Re: [Mldonkey-users] Re: ET_COMPATIBLECLIENT

[Martin]

spiralvoice wrote...
> thats the point, shall MLDonkey contact him or Lugdunum MLDonkey?
> I think MLDonkey has to contact him, this did hot happen,

NACK. how often should mldonkey ask if the specs have changed? once a
day? a week? no. if he made changes to the protocol *he* has to tell
everyone participating...
btw: i dont like changes that *one* person decides...he just
implemented things he thought would be good...this was not very
community-friendly....
 
> Lugdunum wrote:
> > The mldonkey dev has changed and the new devs never contacted me.
> > I dont know them. I hope nobody still use mldonkey V1. 
> You see there was no communication, development on the Donkey net went 
> forward and MLDonkey was left behind somehow.

this is not quite right....i remember there some communication between
lugdunum and mldonkey which ended in someone publishing b8_bavards
private email adress...

>                                               When it comes to mldonkey 
> v1 there are still some out there:-( Users should update ASAP and throw 
> those old clients to the bin, they hurt the image of MLDonkey.

do you really think the old versions are still out there? they should
be recognized by mldonkey as "old mldonkey" didnt they? i havent seen
one since almost a year (and im online 24/7 with 2 mldonkeys)
 
> There are lots of people who want to download and not upload, leecher 
> mods are around and so on, public specs would make it easier for those 
> guys the screw up the network. 

dont be offendet by that but this sounds like micr*s*fts security
tactic...security by keeping the holes secret.... if lots of people
would have a look at it all holes can be closed...
 
> >>> mldonkey have numerous BUGS, that hurts badly the network, and
> >>> particularly the servers.
> and from his perspective he is right.

yes but his perspective is not neccesary the right one...and such a
perspective is quite dangerous with the guy that controls the servers....

> Also just take a look at the Shareaza forum and the discussion about a 
> DDOS from MLDonkey on cache.shareaza.com, we brought down their servers 
> during May and June 2003!

yes i admit this is true. i dont know if this was incorrectly implemented
or just a false guess for the timeout...
 
> He has a big responsibility to manage 1.5 million users, the 2% or 3% 
> MLDonkey have a bad image and count not that much. It is thanks to 
> Lugdunum, not b8_bavard, that there is contact now, I appreciate that 
> very much.

IMHO its thanks to lugdunum that the contact broke in the first place
 
> Lets look forward. Yes, there was bad press, there is still a bad image 
> of MLDonkey but despite that we are still living, so the idea of a 
> multinet daemon for Unix is not so bad after all:-)

they cant bring us down ;)
 
> This should end in a flame war, after all what counts is DOWNLOAD and 
> if we can get better connections with Lugdunum servers its ok for me, 
> regardless what happend in the past.

i guess you wanted to say this should NOT end in a flame war... ACK
so lets hope for a bright future.... im already curious about the
changes to fit lugdunums protocol....

-- 
Before replying see www.reedmedia.net/misc/mail/using-mailing-list.html
Very funny Scotty, now beam me down my clothes...