No love for BOINC anymore?

[SGM]

Why don't you guys (Linus, et al) mention BOINC anymore when you do videos about number crunching machines? Only takes a moment to drop a line about it at the same time as Folding@Home.

It's just as worthy a cause for computing power and many of the projects have the same goals as Folding@Home. E.g.: Protein folding, mapping cancer markers, etc.

@LinusTech @Slick @nicklmg

[nicklmg]

Why don't you guys (Linus, et al) mention BOINC anymore when you do videos about number crunching machines? Only takes a moment to drop a line about it at the same time as Folding@Home.

It's just as worthy a cause for computing power and many of the projects have the same goals as Folding@Home. E.g.: Protein folding, mapping cancer markers, etc.

@LinusTech @Slick @nicklmg

We just did a dedicated video about a BOINC & F@H machine like 3 weeks ago lol.

 

 

If the guys ever mention F@H and not BOINC I'm sure it's not by malicious intention.

[givingtnt]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

litteraly in the first 3 seconds of the video

[SGM]

I saw that video, and it was awesome, its just it seems there's more focus on Folding lately. 

I have no doubt that my opinions are biased because I run BOINC more often than FAH but it'd be nice if we could encourage more people to join both. 

And I know they aren't intentionally doing it, I didn't mean to accuse anyone. 

Thanks for the reply. 

[mrswagbhinav]

I saw that video, and it was awesome, its just it seems there's more focus on Folding lately. 

I have no doubt that my opinions are biased because I run BOINC more often than FAH but it'd be nice if we could encourage more people to join both. 

And I know they aren't intentionally doing it, I didn't mean to accuse anyone. 

Thanks for the reply. 

Well F@H is already more popular than BOINC, nothing you can do about that.

[Imakuni]

Well F@H is already more popular than BOINC, nothing you can do about that.

Hence why Boinc needs to be shown of more, for people to actually know it exists and it's advantages over the (imo worse) folding software.

[nickw101]

I've always been a BOINC person myself... mainly because of Seti@home (which I think was out before F@H).

That and aside from my personal preference of BOINC projects (vs F@H)I personally prefer the BOINC's UI is over the F@H one.

(That and I'm in the top 1% of seti people currently.. and do lots of U@H and WCG projects)

[mrswagbhinav]

Hence why Boinc needs to be shown of more, for people to actually know it exists and it's advantages over the (imo worse) folding software.

tbh I have no idea how F@H is different. Maybe you could make a topic about that.

[Imakuni]

tbh I have no idea how F@H is different. Maybe you could make a topic about that.

1. On the research field, Boinc is just straight up superior. FAH has Cancer, Alzheimer, Huntington and Parkinson. Boinc has all of that, A LOT of other diseases, physics, chemestry, math, weather prediction, astronomy, search for alien life, and the list goes on.... you have options for days.
2. On the software level, the Boinc client also offers a lot more customization as well. While the layout of the client is personal preference, there are many more options included within manager. Without using flags or command line, you can set up run times, CPU usage, memory usage, disk usage, etc., all within the "preferences" tab. And that's not to mention the use of custom options that require .txt files, those just add to the list further.
3. Boinc has support for backup projects. In the case that FAH's servers fail, you are screwed, you'll be left out of WUs. Whereas Boinc can have projects to get extra work, in case your main project of choice fails.
4. In FAH, they just want you to install the thing and be done with it. You don't need to create an account, you don't need to choose a project, all you need is to install it. In BOINC, you have to personally pick an area of work that you want, you are not forced to do whatever they want; you also need to create an account, thus pushing people towards engaging in the research.
5. In Boinc, you have control over your computer: if you want to abort a WU and get a new one, if you want to download more work than you can handle, you just do it in Boinc, it's YOUR machine, YOU tell the client what to do with it. In FAH, you just can't do that under normal operation, and if you try to avoid the rules and force the cenarios mentioned, they just punish you with the lack of QRB. Almost as if the software was doing you a favor, and not the other way around.

Note: while it may seem so, I don't hate the FAH software. I just feel Boinc is superior in every way, except ease to set up. I am, in fact, running FAH right now.

[mrswagbhinav]

 

1. On the research field, Boinc is just straight up superior. FAH has Cancer, Alzheimer, Huntington and Parkinson. Boinc has all of that, A LOT of other diseases, physics, chemestry, math, weather prediction, astronomy, search for alien life, and the list goes on.... you have options for days.
2. On the software level, the Boinc client also offers a lot more customization as well. While the layout of the client is personal preference, there are many more options included within manager. Without using flags or command line, you can set up run times, CPU usage, memory usage, disk usage, etc., all within the "preferences" tab. And that's not to mention the use of custom options that require .txt files, those just add to the list further.
3. Boinc has support for backup projects. In the case that FAH's servers fail, you are screwed, you'll be left out of WUs. Whereas Boinc can have projects to get extra work, in case your main project of choice fails.
4. In FAH, they just want you to install the thing and be done with it. You don't need to create an account, you don't need to choose a project, all you need is to install it. In BOINC, you have to personally pick an area of work that you want, you are not forced to do whatever they want; you also need to create an account, thus pushing people towards engaging in the research.
5. In Boinc, you have control over your computer: if you want to abort a WU and get a new one, if you want to download more work than you can handle, you just do it in Boinc, it's YOUR machine, YOU tell the client what to do with it. In FAH, you just can't do that under normal operation, and if you try to avoid the rules and force the cenarios mentioned, they just punish you with the lack of QRB. Almost as if the software was doing you a favor, and not the other way around.

Note: while it may seem so, I don't hate the FAH software. I just feel Boinc is superior in every way, except ease to set up. I am, in fact, running FAH right now.

 

Wow I would get Boinc right now if I wasn't working on my paper for finals

[NWArkGuy]

I'm sorry but I could not resist...

 

 

Scientific Progress goes F@H just does not roll off of the tongue as well...

[Whaler_99]

When it comes to client setup, I think BOINC could learn from FAH with some defaults. FAH, you can download, click next a few times and you are running and contributing, done. Ya, no identity or team, but still, up and running. With BOINC, there is a bit more setup, not to difficult, but it is there. If they could have the installer just default to an anonymous user with some default medical research project for instance, I think that would help out. Then if you want to really customize BOINC, you can. As said, there are a LOT more options to the BOINC sphere than the Folding sphere.