Sorry a little OT, did you read the new Tech News? Looks like the new recorder is almost online! New data to crunch, coming in the near future!

Good news...cross your fingers eh?

---

I've been following this topic not only here, but also on some of the other projects.

I hope this event sends the correct signals. It's not only those that are critical of Boinc (like me) that caused Paul's departure, but from reading the various threads, it looks like the projects admins/personal hold a fair amount of blame. I hope this isn't lost in all the "well wishes" for Paul.

In the last few years, Paul and I have disagreed at times and agreed at others, but it's always been a productive exchange.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, the worst people to hang out with are those that either agree with you 100% of the time, or disagree with you 100% of the time. There's no exchange of views.

Paul always brought (and encouraged) exchange of views.

---

Paul

I am still in shock. I have attempted two times to write something meaningful. On both attempts found that I could make this really long as I recall you being "First on the Scene" and Providing Help! You have not only touched my Life, but Improved the lives of Others! There is no Higher Gift that can be Received than that!

One of those occasions was a migrating user that ran into the 4.45 LTD Bug (which still exists). It was a two week long experience that I never want to happen again. You were very "supporting" both Publicly and Privately, others were less so... For that Time, Effort and Patience I can only say Thank You


My Very Best Wishes

Al

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Ever since the first day I spent learning about BOINC, and more so as I ramped up my participation I knew I could depend on "that Paul guy" to post something that would send me in the right direction. Soon I learned that he was worthy of being referred to by his full name, and how many people in this community can you say that about?

I did not agree 100% with everything Paul D. Buck ever posted but, I always knew his intentions were true. I have had varying levels of patience with the way different projects have been run & managed but somehow have always found a certain level of participation that I can be comfortable with.

Paul, I realize that your choice at this time it what makes the most sense to you. I respect that. But please; consider the projects that have not left the ground, too. They will be denied your sage input if you disengage from BOINC completely. I hope that you can find a way to help them, and us, in some way in the not too distant future.

Be well, and good luck and in all your endeavors.

Sincerely,

JavaPersona

---

Alright, apparently nobody ever treated frustrated users, whom you refer to as "whiners", badly. But just think about this: those so-called whiners contributed to the project by crunching what they could, Paul also contrtibuted to the project; the whiners complained about the way BOINC and/or SETI works, and Paul also is complaining about the way the project(s) work; the whiners don't like the way the developers/administrators fail to listen, treat the users or generally run their projects, Paul too.

Too often I have seen the so-called cheerleaders attack anyone who complains about the way the Berkeley crew treats participants, yet Paul is also doing just that. The only difference is that Paul is being calm and dispassionate while most of the whiners get loud and insulting, but that is very understandable given their frustrations.

All I'm saying is think about how you treat someone who has complaints about the project, because that person may be somebody's friend.

Alright, apparently nobody ever treated frustrated users, whom you refer to as "whiners", badly. But just think about this: those so-called whiners contributed to the project by crunching what they could, Paul also contrtibuted to the project; the whiners complained about the way BOINC and/or SETI works, and Paul also is complaining about the way the project(s) work; the whiners don't like the way the developers/administrators fail to listen, treat the users or generally run their projects, Paul too.

Too often I have seen the so-called cheerleaders attack anyone who complains about the way the Berkeley crew treats participants, yet Paul is also doing just that. The only difference is that Paul is being calm and dispassionate while most of the whiners get loud and insulting, but that is very understandable given their frustrations.

All I'm saying is think about how you treat someone who has complaints about the project, because that person may be somebody's friend.

Who is this post directed at?

---

Who is this post directed at?

Anyone who badgered frustrated users. It may be directed at people who attacked you, or me, or anyone who has come here and dumped about how screwed up BOINC, SETI, Berkeley, etc. are. I'm sure you've seen the type. Paul's leaving simply provides an object lesson on how to treat disgruntled participants, or anyone who voices a complaint.

Who is this post directed at?

Anyone who badgered frustrated users. It may be directed at people who attacked you, or me, or anyone who has come here and dumped about how screwed up BOINC, SETI, Berkeley, etc. are. I'm sure you've seen the type. Paul's leaving simply provides an object lesson on how to treat disgruntled participants, or anyone who voices a complaint.

That's what I thought.

(soapbox on)
There's too many people that feel that people who express views different from their own are always wrong and are "disgruntled", and don't even consider the input.

