Totally agree ! WuProp is usefull and should keep going on ! Everytime I had to buy computers for scientific computing / research (my job), I look at WuProp results and statistics to evaluate processors (CPU or GPU) on real scientific codes and not only synthetic benchmarks. Thank you a lot for this project !

I'm fed up reading your stupid arguments ! NCI means : "Not Compute Intensive". If you want to use efficiently your hardware to help Science stop touching your p**** and go on intensive projects ! Do you realize HOW STUPID it is to run multiple WuProp on the same computer ? HOW STUPID it is to run earthquake or radioactive work units without the hardware to take measurements ?

If you want high scores, go playing games !

Since a week, there is no more banned hosts.
I will not support the project anymore.

This project has never been a scientific project like all other traditional boinc project, it was never funded by any university or anything like that, no dev team behing, only Seb and his own time (a lot), passion and money. Plus the help for Alliance Francophone members volunteer donations (money for hosting).

This project is a technical project, a wonderful idea and resource *for* the boinc community, ie for people interested in running other boinc scientific projects, to help them choose what’s best for their own crunching need, by knowing the real impact of all the other boinc projects depending on the material used (CPU, GPU, by plateform). WUProp results are the funding purpose and main use of WUProp, when we run WUProp we help ourselves, we don’t help WUProp.

Its purpose is not to give boinc credits, or reward anybody, due to scientific volunteering. However it has been giving credits since the beginning (more than enough considering its goal). Personally I think that WUProp should not grant *any* credit, but because a number of cruncher only install and run boinc because of credits (…), I think Seb thought it was a small incentive to do so, and allow a wider range of machines to feed the database, and make the benefit bigger for the community.

As a secondary purpose, Seb had the great idea of providing specific "star badges" in order to promote little projects not well known, by giving them the same weight than big projects, only based on the *actual* number of *hours* crunching on real cores (being physical or virtual on physical machines) for each sub-project (applications) of each project. Exactly like Formula Boinc but at a sub-project / application level. Particularly useful for those people who just crunch for the credits, another incentive.

I didn’t read all the whining written by a number of people above (only some bits, there is too much), who seem to consider that WUProp (ie Seb) “owe them” <something>, that they have rights to decide what WUProp should do or not, just because they are big crunchers and they provide a lots of results to WUprop (or not) : I don’t need to, they just don’t understand what this project purpose is, how it is maintained (= Seb) and under which conditions (time, and money).

Seb has 200% the right to decide the way WUProp is working, whatever rules he thinks are best for his project, period.

And the fact that he got so fed-up by all the endless whingeing crybabies that he decided to let WUProp down is such an immense and tragic harm to the crunch community, and those people are to blame.

The best thing would be that those people simply detach from WUProp on all their numerous precious machines, virtual, fake, or whatever, and bon voyage. The most efficient thing would be to simply ban them from WUProp, themselves and their precious machines, because the crunch community really doesn’t need people who have such selfish and misplaced self-esteem and make so much counterproductive fuss here.

@[AF>Le_Pommier] Jerome_C2005 : Fully Agree with you !

@[AF>Le_Pommier] Jerome_C2005 : One word : Perfect !

Since there is a rush of AF members posting in a short period I took a look at the team forum. I can personally only speak for myself but I think it applies to all that have posted here on the WUProp forum. I don't believe anyone wishes for Sebastien to leave the WUProp Project or BOINC in general. We wish for him to stay, for WUProp to continue as a valuable BOINC Project and for the data being collected to be of use for all. I have pointed to the data many times on other BOINC project forums for others to use. Most do not even know about it.

I've said it before and some of the people on my own team have agreed on this. WUProp is GREAT for BOINC. Short of projects using paid advertising (not really reasonable) there is absolutely nothing better for BOINC, especially it's smaller projects, than WUProp. There are many projects I would have never heard of if it were not for WUProp. Projects that would not have received as much crunching time if it were not for WUProp. WUProp is absolutely a good thing for BOINC.

When that post about New/Returning apps comes up in the Sticky it's an immediate notification to a lot of users. For new projects there is often a jump in signed up users within a day of that post. Free-DC stats displays a users rank on the day they joined and often there is a spike in WUProp users the day after that post.

Since there is a rush of AF members posting in a short period I took a look at the team forum. I can personally only speak for myself but I think it applies to all that have posted here on the WUProp forum. I don't believe anyone wishes for Sebastien to leave the WUProp Project or BOINC in general. We wish for him to stay, for WUProp to continue as a valuable BOINC Project and for the data being collected to be of use for all. I have pointed to the data many times on other BOINC project forums for others to use. Most do not even know about it.

I've said it before and some of the people on my own team have agreed on this. WUProp is GREAT for BOINC. Short of projects using paid advertising (not really reasonable) there is absolutely nothing better for BOINC, especially it's smaller projects, than WUProp. There are many projects I would have never heard of if it were not for WUProp. Projects that would not have received as much crunching time if it were not for WUProp. WUProp is absolutely a good thing for BOINC.

When that post about New/Returning apps comes up in the Sticky it's an immediate notification to a lot of users. For new projects there is often a jump in signed up users within a day of that post. Free-DC stats displays a users rank on the day they joined and often there is a spike in WUProp users the day after that post.

I am 100% ok with the last posts sustaining Wuprop and Seb philosophy. Wuprop is a great tool and it is a petty that some crunchers do not understand that running multiple instances on some projects can impact the results in a wrong way.
So please everyone, understand that some algorythmes need user's good sense.

Hi mmonnin, thanks for your post.

The reason there is a rush of AF member here and now is because, "unfortunately", we are used to have a "direct access" to Seb through the AF forum, we have a topic for WUProp there and most of us are used to post questions and report issues about WUProp to him there, and we all know that Seb is over busy on many topics and we just wait a few days and boom, the issue is magically fixed (= Seb).

