I can't accept that statement to be your legitimate reason for dictating to the users what they can or can not crunch. Surely, if the project is happy with 99.9 percent of users submission (as stated by the Admin of gridcomputingcenter two days ago) why do you wish to tell the users not to crunch their projects with all their resources and just limit your input to just one client, one host, otherwise they will not get hours recognition for them. Surely you are blackbanning the project by placing restrictions on their use. As regards your restriction to run one client per host. BOINC Client/Manager allows multiple BOINC Clients to run concurrently. This is to utilize 100% of the CPU. All projects accept this accept you. I will not run my machines capacity at some ..% when I can set it to run a number of Wu's at 100% thereby helping the project. May I suggest that if this is not satisfactory to you than you should take it up with the BOINC Management Team and perhaps restrict all users input to just a single CPU. Backward thinking if I ever saw one. You will do us a favor not to waste our money on better and better equipment and it will also reduce the cost of electricity and waste of time`.

I had enough of this and am exercising my right to cancel my membership on WuProp. I will not accept an Admin dictating to me what I can or can not run on another project. I am offended by your insinuation that I am a cheater by running Multiple Clients which is a legal option under BOINC Manager. Your system is full of bugs and instead of attempting to fix it you blame it on your users and calling them cheats. Please tell me what I need to do to ensure that WUProp badges are removed from my signature.

---

I'm ok with attempting to block multiple clients on one PC, I've always thought that was a little off base.

And I'm guilty of still running radioactive@home on a couple of machines that, though they are attached to sensors those sensors have long stopped working.

I do think running machines with only NCI apps on is ok though. I'm currently not running any CPU apps on any of my active machines. Too hot here in NC and I don't currently have any goals I wish to meet after hitting my 10year badge in all of the WCG projects still running.

I do however say that Sebastien has the right to run his project the way he sees fit.

I would hate to see wuprop go away, it's the only thing that keeps my still interested in BOINC and the stats but it's up to Sebastien and I would understand after reading some of these comments. I've had to put up with much of this myself at Free-DC over the past 10 years. I basically just ignore it now.

My 2cents

Bok

---

It would be better if WUProp continued and it would be better if some of us toned it down a bit and showed Seb a bit more respect for running this project - Thanks (Seb)!
Some of the views expressed here are too personal, too absolutists. If you want to HYS and be listened too, be a bit more relaxed about it. If the admins skin grows too thick you can be assured the ears are closed too.

Although it's a DIY stats & badges project, that IMO should have been facilitated by Boinc central, it wasn't, so WUProp is much needed and wanted.
Even if you don't care for badges, it links & promotes other/new projects while keeping many of us interested - FUNdimentally it's a good thing.

Was a bit disappointed when some other projects ended, especially at the flack the admins came in for, but the projects had probably run their course; this project hasn't.

Some of Bok's views are similar but a bit different to my views, if anyone is interested:

I'm ok with attempting to block multiple clients on one PC, I've always thought that was a little off base.

Similar views on this. Would have been better if this happened immediately, if at all, but time is a big constraint for any project, especially a one man show without even mod support.

And I'm guilty of still running radioactive@home on a couple of machines that, though they are attached to sensors those sensors have long stopped working.

At least you got yours to work, for a while. We shouldn't be attacking this (WUProp) project or the crunchers for the way another project is run. While moving the goal posts during/after a game, tends to change the result and lose fans (better to nip it at the bud if possible) the more Boinc becomes flexible to facilitate other projects the more it lends itself to abuse/misuse. I don't think Seb @WUProp should be expected to continuously keep fixing/adapting to new projects and Boinc updates at a personal cost of $100/month while constantly being yapped at.

I do think running machines with only NCI apps on is ok though. I'm currently not running any CPU apps on any of my active machines. Too hot here in NC and I don't currently have any goals I wish to meet after hitting my 10year badge in all of the WCG projects still running.

I do however say that Sebastien has the right to run his project the way he sees fit.

I'm not sure NCI only projects should count, especially just to facilitate GCC, Radioactivity and lots of QCN projects, but I don't really care either way, as long as Seb fixes on a position & expresses it we are all on the same tour. When BCU was around it made a bit more sense to allow 'NCI' tasks as it mostly ran on ASICS but WRT the CPU it was NCI.

I would hate to see wuprop go away, it's the only thing that keeps my still interested in BOINC and the stats but it's up to Sebastien and I would understand after reading some of these comments. I've had to put up with much of this myself at Free-DC over the past 10 years. I basically just ignore it now.

