What is your most wanted feature for XoloX?
 

You NEED to be registered to vote.
Hope you like the poll, Moak :D

PS: Okay this poll is not "official", it should give a feedback of what users would like to see in the next release. If something important is missing, write it down and we can suggest it in the next poll. Here is the current status of upcoming version 1.13.

http://www.milchtrinker.de/xoloxtshirt.gif

Me, I just want Xolox to indicate files I already have in the search results so I don't download tons of duplicate files.

First T-shirt spotted:

http://m.vanoosten.tripod.com/pro_model.jpg

Can anyone see the picture from mvoosten above?

nope
 

nope:confused:

My fault.. I'd to reinstall my machine so didn't have a webserver anymore on my machine. Didn't have time yet to set it up.
In the meantime I tried uploading it to tripod and another free hosting server.. But damn... they refuse direct links.
Anyway, you can view the pic at:
http://m.vanoosten.tripod.com/

you can link my picture in the merchandise section :)

Those are good phoomanipulations, but I don't think that the model pic is appropriate for a public forum such as this... ;)

dl from more than one source at a time
 

The idea is from distributed network....

if there is 5 hosts with the same file and each host allows a max dl speed of 5k, if XoloX will dl 5 parts from all 5 at the same time the dl speed will be 25k !!!and will dl 5 times faster !!!

comments ?...:D

Re: dl from more than one source at a time
 

Are you a troll or what?

Just trying to suggest a good idea, I don't have the spcs in front of me...and since it is already implemented it was a good idea !

so I guess if I'm a troll, you are just a prick !

---------------------

To all other people, sorry for this outburst...

Hey.
 

Whetehr you have the 'specs' in front of you or not... if you had heard about, downloaded, and used the program you would already know. The fact that you had only 2 posts and were both the same worthless request tells me that you are either a troll or an idiot... I thought troll would be less offensive.

You can think I'm a prick if you like, I just hate seeing extremely ignorant crap like your suggestion. (But maybe you meant to post to the Bearshare or Limewire forums?)

xolox needs!!!
 

xolox needs a preview option so you can preview incomplete files
and xolox uses to much ram so this is a big deal
yeah these are important as ive been told by a few xolox users

I posted before I registered.

At least one of the other P2P download thingies lets you decide who you count as a freeloader by how many files they're sharing. You can effectively ignore people who aren't sharing files.

Saving window positions would be nice. It's minor, but I'd like it.

It's already pretty good. If it's not broke, don't fix it. :)

All blocking freeloaders does is prompts people to lie in pongs sayign how many files they are sharing. In fact, I think BearShare already has this 'feature'... but I'll have to go looking in the freepeers.ini again to be sure.

I think window position saving between sessions will come soon... a while back positions weren't even saved between minimizing to the tray x.x

If that's true about BearShare allowing users to lie about total share content, that's bad! I forget which other program let you decide who was freeloading but I think it was LimeWire, but don't quote me.

I confess I've never used BearShare. I tried LimeWire, DirectConnect (urgh), Gnotella, SwapNut (which I think is awful) and Xolox. I have to say I think Xolox is the best of the bunch.

Missing tool!
 

I am missing a tool, which is called bearshare! :D

Morgwen

P.S.:

I am not Kutulus but resistance is futile! :D

Hehe Morgwen, if I wouldn't know you, I would say you're trolling around. However feel free to use both clients! :) So long, Moak

I just wanted to make a make an argument against including MP3 bitrate information. While I know I'd greatly appreciate it, as would most of us users, it seems kinda dangerous.

Trading music via a peer-to-peer tool is legal suicide. Hence, music-specific clients like Napster, are a bad idea. By allowing the sharing and distribution of any material, not just music or other copyright-entangled mediums, there seems to be at least some argument that the client isn't a tool whose purpose is to aid copyright infringement - it's a file sharing facility whose danger is no more inherent then a network file share.

By parsing and displaying metadata specific to, say, music, that argument seems to be severely weakened - you're providing enhanced support for trading copyright infringing material.

