Re: [Mldonkey-users] Hippies and emule

[Brett Dikeman]

At 7:44 PM -0500 1/16/03, Stephane Goulet wrote:

> Read "history" mldonkey has allways been witchhunted because old 
> versions did not put good restrictions on requests (for server and 
> users)

 My own client stats show "new mldonkey" clients usually make up 20% 
of the seen peers, but something like 70% of the file requests.

> . They never said, hey pls mldonkey add this and this to controll 
> your nice innovative client.

Actually, I remember the eMule developers:

a)making it known that they asked mldonkey developers to change the 
client so it was more 'social', they got no response, no action, and 
after some time had passed, they gave up- and blocked mldonkey clients

b)removing the blocking AND informing their users that the mldonkey 
client had been fixed

Also, recently, a patch came out for eMule to block mldonkey 
users...why? Because someone implemented a feature to limit upload 
queue slots to 33% max for eMule users.

It seems like almost every time, mldonkey development has aggravated 
a response from eMule.  Seems like each response(that I'm aware of) 
was 100% justified; the 33% patch was motivated by a whiny "it's not 
fair" attitude that the most popular client was getting (GASP!) most 
of people upload slots.

  I could care less, since most of the bytes I receive are from eMule 
clients; they make up about 59% of my seen-clients, %80 of my 
downloaders, and %70 of my downloaded bytes.  Seems pretty damn fair 
and even to me.

> . No, only a primitive witchhunt.

Oh, drop the persecution complex...

>  And afterwards a new opensource for windows copies the innovations we made

Which part of "open source" didn't you understand?  The whole point 
behind many free/open-source licenses is that others CAN use your 
work...it's just that under some licenses, if you make improvements, 
provide those changes back. If mldonkey developers don't like that, 
then they need to find a license more suited to their liking.

> If you want peace, don't beg for it here, we tried.

I see, so that justifies further "war" for the sake of war.  Guess 
what.  mldonkey developers starting a war with eMule developers over 
who can block who is going to leave mldonkey users feeling pretty 
sore, because guess what- mldonkey is very much the minority.  If we 
all, tomorrow, blocked eMule users, guess what? They'll block us, and 
none of them will care a hoot; meanwhile, we've have mostly useless 
clients since we won't be able to talk to 80% of the hosts out there.

I'm not making any of this up- there's a pretty good precedence.

> Go talk to them, if you can get their good graces and open their eyes, you
> bet we will be happy to do whatever we can to live in harmony.

I've got a better idea.  How about the mldonkey developers stop 
implementing discriminatory features(like that wonderful "max # of 
emule upload slots" feature) that give the eMule developers 
justification to turn around and discriminate against our client?  If 
mldonkey developers play nice, eMule developers will be hard pressed 
to justify discriminatory features against mldonkey.

Treat others how you would expect to be treated.  If they can't play 
nice, that's THEIR problem.  If YOU can't play nice, you invite 
trouble and you damn well deserve it, too.  When you're 5'1" and 100 
lb, you shouldn't go making trouble with the 6'5", 230lb neighbor.

Let me break down the possibilities.

-mldonkey goes "nice", no eMule blocking address@hidden, etc.
        chance #1: eMule people see mldonkey's playing nice, pull blocks etc.
	chance #2: eMule people don't see mldonkey playing nice, 
blocks etc stay

-mldonkey continues discriminating against eMule clients
	guaranteed outcome: eMule response of further blocking of 
mldonkey, they all sleep good at night, and everyone sees it as 
justified

Let's not forget that, by wasting time trying to identify the other 
"evil" client, neither side gets as much work done actually improving 
their client. It's a loss-loss proposition, though much more so for 
mldonkey being that it doesn't have the 'market share'.  Look at most 
military dictatorships; when all the money goes to fighting(or being 
ready to fight), all your other priorities suffer.

Personally, I'm fed up.  If this little blocking war goes on much 
longer, I'll be figuring out how to run another client on my linux 
box(that C client is sounding mighty interesting), and I won't shed a 
single tear. A useless client is a DEAD client.

Brett
--
----
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~brett/
http://www.apple.com/switch/