Crunchers tend to become disillusioned & eventually scunnered with projects & Boinc itself. A much needed Boinc revamp should eventually materialize as funding has bee granted. Maybe they can improve the 'user experience'?...

When it comes to the hours it should be CPU-hour, or more accurately "CPU running in 100%"-hour because CPU that runs only in 50% of the time would only receive 50% of the hours. NCI does not qualify for hours in this sense because they only use a tiny fraction of CPU. You said you filled your CPU with NCI tasks then fine - hours should be counted on the amount of cores you have - because this is the CPU-hours that you have contributed, but not the number of clients that you made. For the sake of adding NCI stats into the list, having hours counted per device per application is fine, but not anything more than that.

In short words I am not a fan of multiple clients just to run NCI, and I do not think the way wuprop counts the NCI hours to be fair. Also pretty much what Bok and skgiven said.

This is only what I think and could be different from the wuprop admin. And of course differs from the GCC admin. But this is not a problem because admins are meant to define how a project work and are responsible for the consequences. If crunchers do not like how the project goes they may very well switch to something else.

Now I see the admin has subtracted thousands of hours from my NCI apps. This is going too far.

Guys, for those of you that defended Seb, I have no issues with. However I wish to defend my integrity for I am not a cheat. I say again, using options available in BOINC Manager I am legally entitled to use the option of Multiple Clients. It is available to all equally. GCC accepts this as well. For an Admin of another project to threaten users using it and calling it cheating is not acceptable to me. Furthermore, GCC in its forms have been running for months and a lot users have already achieved large credits. To move the Goalpost in the middle of the game is unfair to those who wish to challenge those top users and by using a single client for a host it is now impossible to achieve.

Sebastien has every right to run his system any way he wishes it, but he has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do on another project undermining their goals.

I have paid thousands of Dollars for my equipment and $800.00 a months for electricity. I will not accept that I am a cheater or even a user who abused the system by using legally available options. I am hurt and therefor I exercised my right and detached from his project. I am even considering giving up BOINC altogether for this kind of unfair chops and changes by Admins is certainly not conducive to good management of BOINC overall.

---

I am not happy with recent changes too. Cheating is not good, but there are also some legitimate reasons to run multiple copies of BIONC on one machine, I read about them few times. These new rules close most obvious and easiest way to cheat here. This may stop some people who are not very tech-savvy. More experienced people who want to keep cheating will simply start using things like virtualization, and you won't be able to do much with it. In my opinion all this will do more harm than good. This has already started - people above declared that they are leaving WUProp, and some even consider leaving BOINC completely.

---

I am not happy with recent changes too. Cheating is not good, but there are also some legitimate reasons to run multiple copies of BIONC on one machine, I read about them few times. These new rules close most obvious and easiest way to cheat here. This may stop some people who are not very tech-savvy. More experienced people who want to keep cheating will simply start using things like virtualization, and you won't be able to do much with it. In my opinion all this will do more harm than good. This has already started - people above declared that they are leaving WUProp, and some even consider leaving BOINC completely.

Exactly, plenty of reasons to use multiple clients:
-Some mt apps do use 4+ threads VERY poorly. A 2nd client keeps CPUs in use.
-Bunkering
-Finer control of # of tasks and projects.
-Mixed GPUs can't always run the same app. A separate client is an easy fix.

Since I started BOINC, there hasn't been any QCN or radioactive devices to even return data. For many, many months QCN has not validated legit work. My tablets should work but they don't validate.

This started out anti-GCC yet it's completely encouraged by Goofy.

Sebastien has every right to run his system any way he wishes it, but he has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do on another project undermining their goals.

Pete, this is a direct contradiction within the same sentence. Seb is not dictating what you can or cannot do on another project at all, just using his right to not record those efforts on HIS project, which you are agreeing he has the right to do.

I removed the rule, but I added a new rule: if the number of multiple instances running on a host exceeds number of cores, host and multiple instances will be banished from WUProp.

Sebastien has every right to run his system any way he wishes it, but he has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do on another project undermining their goals.

Pete, this is a direct contradiction within the same sentence. Seb is not dictating what you can or cannot do on another project at all, just using his right to not record those efforts on HIS project, which you are agreeing he has the right to do.

You should read the next post cause he is doing exactly that.

I removed the rule, but I added a new rule: if the number of multiple instances running on a host exceeds number of cores, host and multiple instances will be banished from WUProp.

You seem to have made it impossible to run the -at this moment five- various active QCN projects on a single-core Raspberry Pi B+, even though it is perfectly capable of doing so. All my WuProp WUs for that Pi come back as invalid at the moment.

---

You should read the next post cause he is doing exactly that.

