Cutting off other clients
 

Vinnie, Bearshare programmer, plans to cut off v0.4 clients:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../01222002b.php

Well, propably you remember Vinnie's old idea of blocking Xolox:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../01092001b.php

...this seems to be a new idea. Great or stupid?

Way to go Vinnie!
 

I think its great. Windows sucks because the programmers are always worried about backwards compatability. That is why it took them sooooo long to dump DOS even though it was old and pulling evering thing down. Yes, 0.6 is backwards compatible, but I think it is a GREAT idea to block the 0.4 clients. In the future I would also suggest he block any client that is not actively developed.

LET GNUTELLA GROW!!!

umm... nonsense
 

There are no problems with backwards compatibiliy, since v0.6 hasn't change anthing beside the handshake! New v0.6 is just another handshaking -nothing more-.... assuming you have a good handshake parser it will add 2 lines more code to be still v0.4 compatible. Everything else is the same, in v0.6 you will use the same v0.4 Gnutella descriptors/messages.

I'm totally against both ideas.

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"

Re: Way to go Vinnie!
 

So other developers have to block bearshare than... bearshare is a "WINDOWS" client???

I really cannot see a problem here! As Moak said, almost nothing has changed in the protocol!

There will be new clients soon, I hope PEERanhna will be released next week - I test it actually and I think it is better than Xolox... so why Vinnie cannot wait a few weeks, until the people switch to other clients???

This idea is sooooooooooooo stupid!

Morgwen

Quoting Vinnie: "I figure 3 or 4 months is sufficient time, maybe a little more depending on the circumstances."

So he's not talking about cutting off 0.4 clients at this time but in a couple of months. And I believe the gnutella-clients must be forced to comply with the gdf-standards.

John!

Xolox was discontinued on 1st december 2001!

Now we count... it is two months ago... he is talking about blocking it in the next month!

So now we think! In the next month we have at least one, hopefully two new clients with "Xolox" standard!

All he have to do is to ad a few lines of code and wait a few months and the problem is gone!

Sometimes Vinnie should use his head... and he didn´t proved that "Xolox" is unhealthy for the net!

Morgwen

Morgwen!

In a mail to the_gdf@yahoo.com Vinnie sent this number yesterday, on tuesday 22 of january.

And Vinnie doesn't have to prove anything. It's his client, he can do what he want, just like LimeWire blocks some of Bearshares messages, he can block Xolox if he wants to.

I believe him, for since he wrote a quite popular gnutella servent, he can't be completely clueless.

then add the code
 

the developers of any 0.4 clients have 3-4 months to add the code. Simple enough. If they dont they will be blocked from connecting to bearshare. Other clients may still connect with them and therefor they would still be connected to bs clients. Dont forget, Vinnie is also blocking his own old clients in order to force people to upgrade.

Gnutella is growing and changing. HUGE is being implemented, meta data, ect. These old clients dont have this and if they cant even update the handshake they certainly arent going to update these important features.

Xolox will be a thing of the past in a month anyway so quite bringing it up. It had some great features and gave the other developers a much needed kick in the *** but the client is dead. The meta data being sent now corrupts it and other clients will be properly implementing swarmed downloads with file hashes and meshes.

The only thing that bearshare and limewire need to do is find a gnet friendly way to requery the network. I know they are working on it but what they have in mind right now I dont know.

It it his client! Yes!

But does he owe Gnutella too?

If Vinnie starts to block other clients other developers will do the same with bearshare - some suggested this already!

And why he want to block it only in one way? Downloads yes but no uploads please??? I wonder!

And you belive Vinnie... I belive the majority, and actually I see "only" one developer who reports about this "problem"...

As Xolox was in active development Vinnie was whining the whole time why the Xolox developers didn´t join the GDF! Because the GDF decides about the protocol and so on... now he want to block a clients and no other client or GDF developer do it??? Where is the "all together" idea?

He act like he owes the Gnutella net! But he doesn´t and so he have to prove such accusations!

That is the idea behind Gnutella!

Morgwen