Blocking other clients
 

Oh, Vinnie (alias Freepeers, developer of Bearshare) thinks about blocking Xolox again: http://www.bearshare.net/forum/showt...&threadid=8616.

He blames Xolox to be responsible alone for high Query/Queryhit traffic caused from automatc requeries without a proof/analysis Xolox is unhealthy... or more unhealthy compared to other clients (Phex, Gnucleus)... or how healthy Bearshare will be when running automatic requeries for resuming in future. In fact requeries are a must-have for automatic resuming and fast multisegmented downloading (e.g. when a host drops). No fact is which client has a unhealthy behaviour (e.g. Xolox has a seldom requery, not requerying each filename). This story remembers me somhow to Vinnies old statements that Xolox is allegedly bad (link 1 2), marketing?

This story raises also some interesting questions: Should we really block unhealthy clients and what are the criterias for a "healthy" client? When are we allowed to block clients? Criterias for a good client might be.... good allround behaviour, forbidding freeloading, not creating wrong files, not misuse the network by broadcasting proprietary data, still in active development, not spreading blatant spyware, cooperative behaviour with other clients and vendors?

Some thoughts, Moak

PS: When Vinnie really blocks one client, without pubic discussion + no proof of bad behaviour... someone just has to patch Xolox.exe again and alter Xolox's vendor ID (more Klingon behaviour is optional). Since Xolox is still one of the most favourite client (users choice), Vinnie's idea to block them could put Bearshare into a better marketing position... pehaps it makes Bearshare a parasite (allow downloading from Xolox, not allowing downloads with Xolox).

Are there really so many people still using XoloX?

Does it even care?

actually
 

I think about 30% of the clients I see in the network are XoloX..

I need to get my analysis on the network traffic to be able to get a standpoint on this matter.. At a fast overview i think xolox and limewire (all their versions) generate just as much query-hits and download requests.

In general, I think blocking clients is a bad thing. If he is so afraid of XoloX, he should get his own program better instead of killing the competition.. sheesh sounds like Microsoft :D

Hmm.. maybe my client will have to block BearShare, reason? Well I noticed it increased my bandwidth by 10% when i connect to one.. DUH! i have 10 hosts!

Tam

I completly agree, blocking client downloads is a bad idea.

As I told on Bearshare.net this download blocking idea isn't good at all. Stoping a bad client (with wild broadcasts) from connecting to the Gnutella network would make more sense and should be discussed together with all other developers (e.g GDF) first. Bearshare is not the only client. But I doubt Xolox is bad (hope we can discuss this tonight on IRC), Vinnie didn't give any facts or statistics, I doubt he has a brief understanding or analysis of what Xolox does.
So I personally think Vinnie's new idea is just about marketing. Vinnie was not able to implement a fast multisegmented download or partial upload the last 4 months (some of Xolox new features and benefits), also no superpeer concept in Bearshare, Vinnie's "Defender" is dead. Xolox is still one of the best clients, more clients come with fast downloads & a good resume, Limwire will come with a FastTrack-like superpeer concept.... and Vinnie only badmouth some competitors to make Bearshare look better. Poor marketing. The old story again, this is anoying. *sigh*

bad clients?
 

I dont know about xolox behavior but the client is dead for all intesive purposes. If the coders would release the source code it would be different but I think all clients that are not in active development should be blocked. Too much consideration is given to breaking compatability when implementing new featurs and the network should not be dragged down by the lowest common denominator.

Are you kidding?

Why blocking an old client, when it works well? Noone was ever thinking about blocking old clients, until Vinnie came with his false rumours again, he constantly did badmouth Xolox instead of learning from it. Why would somone likes to block Xolox? Xolox works well and is one of the best clients still. Perhaps you want to give us some facts.

PS: Zeropaid article "Bearshare to Block Xolox? NOT!"
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../01092001b.php

" think about 30% of the clients I see in the network are XoloX.. "

This is definetly not true. In terms of uploads from my servent they acount for less than one percent.

The majority of uploads is to Limewire and then Bearshare.

Xolox is not a common client.

...and it never was. :D
No, all polls here on Gnutellaforums or on Zeropaid (within the last 4-8 weeks) tells that Xolox is one of the top favourite clients, users choice. Funny for a discontinued client. It shows that other vendors still needs improvements (yeah would be great). How did you collect your upload/download statistics, which tools, Unregistered?

Everybody is in different networks. Nobody is connected to everybody.. its most likely you're in an island, and btw, bearshare and limewire prefer connecting to themselves, further promoting that you will only see a few other clients.

Maybe YOU see only 1% XoloX users, I do NOT. If you can not even log in to give a nick to your flappant statement, and give no statistics other than what you see on your (probably bearshare/limewire) client, you can not say that it's the same everywhere on the network.

Try a 0.4 client some day and you'll be amazed!