Doing exactly what? Dictating? If that is what you mean then you misunderstand the meaning of the word..

Nothing is stopping Pete from continuing what he is doing with multiple clients, the efforts for running >N NCI apps from one app on a single host where N=#cores will just not be recorded for hours.

I applaud Seb for working on this and listening to reasonable arguments to refine it. His latest change sounds like it should accommodate the legitimate reasons for running multiple clients.

No one should need to listen to demands or threats though unless they are being paid to do so and that is not the case here.

I removed the rule, but I added a new rule: if the number of multiple instances running on a host exceeds number of cores, host and multiple instances will be banished from WUProp.

You seem to have made it impossible to run the -at this moment five- various active QCN projects on a single-core Raspberry Pi B+, even though it is perfectly capable of doing so. All my WuProp WUs for that Pi come back as invalid at the moment.

Dirk,

I believe the latest rule change will now allow this again, though I may be mistaken, let's wait until the next wu's get uploaded.

You should read the next post cause he is doing exactly that.

Doing exactly what? Dictating? If that is what you mean then you misunderstand the meaning of the word..

Nothing is stopping Pete from continuing what he is doing with multiple clients, the efforts for running >N NCI apps from one app on a single host where N=#cores will just not be recorded for hours.

I applaud Seb for working on this and listening to reasonable arguments to refine it. His latest change sounds like it should accommodate the legitimate reasons for running multiple clients.

No one should need to listen to demands or threats though unless they are being paid to do so and that is not the case here.

Since QCN is not validating any work the only reason to run the project is for hours. And since that is the only thing running on the Pi it's being thrown away. He is dictating the use of someone else's device.

Its not 'just not be recorded for hours' it's being banned.

QCN Taiwan is still validating and giving out credits

host and multiple instances will be banished from WUProp.

It's even worse than before. What if I want to run one "main" instance with CPU apps and a bunch of GCC-only instances (for credits and their badges), and you are going to ban legit main instance too?

Personally, I'd suggest not to grant stars for NCI-apps at all, like keep them in a separate table in account page, but without stars. If someone just wants to collect huge amount of hours in a separate table, they are welcome ;) But without tricky rules, bans, removing hours and other police actions. So every star will be granted for real work done and electricity spent.

PS: What about possible merge of BU apps? There was 14 campaigns, so each application was taken into account up to 14 times with different names, however in fact, they all the same ;)

host and multiple instances will be banished from WUProp.

It's even worse than before. What if I want to run one "main" instance with CPU apps and a bunch of GCC-only instances (for credits and their badges), and you are going to ban legit main instance too?

If you exceed number of core, don't run WUProp on all GCC-only instances and everything will be OK.

---

Hey guys, let's calm down in here... I totally understand the arguments from "both" sides as we know an experienced user will of course use all Boinc features available and I don't call it cheating, I'd call it utilizing ;)

But as this IS Seb's project and he also needs proper feedback about the returned data to keep the right values for all projects, so he decides how it should be done.

And I actually think the last modification to the rules is quite on spot !!

(there is nothing new about running a heck of nci projects, and we all know it! )

Sebastien has every right to run his system any way he wishes it, but he has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do on another project undermining their goals.

Pete, this is a direct contradiction within the same sentence. Seb is not dictating what you can or cannot do on another project at all, just using his right to not record those efforts on HIS project, which you are agreeing he has the right to do.

Let me clarify my statement by simplifying. I have no objection if Seb tells us that he is not going to give credits/hours worked for any projects in his own project for that is his prerogative weather I like it or not. What I am objecting is his DICTATORIAL attitude and accusation that we are abusing the system and in deed we are cheaters because we were using a perfectly legitimate tool i.e Multiple Clients available to all in BOINC Manager. I can live with the fact that he has moved the goal post during the game in such a way that it is now impossible to challenge any of the players who have accumulated large credits/hours ahead of me. I have no right of accusing them for ABUSING the system or are CHEATERS because they used MUltiple Clients. I maintain that neither has Seb the right to do that and he should apologize for using such hurtful and abusive language without justification and to tell us that unless the cheaters stop in the next two weeks some projects will be stopped. If that is not a DICTATORIAL attitude than my teachers mislead me. Why are innocent people who use these projects are being threatend by closure because in his eyes there are some users cheating. Why don't he just warn those who are PROVED to cheat? It is because because he could not be bothered and has no time to waste on cheaters, it is much easier to punish the innocent.

I hold Sebastien responsible for my demise and demand that he apologize for I have not abused the system and I am not a cheat. I have every right to defend myself for I have used a legitimate tool at my disposal that is available to all therefore it can't be called cheating or abuse.

---