I am not sure which design goal has gotten lost, if any. I do agree that there are a few that move with the tides and will direct their computing effort to projects that "pay" the most regardless of the science to be done (if any). But those people are the minority.
If you look at the participant distribution, a topic here and elsewhere in the forum space we have discussed the total number of people that have signed up, the total that stay doing work and how many projects they attach to with their computers. Most participants sign up for 5 or fewer projects. when you look at the numbers above 50 projects you are down to 3,000 some people. Bottom line, the "hogs" are a miniscule portion of the universe. As others have said though, why should any of us care what motivates someone to do work using BOINC? I mean, I too find is discouraging that so many so SaH work as their only function in life because of the low utility of the project. Yes it needs to be done, but there are far more worthy projects out there ... yet, as others have said, it is not my function to force participation in other projects. To take someone's foot off my toes I will counter that maybe CPDN cannot make an accurate weather model yet, but how can we learn how to do that without starting with the models we can make and progressing from there? Anyway, I *DO* know how you feel because I too had to take a sabbatical once ... take a break ... and come back when the time is right ... for you ... On Jan 14, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Jorden van der Elst wrote: > And although I know that my initial post on this was focused around > the credit shambles, I also tried to point out that the design goal of > the BOINC program goes lost. Luckily you all missed that or didn't > want to react to it. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
