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what is, and
what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick to the NG sas.
But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would you presume to be
speaking on their behalf then?

Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only to
be ignored by people like you.

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed computing
theorist who also has an interest in applications of distributed computing
like SETI@home.

Have a nice day.

You too, diddums. Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests. And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings. I'm sorry you don't have
anything more useful to do with your time.

--
Kirk Pearson, editor of Internet-based Distributed Computing Projects
http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed/
Time sneaks up on you like a windshield on a bug. -- John Lithgow

Kirk Pearson wrote:
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:

Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what
happened 17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The
original charter, which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm
not hunting for again, said that the group was for the dicussion of
all things SETI, including S@H. It did mention that, if it was
warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home would be created for
S@H in particular. Looks about I don't see that group so I'm still
using this group as per it's original charter.

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power
consumption and human bikkie consumption relate to the group's
original charter.

Then you are blind. The 'bikkie' comment was just a friendly comment amongst
friends discussing PC power consumption/real cost of SETI@Home
participation. That is on-topic. The thread wasn't about bikkies.

You really are reaching now. This very thread, started by you, is in fact
off-topic according to the charter. That's the whole thread, not just a
throw-away comment made in one post.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not
telling you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very
first post to this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the
condescending attitiude, I'm fully aware that there is more to SETI
than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard the term SETI in the
early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must have read
three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for
some global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a
university project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of
SETI@home, Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to
further the study of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical
and user aspects of SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed
computing projects, to comp.distributed, where they are more
appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly
planned. You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you
were here from the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you
posting here before 2000) I don't want to go to a group where over
50% of the discussion is off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC
in and of itself, I'm interested in SETI.

Who is condescending now? I have been a Usenet reader and poster
since 1988 (and yes, you will find postings from me in other
newsgroups from back then). "I don't want to go to a group where over
50% of the discussion is off-topic for me" is pretty much what many
early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when they were forced to wade
through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic discussions which
didn't interest them.

Then maybe they should have created their own group for discussion rather
than rely on one that came into being primarilly as a discussion forum for
S@H. Also, you'd think that they'd realise that they don't need to read
every post. These "endless, voluminous" discussions about SETI@home that
don't interest these people whom you presume to speak for, obviously
interest the people who are involved in posting and reading them. Are their
needs any less valid? If you cut them, do they not bleed?

I find it interesting that you claim to be
interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've
read), yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications
which will do so much to advance science in the coming decades.

I'm not interested in lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
Climate prediction may be worth looking at at some stage.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what
is, and what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick
to the NG sas. But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would
you presume to be speaking on their behalf then?

Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only
to
be ignored by people like you.

Woohoo! A newsgroup champion!

As you may have realised by now, your above statement is invalid, an
oxymoron in fact. I'm not ignoring you am I? And exactly who are "people
like me"? Have you pigeon-holed me? Are you a bigot or an elitist?

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed
computing theorist who also has an interest in applications of
distributed computing like SETI@home.

Thank you. I do care. Why else would I ask? How can you say "not that you
care"? Are you trying to start a 'flamefest'?

Have a nice day.

You too, diddums. Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests.

A 'flamefest' requires at least two people. By refering to my passing
reference to bikkies in a derogatory way twice in this post of yours it
shows me that you are quite interested in 'flamefests' yourself.

And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings. I'm sorry you
don't have anything more useful to do with your time.

Good point, I'm starting to realise that talking to you *is* a waste of my
time.
--
~misfit~

Kirk Pearson wrote:
In article ,
~misfit~ wrote:

Wrong Kirk. alt.sci.seti was created on 1st June 1999. Guess what
happened 17 days before that? That's right, S@H went 'live'. The
original charter, which I had the URL to in a post to Raj, that I'm
not hunting for again, said that the group was for the dicussion of
all things SETI, including S@H. It did mention that, if it was
warranted, a new group, alt.sci.seti.at-home would be created for
S@H in particular. Looks about I don't see that group so I'm still
using this group as per it's original charter.

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power
consumption and human bikkie consumption relate to the group's
original charter.

Then you are blind. The 'bikkie' comment was just a friendly comment amongst
friends discussing PC power consumption/real cost of SETI@Home
participation. That is on-topic. The thread wasn't about bikkies.

You really are reaching now. This very thread, started by you, is in fact
off-topic according to the charter. That's the whole thread, not just a
throw-away comment made in one post.

