Raj Rijhwani wrote:
[...]

Most of my desktop is on another machine on Linux/KDE, and the mail service and crunchers are running on Linux machines.  Nothing sensitive has anything touches 'Doze.  I'm not complacent about security,

Very wise.

but I'm more concerned about deliberate hidden abuse embedded in projects like BOINC.  I don't have the time to audit the code myself, and I no longer trust the commercially influenced motives.

What commercially influenced motives for s@h?

The boinc framework could be used by commercial projects with a 'commercial' project client. Boinc itself and s@h stay very much open source and purely for the science.

I agree fully that there must always be a very clear unambiguous distinction between projects for pure science and any tainted with commercialism.

If all they wanted to do was "more science" they could simply have rolled out an expanded S@h client.  The very fact that there's a more complex project afoot suggests that a different agenda is now in play.

Yes, the agenda is expanded beyond s@h to now include other astrophysics science and others. New clients can now be easily added to search for signals in new ways, or to do completely new science.

Berkeley wanted to introduce new clients for new searches. Making a general framework that could support /any/ project client made good sense for minimising programming effort and maximising scientific return.

Another bonus is that better use can be made of the users' donated resource.


Are your suspicions based only on that Boinc is designed to support any number of projects rather than being locked in to only Berkeley and SETI?


Regards,
Martin