'Course, in lieu of actually putting in the support yourself, if you provided us with some sort of plugin' system. I'm sure some of us more "industrious" users would be willing to take the hint. ;)

Hi C=64!

Xolox is not Napster - Xolox uses the free Gnuetella net without a central server like Napster! You cannot unplug the server(s) like Napster (you have to travel a lot ;) ). An it is more difficult to investigate for the organisations like RIAA...

Let me repeat XoloX/Gnutella is "not" Napster...

Morgwen

Howdy Morgwen.

I completely realize that Napster and Gnutella are completely different things. I completely realize the Gnutella network can't simply be unplugged. I completely realize that fire is hot. I competely realize I shouldn't bathe with a plugged-in toaster. Etc etc... ;)

I merely mentioned Napster to illustrate a point - be too specific in your mechanism that can be used for distributing copyrighted material, and you'll give reason for believing the tool's primary purpose is, well, distributing copyrighted material.

When (notice I didn't say if) the RIAA decides to come after Gnutella, they're going to go after visible figures to attack. And what are the visible figures in the Gnutella world? The Gnutella clients.

I'd just hate to see the authors of a program that we all find useful be subject to any sort of legal harassment, that's all. Sure, we can always move on to another Gnutella client, and the network will survive, but that doesn't do Xolox's authors any good, eh?

Hi,

you are right... the client could be filterd...huups...;) But when this day arrive, you could rename the client and register a different company - its a litlle bit tricky but it is not the end... :)

Morgwen

I do not agree.

Let's play with that theory. Why should RIAA seperate gnutela clients into "good" and "bad" and why should gnutella servants with metadata be more bad? You can trade music, video, cook recipes with any gnutella client. Forbiding one client makes no sense, users will switch over to next gnutella client etc.

Metadata is an important feature which all gnutella client should and will provide. See former GDF (gnutella devloper forum) debates and the high user demand, I guess metadata (Mp3, video, PDF, Word, whatever is popular) will be part of the protocoll soon. Gnutella isn't music, Metadata isn't music.

Hi Moak nice to see you again. :)

It doesn´t matter if you agree or not...

You say it make no sense to close seperate clients but this is what the RIAA is trying (Napster, Morpheus)! It is actually the only way the RIAA can act. Sometimes laws make no sense and may be they change...

And I think the RIAA will not seperate the clients in god or bad only in "very popular" and "not popular" - they will try to close them all but the popular first...

Morgwen

Don't panic! :)

Following this theory, we have to keep existing clients bad, because good clients are attacked by RIA? No, I say improve the protocoll and make all clients equal good.

Also this debate mixed protocolls (Napster/Fasttrack) with single gnutella clients. In the view of RIAA breaking down a centralized technology (Napster/Fasttrack are according to RIAAs internal papers) is possible - and makes one step forward in controlling music business/money flow. But breaking down one single gnutella client of many others does result in no advantage for RIAA at all. Gnutella can't be controlled as far as we know yet. Gnutella's strength is the decentral topology, open protocoll (!) and a resulting variety of clients.

So keep in mind metadata is not music only. It's only one aspect of gnutella's protocoll enhancement. Don't be afraid of developing the Gnutella protocoll.

Moak

Hi Moak!

A popular client is not every time a "god" client you should know the difference! ;)

The improvement of gnet is a good idea, but I think its nearly impossible to keep the clients equal good...
The developers of the clients do not have the same ressources and they have to work together (this is a dream! :( )

Morgwen

I'm sorry you don't agree Moak - I've made a quick pass through the board the last few days, and I've found you to be one of the most intelligable posters here. I'm not oppose to metadata - I'm oppose to parsing of only specific metadata directly related to trading in a media that has already been demonstrated as a Bad Thing(tm) to traffic in.

It all boils down to: Is the client's primary purpose to trade in copyrighted materials?

Napster was. It was (effectively) shut down.
(My hope is) Xolox isn't. It won't be (effectively) shut down.

There is no reason for the RIAA to want to consider any Gnutella client good. I'm perfectly willing to grant that. I'm sure they'd like Gnutella gone, Napster gone, Morpheus gone, network shares gone, tape recorders gone, computers gone, cover bands gone, and cute little puppies gone, too.

