Please explain further the analogy you are trying to make. It eludes me. Are you talking about developers' choice? Users' choice? What choice are we trying to make, and for whom?

Are you saying we are trying to force people not to use BearShare? Did you know BearShare 2.5.0 does not support connections to/from 0.4 level clients? Would you like me to list the 0.4 clients available and in use?

Do you want to know the reason I am even here?

I was happily using gnut for about 3 months. Then I stopped getting searches and downloads with gnut.

Now I know why. LimeWire it seems is not a lot better (than BearShare) - they still allow 0.4 clients to connect - up to 4 of them to an ultranode, with UltraNodes making up 1 in 80 LimeWire clients .. so in fact you get <I>up to</I> <B>one 0.4 connection to every 20 LimeWire clients on the network</B> .. and that is if they can't fill up their slots with other LimeWire clients. (In fact, this goes for 0.6 clients as well, anything which doesn't yet have Ultrapeer support).

Why even design the 0.6 handshake to be backwards compatible? They could have saved the time and just launched a completely new network and let us get on with it. Instead my gnut client spends all its time hammering at the door of LimeWire and BearShare clients which won't let it connect.

Sorry, but we are forced into this position, not us forcing 'the users' to do something. I am a user. I don't think any of you 'developers' had heard of this guy who launched the opensourcep2p idea before had you? Because he is a user.

We just got the sh*ts with the existing 'developer "community"' and the way it is 'growing' the 'gnutella' network. Growing on the gnutella network is more like it.

Nos