The BOINC message boards are now in boinc.berkeley.edu/ rather than boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/. This means, among other things, that when you select a language, it applies to both front page and message boards.

Also, the front page now presents the option of participating using Science United. Current volunteers should consider doing this. By making it easier for new projects to get volunteers, SU will encourage the creation of new BOINC projects.

---

How long will the old link to the forums continue to be here:
https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_index.php?

More importantly, will there be a permanent redirect so that existing links to previous solutions or to resource threads like FAQs still function? The historical record will be seriously weakened unless reply and quote links can be followed.

I assume there will be a new or updated version of Boinc manager and client because the current versions help dropdown menus point to non-existent urls. Also the same applies to Boinctasks.

Fix one thing, break 100 others.

I feel that this sudden change without seeing the effect, ie broken links was motivated to direct us to SU without input from us. I have been with BOINC since its inception and have no intention to change. If BOINC closes so will I. I see no incentive to crunch for SU without any acknowledgement like credits and just pay for the electricity and somebody just starts a new project on my machines without my knowledge because I stated that I like Medical Science.

Please check your effect of changes like checking the links before you release the change. May I suggest you start a new website for SU instead of trying to force, coerce current old dedicated users of BOINC to change to SU. It is not BOINC and you know it.
I wonder if this SU idea has something to do with money. Is the funding for BOINC finished? Perhaps you are trying to gain new funding by just changing the name and a few fundamental differences and call it a new idea that deserves funding.

I wonder if this SU idea has something to do with money. Is the funding for BOINC finished? Perhaps you are trying to gain new funding by just changing the name and a few fundamental differences and call it a new idea that deserves funding.

Yes, that is indeed the case - at least in part.

It's explained, and discussed, on this message board in the thread NSF funds new model for BOINC. There was a fuller explanation, plus links to the actual NSF funding proposal, behind the 'details' link in the opening post, but unfortunately 'tbd.php' (the working name before Science United was chosen) is another of the files which has gone missing from this website.

You probably also need to refer to New governance model [for BOINC]. The links in the opening post are outdated, but Jord summarises the funding position in the second post. Note the dates: central funding for BOINC ceased in 2015, over three years ago.

Also, the front page now presents the option of participating using Science United. Current volunteers should consider doing this.

No, no, no, they should not! I would quit crunching altogether before I would join SU.

---

I have tried using Science United and I went back to BOINC fairly quickly as I found that I do like to select my own projects and configure BOINC Manager the way I like/ I also use BOINC Tasks to manage multiple Machines and can select different projects based on my parameters that suit that machine.

If BOINC and BOINC Manager were to disappear I personally would no longer participate if Science United were the only option.

---

Proud Founder and member of



Have a look at my WebCam

Having participated (by invitation) as a community representative on the BOINC Working Group last year, I can confirm that I have heard nothing (over many months of weekly conference calls) to suggest that anyone has any intention to discontinue the current BOINC Client / BOINC Manager / attach to project mode of working.

I did mention our current short-term problems with this website during the developer conference call yesterday: if they haven't been resolved by the time of the next scheduled developer call on 20 September, I will be suggesting much more robustly that we may need to consider recruiting a new webmaster.

I will be suggesting much more robustly that we may need to consider recruiting a new webmaster.

+1

Looking briefly at the model, I don't think I will go down the SU route, even though I may be able to stick with CPDN by specifying the area of science I am interested in.

By making it easier for new projects to get volunteers, SU will encourage the creation of new BOINC projects.

I think he is saying that it is a recruitment tool, presumably for those people who don't know much about the projects and what they are interested in.

It is a good idea, but I think he is pitching it to the wrong audience.

SU is going to flop flat on its face. And it should.

Despite the hype on the intro page BOINC has never attained the level of simplicity it claims it has. It works well if you know what you're doing but it's not a "set it and forget it" deal, not even close.

Crunching multiple projects requires carefully choreographing several factors that change on the whims of project admins and BOINC devs. To think new users are going to be impressed when they see their CPU cycles and electricity wasted on tasks that mostly fail, due to some ignorant of the facts central authority signing them up willy-nilly for any new and under-tested project that matches user's project type prefs... well... that's the dumbest thing I've heard so far this year.