But that's not the point. A *protocol* and an *application utilizing said protocol* are distinct. An application that uses a protocol to break the law is not legal. An application that doesn't use a protocol to break the law is not (in a sane legal system) illegal.

Otherwise, Napster woulda taken down TCP/IP as well. Now *that* would truly suck.

Napster was crushed. Why? Becuase it catered to the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now let's take a look at Gnutella. The Gnutella network, by its nature, isn't specific to any single type of content. Ergo, it can be argued that its a general file sharing protocol that doesn't distinguish between the types of data present, copyrightable or not. It is no different then an open file share on a network. Or, more accurately, no different then HTTP, except it has a distributed DNS system tailored to indexing data rather then data-centers.

However, as soon as you add advanced functionality for a particular type of medium, you are in essence proposing that is an important, and possibly primary, function.

Now, to provide bitrate information means that Xolox, in addition to providing standard file sharing, is going out of it's way to make it easier to share music. Thus, it goes out of it's way to provided *enhanced* functionality towards the distribution of copyrighted materials.

Now, I'm not even sure if the "general file sharing tool" is legally in better standing then "music sharing tool". My entire statement rests on the (very weak) proposition that it is.

In that case, if a Gnutella client does NOT cross the line from being a "general file sharing tool" to a (in this case) "music sharing tool", it has a legal basis to defend itself.

I am sure the RIAA doesn't care about this distinction. But they aren't who I care notice it. It's the law and it's interpretation of Xolox's status that I'm concerned with.

Agreed. However, parse metadata for displaying bitrate information in a file sharing system, and you've tailored it for music. Each part (i.e. the underlying transfer system and the metadata for it's data) taken seperate is not a concern. Tie the two together though to enhance functionality for something that's been deemed bad is, well, bad.

To try and illustrate my point via useless shock value, let's say that someone creates a Gnutella client whose tailored to find kiddie porn. There is metadata floating about, which it parses to effectively aid its users in finding said kiddie porn. The metadata in-and-of-itself isn't illegal (though the data sure as hell is). The underlying protocol isn't illegal. Yet, the application is tailored to perform an illegal function. Sure, it might be able to transfer non-kiddie porn files, but that doesn't distract from its enhanced, and arguably primary, functionality. Shall we consider it safe to assume that this program is illegal?

Assuming you agree, it's not hard to make the logical comparison - both are Gnutella clients that provide enhanced functionality to aid in the transfer of files that are illegal to distribute. And this is the reason I'm leary about having bitrate information displayed.

Hi C=64!

Moak is right we can improve the gnet, with a code in every client for example! But he forgot that not every developer has enough money to integrate such improvements - ergo the most clients will close!

Morgwen

P.S.:

Forgot to say Moak is the best (almost)! :)

Morgwen

The RIAA will target on all centralized or any other vulnerable systems. Gnutella has been developed to stand such "attacks", there is no significant change when adding metadata to the protocoll IMHO.

Moak :)

Sigh... I write one of my overly verbose replies, and end up 3 steps behind the conversation. Doh! :(
But breaking down a Gnutella client does do the RIAA good.

First off, why on earth would they stop at just one? If they can do it once, then all the rest fall like dominos - the precedent will have already been set.

Second, the RIAA would be able to effectively terrorize whatever clients hope to fill the void into non-existance. I know I'M not going to write a client, because I can't afford a legal tangle with the RIAA. I'm going to assume most other devs are the same way.

Third, they won't be able to kill Gnutella directly. I completely concur. But they don't HAVE to. They will work to keep it from becoming popular. How do you do this? Kill the popular clients. While we may be savy enough to find a new client and move on, the general populus isn't so fortunate. And an unpopular peer-to-peer file sharing network is a pretty empty peer-to-peer file sharing network. And that just plain sucks. And sucking sucks. And... oh wait. :)

I'm scared of the day the RIAA decides to start sabotaging the gnet - denial of service requests, corrupt files mimicing useful content, etc. Or (even worse) creating their *own* client to peddle to the masses... [shudder]

On a completely different note, is there another forum we should move this discussion to? It's sounding less and less like a feature request. :)

That, or we could just agree to let the topic die a noble death. ?

