[RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #225 (LONG reply)

gindrup at okway.okstate.edu gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
Tue Jul 28 18:09:28 EDT 1998

     I don't *think* this got brought back up.  Given how much you were 
     addressing though, I certainly understand.
     Something I do want to say, though, is that *I* work at a research 
     institution (a State University).  None of our hardware ever leaves 
     unless it breaks.  We still have IBM PC/ATs in use as (small) file 
     servers.  Until they "throw a rod" hey aren't going anywhere and so 
     they can provide a low-speed substrate to the D.Net numbers.
     Every one of the machines in my effort has the client.  Unless there 
     is a compelling reason to remove it, they will continue to do so 
     even when they move into my private distributed administration 
     computation farm.  (Okay, I'm *really* a distributed computing 
     geek...)  These machines will *never* go away and they will always 
     be running the client.  I had a largish array of network-less i386's 
     that I was Nike-netting until trying to keep up with the keyspace 
     openings and closings was making their contribution redundant.
     My understanding, from reading the lists, is that there are many 
     individual hobbyists out there who are tryying to have *every* 
     machine in their house cracking keys.  Even that old Timex-Sinclair 
     ZX-80.  People have wanted HP and TI calculator clients as well as 
     Palm Pilot clients.  The participants seem to be willing to keep as 
     much as possible in the effort.
     In this way, the D.Net effort is very "conservative".  Clients join 
     in, but they never seem to leave.
     Further, these individuals tend to be the sort who are always 
     upgrading this part or that part of their machines so that there is 
     a long inheritance graph of "old" hardware in their houses from 
     which to make "Frankenstein computers" as one of my (participant) 
     friends describes it.
     I have no reason to believe that *any* i386 or better hardware is 
     ever thrown away by anyone -- or at least any of the D.Net 
     Further, these are the people whose machines most smoothly follow 
     Moore's Law because they are always upgrading this little piece or 
     that little piece.  Their primary computers never lag too far 
     behind.  All of their secondary computers have the same property as 
     they march forward through the replaced hardware pile...
            -- Eric Gindrup ! gindrup at okway.okstate.edu

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #225 (LONG reply) 
Author:  <rc5 at lists.distributed.net> at SMTP
Date:    7/28/98 3:26 PM

Wow! I'm really glad that I've started up this discussion (so much more 
interesting than the wonky K5 vs. PII stuff), and I'd hate to see it stop 
here, even though no one has yet to support me :) -- really, you all make 
some good points, quite a few, and I don't want you to feel like I'm a pain 
in the ass, but in the interest of playing Devil's advocate, I'm going to 
try to reply to as much of the digest as possible, quoting as efficiently as 
I can. Here goes.
At 11:44 AM -0500 on 7/28/98, rc5-digest wrote:
> From: gindrup at okway.okstate.edu
> Subject: Re: [RC5] [RC5-Mac] the DEATH of d.net?
>      So, has there been a benefit from maintaining this presence on the 
>      clients?  Yes.  D.Net is vastly outperforming Moore's Law.  You
>      state a version of this law, but don't do the obvious comparison. 
This is true. I'd like to come back to this later, though.
     [mega snip]
-Greg Delisle
Indiana University Press Journals

To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

More information about the rc5 mailing list