To me, a lesson that can be learned from Paul's departure, is that users/admins on both ends of the spectrum can be a real problem is they don't really listen to another's prespective.
(soapbox off)

---

Alright, apparently nobody ever treated frustrated users, whom you refer to as "whiners", badly. But just think about this: those so-called whiners contributed to the project by crunching what they could, Paul also contrtibuted to the project; the whiners complained about the way BOINC and/or SETI works, and Paul also is complaining about the way the project(s) work; the whiners don't like the way the developers/administrators fail to listen, treat the users or generally run their projects, Paul too.

Too often I have seen the so-called cheerleaders attack anyone who complains about the way the Berkeley crew treats participants, yet Paul is also doing just that. The only difference is that Paul is being calm and dispassionate while most of the whiners get loud and insulting, but that is very understandable given their frustrations.

All I'm saying is think about how you treat someone who has complaints about the project, because that person may be somebody's friend.

Amen, reverend...

Paul, I hope that you may reconsider your decision, but if not, may the force be with you in all your endeavors, and be at peace. Your input has been a shining light that has brightened the darkness. Your personal time and input to the project has been above and beyond the normal scope of participation for the last several years. You will be missed and not forgotten by all of us who were together with the original beta project (those in the small minority which were actually active at the time). Good luck and good journey...

THANK YOU

---

Account frozen...

Paul:

What about using BOINC to process World Community Grid project?

Is it worth my cycles?

BUMP

---

Account frozen...

Paul:

What about using BOINC to process World Community Grid project?

Is it worth my cycles?

That's a decision only you can make.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I know I will get flamed for this post. Paul encountered the same things that we former CLASSIC crunchers did. Boinc/SETIII was its own world and NO ONE accepted the fact that we wished to FINISH what we started! When we were summarily dismissed from Berkeley's "realm"... some of us came here, some went other places. I KNOW we lost 50% plus of the classic horsepower.... maybe closer to 75%.

What was the problem? Why did SETI lose so much? Those "cheerleaders" who showed up on the classic boards telling us all how STUPID we were not to switch.... BERKELEY'S lack of communication WITH us..... keeping us informed of what was going on.... Ignoring Stan Pope... Curt Sowulo... Clay Ruth.... the "MASTER CRUNCHERS".

(sounding a little familiar???)

I wrote 2 scathing diatribes before classic closed, the posting of which would have accomplished nothing...... but Paul's post touched (in a different way) on every point I made!

If I have a "read" of Paul, he will never see this post, but if he ever does, then I want to say WELL SAID PAUL! THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE I DIDNT!

A few of us are staying, we have dedicated ourselves to The Planetary Society, and going to see what we can do. I am not competing with you, or anyone else, but I am competing with myself! I want my TEAM to be #1.... can I do more?, can I recruit more crunching?, I dont know... but whatever it takes......

CLASSIC dedication lives on.... in some of us!

David

Paul's departure is disappointing for me, but not unexpected. SETI/BOINC displays all the indicators of being highly unprofessional. Funny, I posted a similar thought on several occasions and was blasted by people saying Central Command aren't expected to be, never will be, etc., "professional". In short, go away with your objectivity.

Paul often played the third side of the coin in such controversy, preferring to expose a middle ground between the pom-pom's and the doomsayers. I appreciated that. However, it seems that under pressure the coin collapses and third side is lost. I submit that pressure is in fact Anderson and Co.'s tone deaf approach to the volunteers, to 'unity'.

Yet, it is we the volunteers who are to blame. Just shut off the machines if you don't like it. Or go to another project, boinc or not. Perhaps this is not our niche any longer. As long as the simple dream of finding an ET persisted, this was 'fun'. But the project overall has lost that spark, at least for me. Gravitational waves are becoming, for me, a more interesting choice (E@H), as I reach the 500K cobblestone mark on S@H.

This last statement highlights another flaw in the project: our incessant demand for non-existent nonsense non-negotiable, Freudian 'Credits'. Like David1339 below, how many of us fret about the credits, whose team is number one, and so forth. This is so absurd it makes my toes curl. You can't buy a house with them, nor a Yugo, nor would anyone sane want them engraved on their headstone. The point of this project has always been ET and computer science. If that is not not enough, then grab for your bottle of lithium. What we should be doing is clammering for progress reports, scientific oddities revealed, and so forth. Yet 'we' don't.

