[Mldonkey-users] Re: ET_COMPATIBLECLIENT

[spiralvoice]

Hi,

On Do 20 Nov 2003 09:30:09p Martin wrote:

> finally he has to...there are too many mldonkeys now...he cant
> ignore them yes im happy that he finnally cooperates...but why so
> late? 

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

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. 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.

> i agree....but he is also the guy that includes functions which
> wont let any mldonkeys connect to his servers. thats not very
> nice. and its not like we choosed not to use his new
> functions...he just didnt told anybody (except the emule-devs)
> about them.... (until *now* i know...but its still strange: he
> wont make the specs public) 

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. 

Lugdunum wrote:
> There are strong reasons why lugdunum server is closed source.
> (Dont ask me why. Just guess)

The specs for Lugdunum servers are available to all devs, not only the 
eMule ones, *if* *they* ask Lugudnum:

Lugdunum wrote today:
> b8_bavard has now my email and we work together. Please be
> patient.
> emule dev took about one week to upgrade to 0.30b (UDP jumbo frames,
> zlib), so b8_bavard may take more than 5 minutes to upgrade mldonkey
> too. He got a copy of the technical details less than 20 hours ago,
> and he certainly will have to ask me more questions. 

> and to quote lugdunum:
>>> mldonkey have numerous BUGS, that hurts badly the network, and
>>> particularly the servers.

and from his perspective he is right.

Lugdunum wrote:
> A server can be taken down by a dozen of DDOS attackers. mldonkey
> users have to know that mldonkey is one of the best DDOS tool ever
> writen.

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!
http://forums.shareaza.com/showthread.php?threadid=8571

> this is from his first few posts on the mldonkey-forums...
> sounds like a real nice guy to me...

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.

> no hes not that nice guy. i dont forget that he was one of those
> who wanted us to get banned from the official forums and from the
> whole network. you may call me resentful....

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:-)

> but IMHO you got the wrong picture from that lugdunum-guy... 

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.

Greetings, spiralvoice