So (most of us) never come here in this forum : you can see this is my 3rd post here, and I’v been (very) active in l'AF since maybe 10 years of more...

So we (most of us) realized only very recently the nature of the problem happening here because Seb would not really complain about it in l’AF forum, and the pity it is that Seb had been "fighting" against this issue mainly alone (appart from other users like you that I can see have been defending him, thanks a lot for that), and especially he announced us a few days ago that he had stoped maintaining WUProp because of this !

So you can easily understand our feeling of urgency here, we are sorry that we didn't speak our voice earlier and we really hope that Seb will find the courage to continue to maintain this wonderful project (among all the other things he has been doing for Boinc and l'AF over the years).

and especially he announced us a few days ago that he had stoped maintaining WUProp because of this !

I think Seb (who is the only person to develop and maintain and support the project since the beginning) has been really affected by the aggressiveness of some users here and the continuous effort he had to produce in order to avoid cheaters to produce fake data into WUProp (just so they can get more stars maybe ? I'm not even sure I understood why there were doing this actually) and after posting some warnings here, he just gave up... which is sad and terrible. Because, you understand it well, nobody will be able to replace him on this project.

At the end we (at l'AF) will accept his choice anyway, we are just really sad about it, and don't loose hope that he may reconsider his decision in the future.

I think Seb (who is the only person to develop and maintain and support the project since the beginning) has been really affected by the aggressiveness of some users here and the continuous effort he had to produce in order to avoid cheaters to produce fake data into WUProp (just so they can get more stars maybe ? I'm not even sure I understood why there were doing this actually) and after posting some warnings here, he just gave up... which is sad and terrible. Because, you understand it well, nobody will be able to replace him on this project.

At the end we (at l'AF) will accept his choice anyway, we are just really sad about it, and don't loose hope that he may reconsider his decision in the future.

I find that the results produced by this project are only a best guess anyways. It does not tell me if someone overclocked their CPU. It does not tell me if they ran multiple work units on each device which can impact its results. Running multiple work units on a video card is no different than running multiple clients for NCI projects. Why? because by your logic they are following those same rules. It doesn't matter if they are cpu intense or not. Every project stresses the system different. They run different. They use different resources. If maximizing my GPU to its fullest is ok by running multiple work units then I should be able to the same on my CPU. Regardless of CPU intensive levels. That isn't cheating. That is utilizing your hardware to its fullest for the sake of the project. Yes it is something point seakers look at. But it is something people who want to maximize their resources look at as well. Who are you to determine that something like that is "cheating". What gives you that right? "Science" was performed and was not "faked". WUProp may not be able to report the way it wants to. But it never has been fully accurate since the beginning. And it never will be unless it can gain all of those individual system difference. Even then, it would be too much data to filter through.
____________

Please tell me what "science" Grid Computing Center/Goofyx is doing?

Trying to find out if a monkey can type "Christmas" (app V2/V4) and how long it will take? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Please!
Even if I'm also running this project for badges, I wouldn't define it as Science.

Please tell me what "science" Grid Computing Center/Goofyx is doing?

Trying to find out if a monkey can type "Christmas" (app V2/V4) and how long it will take? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Please!
Even if I'm also running this project for badges, I wouldn't define it as Science.

Please tell me what "science" Grid Computing Center/Goofyx is doing?

Trying to find out if a monkey can type "Christmas" (app V2/V4) and how long it will take? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Please!
Even if I'm also running this project for badges, I wouldn't define it as Science.

What fake data? The results are typically legit. The work units were ran and unaltered. The data got reported. How is that fake results? What you should be saying is that people weren't running projects the way a very small group of individuals think they should run them and label it as "cheating". Again, that concept is only in the minds of few as the results are no different from anyone else's results. Cheating is when someone doesn't do the work but still claims the credit.

I find that the results produced by this project are only a best guess anyways. It does not tell me if someone overclocked their CPU. It does not tell me if they ran multiple work units on each device which can impact its results. Running multiple work units on a video card is no different than running multiple clients for NCI projects. Why? because by your logic they are following those same rules. It doesn't matter if they are cpu intense or not. Every project stresses the system different. They run different. They use different resources. If maximizing my GPU to its fullest is ok by running multiple work units then I should be able to the same on my CPU. Regardless of CPU intensive levels. That isn't cheating. That is utilizing your hardware to its fullest for the sake of the project. Yes it is something point seakers look at. But it is something people who want to maximize their resources look at as well. Who are you to determine that something like that is "cheating". What gives you that right? "Science" was performed and was not "faked". WUProp may not be able to report the way it wants to. But it never has been fully accurate since the beginning. And it never will be unless it can gain all of those individual system difference. Even then, it would be too much data to filter through.

You (Coleslaw) are trying to defend your views by saying that "anyway WUProp has been crap since the beginning"... really impressive and mature.

I trust Seb 200% as highly technically skilled and experienced and knowing very well from inside how boinc project can be working, to be able to define fair rules about how he wants his own WUProp project to work. And the last part of this sentence is enough anyway. Endless arguing is useless and is precisely what made him fed-up I think...

I find that the results produced by this project are only a best guess anyways. [blablabla] Even then, it would be too much data to filter through.

You (Coleslaw) are trying to defend your views by saying that "anyway WUProp has been crap since the beginning"... really impressive and mature.

I trust Seb 200% as highly technically skilled and experienced and knowing very well from inside how boinc project can be working, to be able to define fair rules about how he wants his own WUProp project to work. And the last part of this sentence is enough anyway. Endless arguing is useless and is precisely what made him fed-up I think...