[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.
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