Difference between the versions isnt massively relevant to Linux Users. I use 7.4.4 and have done since it came out. I launch and run it from a custom method that everyone says is wrong, but it works well for me and gives me slightly better PPD than using the accepted method. i keep to myself for the most part rather than butt heads with people, which ive done in the past.iceman1992 wrote:A few things:Darmain wrote:Its down to experimentation. For example. if you download the latest client then you get version 7.5.1. However if you download the Linux server version you get 7.4.4. So I have manually installed 7.5.1 on the Linux servers. No instruction to do this but I figured it out myself. Now I could have got on here and moaned as to why they don't fix their website. Well, actually I think they are better off trying to fix "Us" with their protein research, which I have absolutely no clue about. I do have a clue about Linux and I can get my machines to their highest performance, with a little help from the community. Some people need to start thinking about "how to fix" rather than "Who to blame".
1. I'm running on linux too, what's the difference between 7.5.1 and 7.4.4? I'm currently running 7.4.4
2. How do I get 7.5.1?
3. Yes I agree, I am also thinking about "how to fix" which is why I would love to help with the dev side of things, to contribute in more ways other than being a compute donor.
On the question of growing the community, I dont think they want to. What they like is a good set of people, who dont complain massively, are willing to take on things that crash occasionally, sometimes you dont get points for things or it all goes wrong, but the science is good and papers get published from time to time. its been like this for the last 20 years. Hasnt changed a great deal since Vijay started it up back then. Management has, but the core way it runs and things get done is much the same as it was long ago. They generate workunits, we process them, send them back, they give us new workunits and the cycle continues. From time to time someone proposes some new expansion like the Playstation Initiative, which runs for a while but eventually whoever sponsored it quits or decides not to continue updating it. GPU seemed to be like that, but it somehow survived, I think because QRB was implemented and it became attractive to folders. But since then a few more white elephants seemed to have surfaced, I honestly dont keep tabs on that side of it. i know what works for me and i continue to do what works for me. As long as that continues to happen i wont bother people. Dont fix whats not broken and if it is broken ask yourself why and then decide whether its worth fixing.
Another thought I had was they could have split the project off. Forked some of it to deal with Covid and left a core set of resources for everyone who really doesnt care about the hype and just wants things to continue like they used to. People whose folding prefernce is for other projects, like the more long term projects. All the people who are into the hype and want to fold covid projects could be running out of a separate fork that caters only for that, has all the sponsored hardware which will disappear the second a cure for covid is found and upon completion of the covid task that side could be shutdown and we could get back to normal. I want stability, thats all im bothered about. Workunits to fold, servers that work and the same like-minded people who have been doing this for a long time.