Jump to content

Talk:Direct Connect (protocol)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protocol?

[edit]

It seems that a lot of things have been put into the separate NMDC/DC++ articles, and that the parts specific to those should be moved off this page. What should go here, then? Maybe a basic description of the protocol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.177.150 (talk • contribs) 15:39, December 7, 2004

Also, should we use DC_plus_plus or DCPlusPlus for the DC++ article name? the executable is named the latter, but C++ uses the former naming scheme —Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudonympH (talk • contribs) 16:21, December 7, 2004

67.171.11.171 removed "unsupported, unecessary sentences regarding the "record" for number of users on a DC hub" from the article. I was just wondering, that in which way are such user records "unecessary"? There are articles about all kinds of stuff, even weird fish species on Wikipedia. I don't think it is NECESSARY for anyone to know the average size of a damn fish, but some people might find this information interesting. The same could be applied to this article. Even though it isnt NECESSARY for anyone to know the highest amount of users ever fitted in a dc hub, many will find it interesting. Unsupported cannot really be said, because as said, there were around 14 000 people in the hub, and as such, many of them must have seen how many users there were in the hub, and if found, could probably support this record. Also, this hub was discussed on the hublist.org chat hub, and many of the people from there went to the record hub. If we thought that all of these people could be lying, we could as well remove the World War II article from Wikipedia, giving "100% of the witnesses were lying". Therefore, I propose adding the user records, and other information people could find interestring, to this article. -meh —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJV (talk • contribs) 20:20, April 23, 2005

Unlisted direct file transfer system?

[edit]

I notice there is no mention in here of direct file transfer using websites like http://jetbytes.com/ which create direct links to the file on your computer that can then be used by someone else to directly transfer the file. It's a rather different, simpler, yet more limited process than other methods listed on this page, but seems that it should get a mention herein. --202.168.117.24 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More Info Needed

[edit]

What's so great about the DC protocol? Is it secure? Does it do automatic CRC checking of files? How do download/upload queues work? Anything special? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.169.172 (talk • contribs) 23:44, June 16, 2005

Hi, I added some information on the weaknesses of the direct connect protocol. Also, removed some unneccesary NPOV attempts relating to the featuresets of the alternatives to the official client. No one questions that the alternatives are generally more featured. The OSS versions were made _because_ the official client was slow to add features and fix bugs.

I'm not badmouthing the protocol unfairly. I've programmed for it, and it sucks. I didn't say that, but did point out things that are objectively wrong with it.

In my opinion, this should not be merged with neo modus direct connect entry, as there is too much general information on alternative clients, protocol issues and the DC "scene" to lump all that with NMDC. The official client is basically on the way out, and the eventual replacement of the protocol with the DC++ protocol is going to wipe it out if Hess doesn't redo the official client from the ground up to support these new features.

Laters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.22.227 (talk • contribs) 16:05, July 30, 2005

Merge

[edit]

I'm against the merge. Direct connect file-sharing application is pretty much used as a blanket for DC incarnations... whereas NeoModus is the original... but now, not nearly the most popular. I think mergins ia bad. gren グレン 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I merged Direct Connect network into this article. I reworded a lot of it and added headings, so I hope nothing got lost on the way. The title Direct connect file-sharing application doesn't seem right to me. Maybe its too long or too specific. Perhaps it should be something like Direct Connect (file sharing). —Vadmium 11:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belonging

[edit]

85.179.26.170 wrote " Due to the centralized nature of Direct Connect, some doubt that the protocol belongs to the P2P family.". Who are these "some"? Source for that claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner (talk • contribs) 04:25, September 3, 2006 (UTC)

The Peer-to-Peer article defines P2P to be the same as what I'd call decentralized file sharing algorithms. I was around when Napster rose to popularity, and I made no centralized/decentralized judgement to consider a given network P2P. Even so, the P2P article itself mentions "hybrid P2P", which DC is (since the independent servers are akin to those used in Napster or eDonkey 2000). I don't think that sentence fits with how Wikipedia defines P2P, so I'm removing it. --GargoyleMT 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That had bothered me for a while. The fact that it continues to run, long after the demise of neo-modus.com attest to the fact that it is definitely 'hybrid-p2p'. Thanks GargoyleMT. Jon H ;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.189.131 (talk • contribs) 05:43, November 30, 2006

Protocol Section

[edit]

