"Raj Rijhwani" <raj@rijhwani.org> wrote in message
news:20040609.0026.4320snz@rijhwani.org...

You're missing the point.  I don't *trust* the architecture or the motives
behind the new project.  S@h was just an academic obsession.  I trust that
as a motive.  Since then the people who've learnt from our contribution
to the S@h project have started seeing dollar signs.  There's a whole new
mind-set involved which goes beyond adademic curiosity and now reaches

into

exploitation.  I no longer trust their motivation, and so I no longer

trust

them not to squirrel something into the project that I won't like, or that
what the software appears to be doing will be the entirety of what it is
doing.  It's no longer just a matter of chunking in and out work units

with

a specific (if esoteric) goal in mind.
-- 

Raj, I understand the motivation behind your thoughts on this, very well.
The same ideas crossed my mind, a while back, when it came to light Dr.
Anderson's legal issues w/his former employer, involving BOINC, were a large
component in the very long time delays involved w/the SETI transision to
BOINC.

But I am not as concerned w/BOINC, from a technological architectural issue,
as the possibility of a profit motive. Without intending to denigrate a
professional man's career, there is a possibility the BOINC framework could
be licensed as a research tool. Dr. Andrson's relationship, where he
assisted in the launch of United Devices DC program, can give fuel to
further speculation. But speculation is just that: speculation.

I know the CPDN project team is very interested in using the BOINC platform,
ASAP, though I am not aware of any financial considerations required for
CPDN's use of the BOINC platform. I also am not privy to any such
information, either. But it would be a very easy stretch of the imagination
to envision using the BOINC platform as a researh tool for profit. It also
is relatively easy to envision a for profit scenario, for other DC
projects, irrespective of BOINC.

This is why the 'medical projects' are, for me, a double edged sword. Yes,
one can help advance the cause of medicine, but at the possible expense of
lining a drug manufacturer's, or research consortium's pockets.

I think, in the end, we have to evaluate BOINC, as we would evaluate any
other DC project. If we ENJOY the project, believe in the science and the
cause, and are comfortable w/the project team and project community, then we
run it. If not, we don't.

I apply the above criteria to any DC project I considering participating in,
irrespective of whether it is run under BOINC, or not. BOINC simply adds one
more dimension to a project, which will either enhance, or diminish, my
desire to become involved. I will make those specific decisions based on the
facts at hand, at the time of my choosing to run a given project.

Strat