This is an absolutely terrible program for the home user, and I've just finished uninstalling it. I code robots for a living, and not only is it far easier to code the robots, but I get paid to do it. Slaving away at my computer to make BOINC operate properly is neither saving the planet nor aiding my health.

And next time, get someone with an education to design the UI.

This is an absolutely terrible program for the home user, and I've just finished uninstalling it. I code robots for a living, and not only is it far easier to code the robots, but I get paid to do it. Slaving away at my computer to make BOINC operate properly is neither saving the planet nor aiding my health.

And next time, get someone with an education to design the UI.

That's the problem with users that do code. They think they know better and wont ask questions.

The Boinc software is ultra easy in use. Install it, pick a project, and let it do it's thing. It's that simple. 2 million users (many computer neophyte) don't seem to have problems....

---

Boinc V 7.4.36
Win7 i5 3.33G 4GB NVidia 470

That's just it, I don't think I know better; but just because I don't know better doesn't mean it's OK to field the unfinished software. The help system and documentation is extremely poor; even the support forum is poorly laid out.

If the programs that use BOINC for large scale computations (Rosetta, Einstein, etc) have the same difficulties, I respect them a great deal for facing down the poor support.

Just claiming it's unfinished without showing the developers here (all 3 of whom are paid, by the way) any of your completed and finished and rounded at the corners programs is very unfriendly, to say it nicely.

You say you're doing code to make BOINC run properly. Properly according to whom? And how? What did you do (differently)? Explain away, there's room here for whole stories in these poorly laid out forums.

Every once in a while we get a yokel in who says he can do better. Instead of him/her giving plain evidence to that and getting their names included in the Volunteer developers list, they mouth off that they know how to do better and then disappear into the setting sun once asked for proof of their claims.

Yelling is easy.
Claiming you know better, is easier still.
Are you going to prove it?

---

You say you're doing code to make BOINC run properly.

I never said I was coding for BOINC; what I said was that it's far easier for me to code robots than to get BOINC running properly as an end user. I don't even have access to the source code or know what language was used to write BOINC's UI, so "doing code to make BOINC run properly" isn't even possible in the first place.

Every once in a while we get a yokel in who says he can do better.

I said in my post immediately preceding yours that I didn't know how to do any better, and that just because I can't do better doesn't mean it's OK for BOINC/Berkeley to deploy unfinished software. I'll admit that part of this anger comes from the entire field of software developers and publishers regularly releasing flawed software. Just because everyone's doing it, though, doesn't give BOINC a free pass.

Instead of him/her giving plain evidence to that and getting their names included in the Volunteer developers list, they mouth off that they know how to do better and then disappear into the setting sun once asked for proof of their claims.

Again, see my second post.

Obviously I was upset in my first post, but my arguments still stand on their own merits! The user interface, and in my case, Windows operability of BOINC are pretty challenged. I have a long-standing love affair with science, and the concept of BOINC is truly awesome; when it works, it's truly great, but when it doesn't, it's a huge headache. I'm pointing these things out in the hope that someone who's familiar with the UI code can bump it up from Alpha quality to RC standards.

If I've offended, I apologize; but don't ignore the remaining legitimate problems.

You say you're doing code to make BOINC run properly.

I never said I was coding for BOINC; what I said was that it's far easier for me to code robots than to get BOINC running properly as an end user. I don't even have access to the source code or know what language was used to write BOINC's UI, so "doing code to make BOINC run properly" isn't even possible in the first place.

So in other words, we don't have to take your complaint seriously since you don't know what you're talking about anyway. Since, had you investigated before you yelled, you'd have known BOINC is open source software, available under the LGPL, its source code can be freely downloaded.

For the client and GUI, it's primarily C and C++.
Instructions on how to get the source code and what else you need is here.

...doesn't mean it's OK for BOINC/Berkeley to deploy unfinished software. I'll admit that part of this anger comes from the entire field of software developers and publishers regularly releasing flawed software. Just because everyone's doing it, though, doesn't give BOINC a free pass.

OK, then I ask it differently. What's so not finished about it? Where is the flaw? You already said you don't know what makes BOINC tick, so where do you come from when it comes to experience whether or not this software is 'unfinished'? Your experience at 'making BOINC run'? Or perhaps your inexperience at using forums as they're intended, as in ask when you do not know for sure how to make something run? No one is all-knowing.

when it works, it's truly great, but when it doesn't, it's a huge headache.

No examples?
No definitive proof?
No check between different versions of BOINC to see if you can reproduce this 'bug'?
No sample log with correct debug flags?
Just your word for it and we have to believe that... why again?

I'd have expected in the least an example of what you saw, but even that's too difficult for you to write about?

I'm pointing these things out in the hope that someone who's familiar with the UI code can bump it up from Alpha quality to RC standards.

You're not pointing anything out. Want to become an alpha tester, a true one? Then follow the instructions. It is really that simple. But just sitting there on post 3, on the side line --claiming the software is broken, claiming you know all or just better than the programmers themselves-- when you don't even know the programming language of the software, is laughable at best.

So... go on, off you go at learning about the software and how to properly report flaws, bugs or broken software. Or do you have any more unsubstantiated claims?

---

Trying my hand at writing an equally sucky report on your robots:

it's far easier for me to code robots

I can tell that you suck at it. How do I know that? I don't really. I don't know what kind of robots they are, I don't know what language they use, I don't know if you have released source code, I will not look into things like that. But I do definitely know that you suck at programming them and am here to tell you to do better! No, I refuse to say where, d'oh you must know that, for when I tell you that you suck at it you must immediately know what I mean.. don't you?

Go do some real work! You and all the equally bad robot/worm programmers that are out there! Get some education before you try to return at doing whatever it is you're doing now. You're being paid for this sloppy work? You ought to pay the people you work for, because that's how bad your work is!

...

Now then, how does that feel?

---