[RC5] Screen Saver

rjcorr rjcorr at ozemail.com.au
Sat Dec 4 22:02:22 EST 1999


This is my first (and probably only posting to this group...though I've been
d-net'ing for over 12-18 months)...but I must admit some dismay when, at the
behest of the server, I updated my d-net system to the latest '98 program
about 1 week ago

I agree with the content below.  I'm more than  happy to to let my computers
run d-net in the background doing what ever the server feels is constructive
to the cause.  The quality of the programming (until this latest version)
was good and not running d-net or similar was basically a waste of cycles
which even if we (my net work) can't directly gain a benefit, at least some
one else can....

The current version is harder to network configure (if its too hard I for
one won't bother...sorry I just haven't the time) and it tends to hang (we
use a lot of Norton stuff on our system) on a regular basis

This latest version...yeesh!.... (sorry to the developers)...I've got 3 x
P!! 233's networked through to a P100 server linked through to the internet.
until this last version I've been able to convince my owner that 'yeah its
worth the effort' but now...I admit bells and whistles detract from pure
productivity...but I've got nothing to argue with and little to prduce to
justify costs etc (yes I know all the arguments about the costs or turning
systems on/off etc) and whilst the argument of helping d-net and similar is
strong...without a little bit of eye candy...its just that littlle bit
harder (which may result in a total loss of contribution)

In the short...can anyone advise how/where to find the previous program
which displayed log/stats etc?

Warmest Regards to all

rjcorr at ozemail.com.au

SETI is pretty but
----- Original Message -----
From: Zypher <zypher at jknust.com>
To: <rc5 at lists.distributed.net>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: [RC5] Screen Saver

> I rather like the fancy stuff *as an option*.
> There are some people....no...MANY people (ask SETI) who _will not run a
> client_ unless it has fancy pantsy crap in it.
> I for one could care less about fluff, but it would be foolish to not take
> advantage of every last cpu cycle we can get. If it reduces their client
> performance by 10%, ___we will still get the other 90%___ which in all
> likelyhood we never would have seen if 'client only - screw the fluff'.
> You could argue that enough current 'non-fluffers' would change to 'fluff
> mode' and our overall keyrate would suffer. I bet ***every last one of my
> RC5 and CSC blocks done*** that this would not be the case. The flood of
> 'commoners' would easily wipe away any speed reduction.
> ---inflamatory sarcasm follows---
> I mean, if we have no fancy option, lets get rid of stats then. Those are
> wasted cpu cyles that could be used. In fact, why bother with client
> configuration? The time they waste to type in their own email could be
> to do a million keys!!! (prob true even though I took it off the top of my
> head) Heck lets give it top priority while we're at it, like they really
> need to play that game or type an email that fast anyway. Hell lets filter
> out blocks from overclocked cpus, since they aren't 'pure enough'.
> ---end sarcasm---
> I think this is very important to dnet and its future.
> We are shutting out a potentially huge segment of the world here. If
> will by imacs (hey, I airbrushed my case car-metal blue & black, but its
> made of steel instead of plastic :) because they look 'cute'...then they
> will run a 'cute' dnetc.exe likewise. Most people do not buy a Ferrari
> because its the 'fastest car' (which is, BTW, a modified McLaren [sp?] F1
> @240mph ~$1M street legal, if you discount those with rockets or jet
> strapped on ;) but because it looks damn nice, is fast enough and a very
> status symbol. Someone with the right 'cheap car' could soup it up enough
> beat the ferrari for a lot less money. Theres an entire lifestyle based on
> that, e.g. musclecars :)
> The easiest way to do this is to have a 'base client' that can accept
> party plugins, much like photoshop and winamp. Dnet could have links of
> 'checked' plugins that are safe adn functional, and I'm sure if they
> a page and told everyone, they would have 100 submissions by the next day.
> For those of us running linux, a web server or busy fragging online, we
> don't care. But we are the dedicated, the chosen few. The unwashed masses'
> cpu cycles are just as good as ours though.
> /heres to the fall of CSC and RC5
> -------------------------------------------------
> rc5 at planetfortress.com
> Halflife/TF RC5
> www.planetfortress.com/rc5
> Waiting sucks
> http://services.bellsouth.net/external/adsl/
> http://services.bellsouth.net/external/adsl/map_rlgh.html
> -------------------------------------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
> rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest

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