With that, I've come full circle. We don't demand professionalism and it has cost us another, valued member. Paul, may both your health and SETI worries subside. I'm proud to have overlapped with you, another solid Western New Yorker. (That's a bit to the left of NYC for you people in Rio Linda.)

---

May this Farce be with You

I know I will get flamed for this post. Paul encountered the same things that we former CLASSIC crunchers did. Boinc/SETIII was its own world and NO ONE accepted the fact that we wished to FINISH what we started! When we were summarily dismissed from Berkeley's "realm"... some of us came here, some went other places. I KNOW we lost 50% plus of the classic horsepower.... maybe closer to 75%.

What was the problem? Why did SETI lose so much? Those "cheerleaders" who showed up on the classic boards telling us all how STUPID we were not to switch.... BERKELEY'S lack of communication WITH us..... keeping us informed of what was going on.... Ignoring Stan Pope... Curt Sowulo... Clay Ruth.... the "MASTER CRUNCHERS".

(sounding a little familiar???)

I wrote 2 scathing diatribes before classic closed, the posting of which would have accomplished nothing...... but Paul's post touched (in a different way) on every point I made!

If I have a "read" of Paul, he will never see this post, but if he ever does, then I want to say WELL SAID PAUL! THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE INTESTINAL FORTITUDE I DIDNT!

A few of us are staying, we have dedicated ourselves to The Planetary Society, and going to see what we can do. I am not competing with you, or anyone else, but I am competing with myself! I want my TEAM to be #1.... can I do more?, can I recruit more crunching?, I dont know... but whatever it takes......

CLASSIC dedication lives on.... in some of us!

David

I don't think this is a flame.

But firstly, if the Classic users had really followed the plot, they would have understood that SETI was dead. There was no funding whatsoever for the search for LGM. SETI was finished.
David Anderson realized though that he could fund SETI on the back of BOINC. To get funding for BOINC it had to appeal to a much wider audience than SETI alone. With many DC projects involved there had to be compromises, BOINC couldn't be slanted towards SETI only. With compromise, it's inevitable that it won't be ideal.
But it simpy boils down to no SETI or a compromized SETI. Nothing new really, SETI@Home was a compromize after the US Senate killed NASAs' SETI budget.

Secondly, the dissent and dissatisfaction that I see (and once felt too) seems to originate when participants believe that we are something more than just that; when we believe that we are more than just volunteers; when we believe they we are stake-holders in BOINC and/or SETI - We're not (with a few exceptions), we can donate our CPU cycles, we can donate hardware and even money, but we don't own BOINC, or even a share of it. If just participating in the Science and the fun of credits and rankings isn't enough for us, we are not going to be satisfied.

Some seem to think that they are 'owed' something by the projects they join; that there is some onus on the project to guarantee some service level; that they will get work from a project; that their ideas must be listened to. None of this is true, we are volunteers, no more. We can chose the projects we join, when we run run work. There just isn't any more to it.

The exceptions I mentioned are those that not only had ideas to improve the project, but put them into action, writing code, writing documentation etc. Obviously PDB is amongst those (I won't try an list the others - I'd surly miss some - we and they know who they are). Pauls' contribution was obviously highly notable and appreciated.
I didn't follow the causes of Pauls' dissatisfaction, but it seems clear that he must have felt he was part of somthing more than what he was - his Wiki was undoubtedly amazing, but he was like us all - a volunteer, no more than that.

---

"This last statement highlights another flaw in the project: our incessant demand for non-existent nonsense non-negotiable, Freudian 'Credits'. Like David1339 below, how many of us fret about the credits, whose team is number one, and so forth. This is so absurd it makes my toes curl. You can't buy a house with them, nor a Yugo, nor would anyone sane want them engraved on their headstone. The point of this project has always been ET and computer science. If that is not not enough, then grab for your bottle of lithium. What we should be doing is clammering for progress reports, scientific oddities revealed, and so forth. Yet 'we' don't."

I have said it several ways, at various times. You are correct that as far as "VALUE" to the outside world, credits are meaningless, be they Classic WU's or Cobble-thingies. The ONE place they have "value" is to the cruncher to whom they belong. I can look at my total or my RAC and see if my acreage is performing at it's maximum potential or something somewhere has failed. The object is to process as much work as possible. (to reach the desired outcome of finding ET, the more you process, the greater the chance of success)

I want to do the best I can do, and if wanting to see my team succeed is too much to ask.... so be it...