The section on the protocol doesn't mention anything specific about the protocol. Instead, it describes some of it's inefficiencies, and basically recommends an alternative. I feel that the section should be removed, renamed, or substatially altered. Hotdogger 23:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --GargoyleMT 21:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have found backup link to protocol description: http://www.thenighthawk.biz/smf/index.php#16
Eh, well, it's not really a "description" of the protocol. It's 'just' the protocol commands, no explanation. We already got that linked to in the article... --Ullner 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the protocol section. I hope it's better now. --Ullner 14:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADC

[edit]

ADC protocol isnt really "better". originally it was supposed to use less bandwith and less resources than DC++ protocol wich is not the case, it removes the "myINFO" line wich was almost always unnessecary, but instead it intorduced something much longer INF line and some ID's that are in most cases unnessecary, wich makes it even worse than the original protocol, the only good thing is the id's ability to ban a user even if he changes nick/ip (or use the id for authentication) Gunnaraztek 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing your judgement on? The initial INF is larger, yes, however; as people send updates as they're in the hub (share, slot, hubs updates etc), ADC will use less bandwidth, as less is sent. (Only the actual changed info.) I've attempted to document the differences at the DC++ blog, and so far I've only come up with instances where ADC will out-perform NMDC. Unfortunately, there have yet to be a real test with a hub and the consumed bandwidth over time. The different IDs serve a purpose, although they may seem redudant at first glance. In what way are they "unnecessary"? In addition, I'd like to say that this article doesn't explicitly say that ADC is better, or worse, just that its "designed to address the former's [NMDC's] weaknesses." --Ullner 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps ADC should be merged (yes, there's no content on that page) here? Considering they both use the same hub-client concept? --Ullner 13:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

I'm finding the dates section a bit pointless. The only date that should really remain is the Open Direct Connect project reference. The dates of when Neomodus was created and when the project died might be interesting. Also, the date of the first third-party hub, and the first version of DC++. But I'm not sure any date at all is even interesting here... I'll remove that section, if there's no objection. --Ullner 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

[edit]

Why isn't spamming problem mentioned at all? I mean those unsolicited bulk private messages sent to p2p-clients. For example, advertising (especially promoting rival DC hubs) and slot-begging (fully automatic!). It looks like this problem doesn't bother any developer, and absolutely no client-side countermeasure is available, while a plently of spamming tools apparently exist. Even such a simple feature like banning a user is not implemented, so you have to rely on firewall (which only helps if offender's IP address is static). Isn't is strange not to account for spam in the modern world? 217.172.21.161 (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting would be if there is any clear proof that Hexhub is used by its creators for launching DDoS attacks? As the people behind HexHub are affilated with a group where some members are searched by Interpol for cybercrimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.59.120.14 (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If you consult WP:DISAMBIGUATION and MOS:DP, the point of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate between content in existing Wikipedia articles. For example, if Wikipedia has articles with information about TOPIC X and TOPIC Y, and these topics are different but can be referred to by the same name, a disambiguation page is necessary because when a user searches for that name, the wiki doesn't know which topic they're looking for.
As far as I can tell, entries three, four and five at Direct connect are for meanings of "Direct connect" that are not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia except for the disambiguation page. The reason I'm not completely sure about that is because, as is common with entries that are mistakenly added to disambiguation pages but explicitly forbidden by the Manual of Style, each of those entries links to many existing articles instead of the single best article for finding information about that topic, and I don't want to click on twenty different articles and do a ctrl-f search on each of them for the phrase "direct connect." None of the articles linked look likely to include information about the meaning of "direct connect" being described.
In essence, my point is that unless you can show me an article other than the disambiguation page itself that actually includes information about "direct connect" as described in the third or fourth (or fifth) entries, none of those meanings should be included in a disambiguative process. Propaniac (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Active

[edit]

Some IP user added a column called "Active" to the one of the software comparison tables. Shouldn't the rh and rh2 templates be used to make development activity visible?

Merge multiple tables into one

[edit]

Software listed in several tables makes it difficult for people to compare it. For example, some client software, like Jucy, is listed as able to run on Win, Linux, Mac and others, when in fact it is written in Java, which a lot of people are trying to avoid, due to it's virtual machine overhead. It's just an example, but really all software should be put into 1 table with different columns to be easily compared. If columns are too wide, then some markers should be put instead a descriptive text and a Legend table should be created under to provide the way for people to figure out what marker in the table means what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burek021 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many references in one place

[edit]

As of February 2009,[8][9]↵[10][11][12] an extension for clients was proposed in order for the attacked party to find out the hub sending the connecting users

Can somebody clear the 8-12 references and make the more clear where they should be put? Robert (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Direct Connect (protocol). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Direct Connect (protocol). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Direct_Connect_(protocol)&oldid=1201549369"