Hi, your fears are theory yet.
I don't see or expect this will happen, because of adding metadata to gnutella.

Happy sharing, Moak :)

For those, who like to vote on polls.... check this:

"Which is the best Gnutella client?"
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=4916

"Are segmented downloads unhealthy for the network"
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=5031

What I'd like to see on this excellent prog is the filename preserved in the Xolox\Temp directory, instead of "JOB-Segment207-591.xlx". I'd like to be able to identify the file segments that are there if I need some extra HD space. Thanks.

Jim

some humble requests
 

-to allow user to prioritize downloads, e.g. to pick ten files that are always attempted to be downloaded first or to be downloaded in parallel from several servers, rather than downloading other files.

-to preview partly downloaded files, I know thats been mentioned before, I know thats tricky with downloads from different sources.

-why does xolox eats up computing power, can't it be limited to something more moderate (e.g. 20% on a 400Mhz CPU), is it really essential for xolox to take more than 80% of CPU time after a few hours of running time.

- auto adjust download and upload limits, mostly I run with 4 instead of the default 3, however, then it often happens that 4 users connect to me and get a meagre 1kb/s download, I think it would be good for all if one would receive 4kb/sec and the others get nothing.

- oh yes, nerds, I would like to be able to see more stats about network performance etc. nothing essential but fun.

- I would like to be able to limit searches to files that have a minimum size.

- please don#t outo close the search tabs, if you are hunting for rare files, it might take many hours before you get a proper hit, but that this is possible is one of my favorits with using xolox. To reduce network congestion one might limit searches to an output of a 1000 files ore something like that, as soon as this limit is reached autoclose would be fine with me.

Upload re-write ?

I've been going thru all of the Gnutella Clients, and have noticed one very strange thing. Not many people seem to upload the files I have. I share over 11k files 2.9 Gb.

On Limewire and Bearshare within 60 seconds someone is downloading files. On Kazaa it takes a couple of minutes.
The Network comes up as ok.

Jesus wept, Just finished downloading a file. Does it have to update it's Index like that. Can you have an options tickbox that says "Show Filenames on Re-build", surely showing the names will slow the rebuild process down. Could you rebuild the index every hour once a file has been downloaded ?

BTW, I like the feel to it and please don't overcomplicate with chat etc, that's what mIRC there 4.
Goodluck,
Oh.. Can you show howmany hosts you're connected to periodically, alternate the Network ok Text....

> please don#t outo close the search tabs, if you are hunting for
> rare files, it might take many hours before you get a proper hit

hm no.

A typical search within a normal gnutella horizon is finished after minutes. What you might see is IMHO an accumulation of (old) search hits from new hosts connected, but this is not a real research. You will experience much better results (= more succesfull downloads), if you research periodically, e.g. every 15 minutes.

See here: "Searching indicator... "
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=5111

Greets Moak

The good, bad, and ugly
 

.
THE GOOD:
The absolute best thing about XoloX is that there is no chat, no user names, no hassle. I hate to beg and plead with these total strangers to let my download finish. I can use the client without feeling like I need to kiss *** to get a file. That being said... I have a cable connection and my transfer speeds on XoloX are consistantly faster than anything out there.

THE BAD:
I miss bitrates and track length on audio files, I am used to having them and want them. I want freeloaders blocked; they contribute nothing to the network. I don't need the option to control freeloaders myself, integrate a minimum into the software in order to function if you like.

THE UGLY:
My hard drive space stays limited. I barely have room to download a large video file and then burn it to disc. It is a major annoyance to have the incomplete (or pending) downloaded files named unaccordingly. And then I must have an additional 600MB in order to complete my 600MB file. That is the only absolute flaw with this client.

Overall, the beauty of this client is its "stripped down" approach. I don't want to chat or barter. I like the fact that the uploads and downloads are unstoppable. If nothing else, this is the best client for high speed connections.
.