Most teams are constantly trying to recruit new members, if "team standings" dont matter to anyone, why are they wanting more members?

There are, I am sure, crunchers who do not care, and those that DO.... but does that make those that do BAD? I think not, no more than it does those who DONT care about credits.


David

I know I will get flamed for this post. Paul encountered the same things that we former CLASSIC crunchers did. Boinc/SETIII was its own world and NO ONE accepted the fact that we wished to FINISH what we started! When we were summarily dismissed from Berkeley's "realm"... some of us came here, some went other places. I KNOW we lost 50% plus of the classic horsepower.... maybe closer to 75%. .... David

David, this is NOT meant as a flame, so please don't take it that way. Although, I did read what you, ksnash and several others were saying about BOINC over at the house of "Classic" about a year or so ago. And, I don't remember reading where anyone, doing BOINC, said you or any other "Classic" cruncher were "stupid" for not making the switch. But, that's beside the point....

What makes you think that the work being done on SETI II, under BOINC, is any less important, or any less effective than "Classic" was? We're doing the same work here as was done at "Classic". The only 2 changes is the software and the credit system. Obviously, by now, you know that with BOINC you can do work on more than one project at the same time. The advantage is that if one project is down or out of work temporarily, the other[s] can take up the slack. And, credits, well credits are credits. I'm in this for the science, although it's nice to see something that shows I'm contributing to the science.

The point is that most everything evolves. Just look at computers for instance. My calculator has more computing power than computers of decades ago. I would just like to see the acceptance of said evolution. Nothing stays the same, everything changes. Some day, maybe 6 years from now, something better than BOINC will come along and replace it. If and when that happens, I can see it now: people asking why no more BOINC and this new "thing" is a piece of crap. Just as it happened with the "Classic"/BOINC fiasco. Peace.... (-:<

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

... I KNOW we lost 50% plus of the classic horsepower.... maybe closer to 75%.

Where does that figure come from? Or is it just a "finger in the air" number for dramatic effect?

I think that the numbers on Boinc-s@h suggest otherwise.

I think that we can agree that there were a (small) few that were unhappy with the changeover for various reasons. But that is an old story now.

... A few of us are staying, we have dedicated ourselves to The Planetary Society, and going to see what we can do. I am not competing with you, or anyone else, but I am competing with myself!...

That's probably the best philosophy for all this and for furthering the science. There sometimes seems to be far too much misplaced passion surrounding the credits and stats and gaining some sort of "reward".

As mentioned many times by various people on these forums: We are merely volunteers here for our own interest or for the fun of it all. We can additionally offer other help to Berkeley, but it is up to them as to whether to accept, ignore, or whatever.

Meanwhile, these forums provide a good safety valve to vent whatever!

It's all a very good experiment! And a little more, it has become a world-wide community.

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Sorry Paul, this is OT to the intent of your original post.

The following info is relavent to the current discussion:

Matt Lebofsky Posted on Nov 11 to this post in the thread Classic "scheduled" to close Dec 15th

In it he says

"I haven't checked the "active" user count BOINC, but there are more SETI/BOINC users than active classic users at this point in time, and the numbers are growing/shrinking, respectively, every day without any effort on our part.

If everybody migrates over from classic to BOINC, that would double the current number of BOINC users. Assuming all of them are active, we'd go from 700K results processed per day to about 1.4M.

Of course, we only create 1M results per day, as that is our data collection rate, so we will be short 400K results/day. So, in essence, our load can only grow another 300K/700K= 42%.

Before you freak out, we won't be cutting anybody off. Remember that we will soon be shipping out the new clients with more science analysis, which will take approximately 4 times as long. So this will effectively cut our result load by 75%. So instead of a demand for 1.4M results, it'll only be about 350K/day, which is half our current load.

Boincstats is down or I could get exact figures. Since I was at the help desk I looked at the stats for total users to keep track of number of new users. So from memory we had about 270K users just before classic closed (according to boincstats) and now we have 563,256 users (according to boincsynergy). So we've effectively doubled our numbers. Now If Boincstats would only come back up I could get accurate figures for say 2 weeks after classic closed and those would be pretty accurate. Boincstats and Boincsynergy determine "active" users in different formats (I think).

tony

---

Paul, I am deeply saddened by this. I wish you all the best and would like to express my most sincerest gratitude for the help you have given to me. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.

Antony Magnus

---

Ni newly returned, not newly knighted! Ni