@ Moak
OK, you read sites like zeropaid and the gnutellaforums.
Then you use XoloX.
But how many people know those sites?

I mean those polls are not significant!
Most people voting in those polls are "experts", and they know all programms.

And I am sure:
With the end of XoloX in December at least 50% of its user stoped using it! (50% is even too low, my sight)

@ Tamama
-----------
Everybody is in different networks
-----------

Thats right, but I NEVER was in a net in which the number of files coming on my search from XoloX was even over 10%

I give you an example:
(every search after a connection reset, and with different searchwords)

1194 Hits, 1 from XoloX (sex)
1289 Hits, 10 from Xolox (Britney)
983 Hits, 20 from Xolox (Madonna)
361 Hits, 39 from XoloX (DivX)

OK, this is not significant too, but I really never had much traffic with XoloX!

There are never 30% XoloX clients!

Personally i dont care about XoloX.

query-hits and clients are 2 different things. Although indeed with things like 1 hit you can' think that a lot of clients are on your horizon.. oh well.

Your post just confirms that xolox does NOT generate a lot of network traffic... which was why vinnie intend to block it.


Just to get back to the original topic:

Should we block certain clients?

I still think it's a stupid thing to do. You start with 1 client, then another one.. then in the end a client can only connect to itself or it's buddies client. I think this is not good for the network at all.

Different statistics
 

Good, let's assume a few people use Xolox now, then Vinnie's idea makes even less sense. Let's assume many people use Xolox still, then we still have only Vinnies unproofen word that Xolox is bad, no side did ever agree or underlined this.

If most ppl voting are "experts", then making Xolox constantly #1 is also a sign that Xolox isn't bad. I think Vinnie just wasted our time with his accusations/jealousness against Xolox again.

Blocking Gnutella clients was never a topic, in my eyes it still isn't. The best argument is that new clients are better and provide more features, so users will use them. Xolox is discontinued, the hacked version is only attractive as long as other clients are not providing the same features. As soon as more modern clients will come, Xolox is history.

block dead clients
 

I have been an advocate for some time of the idea of blocking clients that are no longer in development. Xolox falls into this catagory and should be blocked. Some users will not take the time to look around for other better clients and Im sure this dead client will be around to haunt the network for some time. Irregarless of its behaviour now, the client cannot grow and change with the network and is therefor a dead weight dragging it down. I wish the programmers would release the source code so that the program could continue to live but....

Ohh, well. KILL IT!

Is that logical?
 

Gnutellafan, logik says: if Xolox is bad block it, if Xolox is not bad don't block it. Question is how bad is Xolox, please give technical reasons no emotional. Blocking without reason makes no sense, that's censorship. "Old" doesn't mean bad automatically, perhaps it just means nice with less features, perhaps.

Speaking about Xolox it was one of the best client of it's time, pushing Gnutella and development forward! Some client, e.g. Bearshare still haven't gained the same functionality (in this context Bearshare looks still old, should we block Bearshare now?). When you doubt, let's list technical advantages and disadvantages. I have analysed Bearshare and Xolox a while.

Comparing some of the most favourite clients, Limewire, Xolox, Limewire, Phex, Bearshare....
Bearshare is those with less functionality, less technology, the oldest in this context!
In your words: Oh well, KILL IT!? :-)

Re: block dead clients
 

Hmm. A 1959 Caddy Eldorado Biaritz isn't in production anymore. Should we scrap all of those Caddies that are left? Heck no! And if you've got one and don't want it - let me know, and I'll be happy to help you "get rid of it"!

The morale: If a product isn't in production, it doesn't mean people won't use it anymore.

-- Mike

IMO if there is proof that a dead client is damaging the network and most (75%) of the other clients agree it should be blocked..

gnucleus and variants do more damage to the network than XoloX. Even recent versions sent out about 25-50% of their data in pings. This is intollerable. kill it?

Evolution
 

Why should anyone block clients? I think the developers just need to create good SW, and then, all the old clients will be changed for new ones. So there will be no need to block them.

yes, good point. Blocking is a non issue, only Vinnie came up with it...