If you have been here since this newsgroup was created then I'm not
telling you anything new in the above. The charter was also the very
first post to this newsgroup. (ass). And thanks for the
condescending attitiude, I'm fully aware that there is more to SETI
than the Berkeley initiative. I first heard the term SETI in the
early '70's and have been interested ever since. I must have read
three sci-fi books a week for a decade, in the "golden days" of
sci-fi. I'm not interested in using my PC to study medications for
some global phamacuetical company (working though sponsership of a
university project for 'legitimacy').

To "evolve or die," as you
suggest, we should leave the SETI newsgroups for discussion of the
science of SETI overall, and for the scientific aspects of
SETI@home, Optical SETI, and any other projects which arise to
further the study of SETI, and move the discussion of the technical
and user aspects of SETI@home and BOINC, and all other distributed
computing projects, to comp.distributed, where they are more
appropriate.

No, the group alt.sci.seti.at-home should be created as originlly
planned. You remember that post of course, in June of '99, since you
were here from the beggining. (Although Google has no record of you
posting here before 2000) I don't want to go to a group where over
50% of the discussion is off-topic for me. I'm not interested in DC
in and of itself, I'm interested in SETI.

Who is condescending now? I have been a Usenet reader and poster
since 1988 (and yes, you will find postings from me in other
newsgroups from back then). "I don't want to go to a group where over
50% of the discussion is off-topic for me" is pretty much what many
early posters in s.a.s and a.s.s said when they were forced to wade
through endless, voluminous SETI@home classic discussions which
didn't interest them.

Then maybe they should have created their own group for discussion rather
than rely on one that came into being primarilly as a discussion forum for
S@H. Also, you'd think that they'd realise that they don't need to read
every post. These "endless, voluminous" discussions about SETI@home that
don't interest these people whom you presume to speak for, obviously
interest the people who are involved in posting and reading them. Are their
needs any less valid? If you cut them, do they not bleed?

I find it interesting that you claim to be
interested in science (after all of that science fiction you've
read), yet you have no interest in distributed computing applications
which will do so much to advance science in the coming decades.

I'm not interested in lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.
Climate prediction may be worth looking at at some stage.

To answer John's reply: most SETI purists probably appreciate BOINC,
since it is doing so much to further the study of SETI, but they DO
object to the discussion of technical and user aspects of BOINC in
the SETI newsgroups, as you will see in many past posts.

Aww, diddums. The 'alt' series of NG's are a lot more lax in what
is, and what isn't OT in them. I suggest you and your puritans stick
to the NG sas. But then you say you're not a purist. Hmmm, why would
you presume to be speaking on their behalf then?

Because they have gotten tired of speaking on their own behalf, only
to
be ignored by people like you.

Woohoo! A newsgroup champion!

As you may have realised by now, your above statement is invalid, an
oxymoron in fact. I'm not ignoring you am I? And exactly who are "people
like me"? Have you pigeon-holed me? Are you a bigot or an elitist?

Who created the comp.distributed newsgroup anyway?

Not that you care, but it was created by David DiNucci, a distributed
computing theorist who also has an interest in applications of
distributed computing like SETI@home.

Thank you. I do care. Why else would I ask? How can you say "not that you
care"? Are you trying to start a 'flamefest'?

Have a nice day.

You too, diddums. Enjoy your bikkies and your flamefests.

A 'flamefest' requires at least two people. By refering to my passing
reference to bikkies in a derogatory way twice in this post of yours it
shows me that you are quite interested in 'flamefests' yourself.

And your
corrections of others' unintentional misspellings. I'm sorry you
don't have anything more useful to do with your time.

Good point, I'm starting to realise that talking to you *is* a waste of my
time.
--
~misfit~

Kirk Pearson wrote:

I have been a Usenet reader and poster since 1988

Been trolling for that long too?

--
Apollo

Kirk Pearson wrote:

I have been a Usenet reader and poster since 1988

Been trolling for that long too?

--
Apollo

Kirk Pearson wrote:
~misfit~ wrote:
[...]

Fair enough, although I don't see how discussions of PC power consumption and
human bikkie consumption relate to the group's original charter.
[...]

Kirk,

The above were valid and very human comments for on this group.

So why isn't c.distributed more popular? Or have you scared people away??


For myself, I consider DC to be a very interesting idea and the projects
supported have added interest in themselves also.

http://www.aspenleaf.com/distributed...-projects.html is a valuable
and well maintained resource, thanks.

Perhaps take note that usenet groups /evolve/ with the users they support.

Regards,
Martin


--
---------- OS? What's that?!
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandrake 10.0.1 GNU Linux
---------- http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en-gb/concept.php3