In article <97BOc.7283$N77.377316@news.xtra.co.nz>,
~misfit~ <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> 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,
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.