But hey, atta boy Dave, fibs for funding works doesn't it, proud of ya, keep that paycheck rollin
<roll-eyes>

<edit>BOINC is on a few malware lists already. This clueless move guarantees it will be on all of them before long.</edit>

<edit>BOINC is on a few malware lists already. This clueless move guarantees it will be on all of them before long.</edit>

I suspect because some fools have allowed bitcoin and the like to worm their way in. Terrible mistake.

SU sounds like a big, fat NO from me.
I'm only in this to choose and manage the projects that interest me. Pure & simple.
I like to manage my own projects. I target badges and team/country/global ranks.

You'll do me and my family a favour by slashing my power bill when I quit if you go down this path of SU.

---

Also, the front page now presents the option of participating using Science United. Current volunteers should consider doing this. By making it easier for new projects to get volunteers, SU will encourage the creation of new BOINC projects.

I'm a bit disappointed to see this advertisement and not at all surprised to see the negative replies, as everyone who followed the discussion about that new model last year could have seen them coming. Of course, the opinions here are biased towards the more enthusiastic volunteers, but even for your average set-and-forget volunteer, switching to SU is not very attractive. The only direct advantage of SU from a volunteer's perspective is that they don't have to identify projects that fit their field of interest, but the current volunteers already have gone through this process. The vague promise that there may be more projects in the future if SU is successful, is likely not going to change anyone's mind; I wouldn't be surprised if a large majority of the current volunteers is very loyal to just one single project and does not particularly care if there are more projects on the BOINC platform.

On the other hand, switching to SU would somehow rip the volunteers out of their existing communities. They can't join their teams anymore, they will lose the opportunity to post in the projects' message boards (even if they use their old accounts for that, they will eventually fall below the RAC threshold some projects are using), they won't have easy access to their personal accomplishments anymore (and I don't just mean credit/points, which are only relevant for some hardcore crunchers; but rather discovered pulsars at Einstein@Home, contribution badges for specific publications at GPUGRID, found primes at PrimeGrid, being Predictor of the Day at Rosetta@home, etc.). To some extent, this will also cause 99.9M of your 100M new volunteers to sooner or later join the army of former volunteers who quit because they can't get things to run properly and can't get help with this, or because "no useful results ever come out of this", or because they simply forget to set it up again after a device change.

---

If we have the guarantee that the volunteers will always be able to choose between the two formulas, it's interesting to give to SU a chance.
Less "specialized volunteers" will join the ranks of the "crunchers" and thus advance the Sciences.
As for the hard core of volunteers who are already on BOINC, they can continue to make their ESSENTIAL contribution by keeping the benefits that pschoefer has listed (credits, badges, teams, forums ...).
It's the Projects and the Sciences that have everything to gain in this story but only by making the TWO formulas (BOINC + SU) coexist PERENNIALLY.
As a team founder, I'm particularly sensitive to the possibility of considering a contribution to Sciences in a shared and community way.
If this possibility no longer exists, it's the Sciences that will be the victim because many active teams exist today and do a very good job to motivate teammates to never stop crunching (websites, forums, challenges...).

---

[CSF] Thomas H.V. Dupont
Founder of CRUNCHERS SANS FRONTIERES
Our motto : "to crunch and to serve"
http://www.crunchersansfrontieres.org

It's the Projects and the Sciences that have everything to gain in this story but only by making the TWO formulas (BOINC + SU) coexist PERENNIALLY.

It is unlikely that they will switch over to SU exclusively. They can usually barely get their projects to work with BOINC as it is.

I think everyone is overrating.

Science United functions as an 'Account Manager' like BAM! or Grid Republic - indeed, you'll see those three names listed together if you follow 'Use account manager...' from the Tools menu in your current BOINC Manager.

If you follow the Science United link on the new front page here (not the big green 'Join' button), you'll see on their home page:

Science United lets you help scientific research projects by giving them computing power. These projects do research in astronomy, physics, biomedicine, mathematics, and environmental science; you can pick the areas you want to support.

You help by installing BOINC, a free program that runs scientific jobs in the background and when you're not using the computer. BOINC is secure and will not affect your normal use of the computer.

Science United is operated by the BOINC project at UC Berkeley. Science United and the research projects it supports are non-profit.

So, you would be running the same BOINC software, with access to exactly the same community resources, as you are running now. The only difference would be that you would choose the area(s) of science that you wish to contribute to, rather than selecting projects by name - and I have to say that I find some of the project names already in use meaningless to the point of distraction.