Please move distributed computing discussions to comp.distributed

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

In article ,
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Kirk Pearson wrote:

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

Martin,

comp.distributed is not more popular because people have not moved their
discussions about distributed computing projects and clients to it. They have
continued them in the SETI newsgroups and in website-based discussion groups.
Which is the reason for my original post: I want people to know the newsgroup
exists and is waiting for them to use it. I posted to the SETI newsgroups
because most distributed computing project participants (in all projects)
use these newsgroups.

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

That's great! Please consider writing about what you like (and don't like)
about these projects at comp.distributed, so that we can get some good
discussions going there, and give the project owners design ideas for the
next generations of their projects and software clients.

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

Thanks for the feedback!

Regards,

Kirk

--
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 ,
Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Kirk Pearson wrote:

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

Martin,

comp.distributed is not more popular because people have not moved their
discussions about distributed computing projects and clients to it. They have
continued them in the SETI newsgroups and in website-based discussion groups.
Which is the reason for my original post: I want people to know the newsgroup
exists and is waiting for them to use it. I posted to the SETI newsgroups
because most distributed computing project participants (in all projects)
use these newsgroups.

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

That's great! Please consider writing about what you like (and don't like)
about these projects at comp.distributed, so that we can get some good
discussions going there, and give the project owners design ideas for the
next generations of their projects and software clients.

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

Thanks for the feedback!

Regards,

Kirk

--
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
:

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

To make the assumption that some of these discussions belong in only one
place or another is just plain wrong.

The seti science issues belong here. All of the other issues in getting
seti to work and problems with that also belong here.

Now, if you want to ask the question should some of the seti topics that
happen to deal with distributed computing should be cross posted to
another group, then the answer is yes. At some point should those
discussions have a follow-up header added? That answer would also be
yes, but only if the discussion drifted to a point where that was the
right thing to do.

Trying to force certain topics that could or do belong here is just
wrong. Trying to cross post so that other experts can get involved is a
good thing.

--
Ed

http://www.geeks.org/~ed/Usenet_Servers.html
strip to reply

(Kirk Pearson) wrote in
:

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

To make the assumption that some of these discussions belong in only one
place or another is just plain wrong.

The seti science issues belong here. All of the other issues in getting
seti to work and problems with that also belong here.

Now, if you want to ask the question should some of the seti topics that
happen to deal with distributed computing should be cross posted to
another group, then the answer is yes. At some point should those
discussions have a follow-up header added? That answer would also be
yes, but only if the discussion drifted to a point where that was the
right thing to do.

Trying to force certain topics that could or do belong here is just
wrong. Trying to cross post so that other experts can get involved is a
good thing.

--
Ed

http://www.geeks.org/~ed/Usenet_Servers.html
strip to reply

(Kirk Pearson) wrote in
:

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

You mean a discussion about how muuch it would cost me to run seti
processing when my computer could be turned off is off-topic here? The
logic of that escapes me.

--
Ed

http://www.geeks.org/~ed/Usenet_Servers.html
strip to reply

(Kirk Pearson) wrote in
:

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

You mean a discussion about how muuch it would cost me to run seti
processing when my computer could be turned off is off-topic here? The
logic of that escapes me.

--
Ed

http://www.geeks.org/~ed/Usenet_Servers.html
strip to reply