I see your points, and now that I have read them, I agree with them. The problem here is with R@h client's motivation. Many people donate willing and are fine with it. However, many people are just anxious for this pandemic to be over with and don't really understand the depths of the project. In my point of view, R@h lost a lot of potential users thanks to this gap in communication. The real issue here, is that thanks to this pandemic, R@h is probably getting more computational power than it probably will ever get. It behooves a project such as this to leverage this opportunity while this still is going on.
Just my opinion. Initially I targeted 1M Cobblestones as my final personal goal, now I'm going to 2M, and the highest motivational tool for this is the 'Gamefication' of BOINC with credits and ranks. Still, a regular update could cheer people up for longer periods.

That it will take me 3 months - after wasting months finding the correct resource share - is not user friendly

Did you mean to write months?
Because you were referring to a message that talked about running 3 of 4 cores on one project while running 1 of 4 on another, which implies to me throughout each day, not months.
I have no idea where "months" came from, nor their relevance. Resource shares certainly don't take months to resolve themselves.
The only timescales I'd think were relevant were cache sizes in days and deadlines.

I'm not great with the finer details of Boinc, but when I set my priorities between 2 projects (and I don't know how it works with more projects and with highly divergent deadlines tbf) the tasks that come down seem to reflect them.

Edit2: It also seems to be a highly user-unfriendly suggestion

One thing I see most of all asked in the Forums is 'why can't I set project A to run 1 task at a time and probect B to run 3 tasks at a time on my quad core pc and have it stay that way', they aren't talking Resource Share they are talking a per cpu core settings. Waaay too many people saying 'I want more of project B running but all I see is project A running for days on end'. Especially in this time of Pandemics and other crisis it would be nice to be able to crunch for both a Pandemic project and my favorite project at the same time full time, not swapping back and forth between them.

This!

I have to manually suspend and resume tasks to literally force the client to do something like this... and because it doesn't fetch work when a task is suspended - my queue is limited for that project. My computer can handle a larger queue - but it runs out every few days because of that additional requirement - necessary, but harmful because of this client-end limitation.

I think the answer is "stop wanting it".
It's an overly narrow perspective.
There's no difference between wanting 3+1 running at all times and running 12 of one then 4 of the other over a day, or 36 and 12 over 3 days of this project's deadlines.
Sure, there may be memory constraints of one project over another, as we occasionally see, but that's an entirely different matter.

To me (and I've given myself this rep and I stand by it) it's an example of contributors thinking projects exist for the benefit of the weird quirks of individual users, rather than users offering their capacity to projects for whatever the projects need us to run for them. A desire for the tail to wag the dog.
Well, that's not how it works, nor should work.

Whatever this suggestion even is, it's not for the betterment of Boinc, nor the betterment of individual projects.
So it's a no from me. To be more frank, it 's a "not ever".

One thing I see most of all asked in the Forums is 'why can't I set project A to run 1 task at a time and probect B to run 3 tasks at a time on my quad core pc and have it stay that way', they aren't talking Resource Share they are talking a per cpu core settings. Waaay too many people saying 'I want more of project B running but all I see is project A running for days on end'. Especially in this time of Pandemics and other crisis it would be nice to be able to crunch for both a Pandemic project and my favorite project at the same time full time, not swapping back and forth between them.

Follow-up to my previous post, just out of curiosity: Why would BOINC interrupt a work unit in progress to start another? I promise I'll hold off on questions now...
Eric

Looks like about 30000 tasks ready to download. Some of my hosts that were out of work have started to pick some up, and I’m guessing I’ll have work across the board by morning.

Edit: Just noticed my work PC completed all Rosetta tasks already and buffers starting to be filled on two other machines ahead of completing remaining Rosetta tasks. All going as expected

You are lucky, or maybe are getting re-sends. One of my machines is starting to going dry. That is my concern. They may come back immediately, or not. You don't know. Good luck.

Why is it of concern? I look at it as a good thing that we completed the work load. Now there's little chunks coming in, they get taken immediately. Best for the science to get done rapidly than they have to wait until we finish it. I assume they've reached a key point in the research.

Just reading another book about black-hat hackers. It has got me to wondering if the real problem with Rosetta@home is that we've all been "recruited" for mining BitCoins or some similarly worthless task. That could actually be related to the push for more encryption, eh? Plus I see how it could explain the peculiar way the downloads were working, almost as though someone had imposed a paged memory system on the project, with data pages around half a GB each, notwithstanding large numbers of ostensibly different projects working on the same data.

Security is a chain, and the attackers are always looking for the weakest links. From reading the comments in this thread, some of which seem to be from honchos at Rosetta@home, the weak links seem pretty obvious...

Much as I disliked some of the management policies of WCG, it looks like I should switch back there. It might be amusing to find out if any of my suggestions were ever implemented,. Rosetta@home seems to have clearly crossed into the territory of even more poorly managed projects. I've seen a couple of references to WCG in threads here, and it's a long-term project with some degree of corporate support (even if IBM is only a shadow of the great company it was when I was young). (But I still think HP has fallen harder and faster...)