Talk:MLDonkey

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Untitled

I removed the sentence

Since the application allows downloads without offering uploads, the application has been criticized as supporting leeches.

It may be true that this criticism has been voiced, but since all peer to peer applications allow leeching, the criticism is grossly unfair and need not be repeated here. AxelBoldt 08:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

More accurately, MLDonkey does not support sharing at all on some of its supported networks.—Eloquence 08:30, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

All this gets fixed, and allways has been temporary until the network in question was fully supported. The user's upload is an individual resposibility, anyone can leech with any client if that is what they want, no need to go back witch hunting so everyone has to use your favorite client.. -Stéphane

Why is it written in a functional language? Doesn't that make it slow?--84.188.146.27 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no reason why a functional language would be any slower then a non functional language, and quite a few run as fast as C, http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ . Which is quite a feat, since all of them offer garbage collection (User317 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC));[reply]

Gnutella / G2

The article contains the phrase:

Support for Gnutella and G2 networks was removed in release 2.9.0 [1].

Is this actually true? I have ver. 2.9.1 and it can use Gnutella and G2 (although doesn't by default). Also the reference doesn't actually seem to back up this statement. It is a list of bullet points (from a forum post?) and says

- do not compile unmaintained Gnutella/G2 by default

I would dispute that this constitutes proof of "removal of support"; although it does imply maybe its been relegated from default status and/or is not actively maintained? The reference also lacks a context. In addition the page [[1]] does not list Gnutella / G2 as networks that were supported but now aren't. Does anyone know what the actual situation is? At the very least I think the reference needs to be replaced by a better one. 82.32.73.92 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are right. This has been made OPTIONAL and won't compile with default settings; i. e. you have to manually enable it. BTW when reading the article at first, I thought it was legal pressure forcing the author to remove G2 support, but it seems it is merely unmaintained and no one wants to work for it atm. Will adapt this a bit. -andy 85.179.59.34 (talk) 07:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for this piece of information (ref [6]) seems to point to a restricted or moved forum section. It would be nice if someone could fix it to make it available for the public, as in its current state (I get only a page on SourceForge with a red error message), it is not really helpful to most people.

mfg, OldDeath - 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Connect

Can someone please provide a reference for the allegedly violation of "no fake shares" rule? I have removed the following sentence until we find such reference, and if this issue is a thing of the past, this could be stated somewhere else in the article rather than on the feature list.

As many users of the MLDonkey client (mldc) choose to report inflated share sizes, mldc is not welcome to many DC hubs, and violates the common "no fake shares" rule. (recently fixed)

--For the love of Pi! (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

multiple networks functional?

I have installed MLdonkey several times over the last years and the only network I ever got to work was the eDonkey network. I also read in an included readme file that development for some networks has stopped some 1-2 years ago and since protocol compliance is not guaranteed anymore, the affected networks might not be reachable via MLdonkey. I think it's erroneous to advertise MLdonkey as supporting so many different networks, while in fact this is only true in theory, but in practice the the software (out-of-the-box) cannot connect to most networks. If someone actually does use MLdonkey successfully on multiple networks, please provide links that provide the necessary information as to how do achieve this. Thank you. boarder's paradise (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using MLDonkey's BitTorrent support now for more than one year and it works as expected. I have not tested anything about its performance but I have downloaded really big files and I can sometimes see people uploading from me through the BT network.--For the love of Pi! (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Innovations

May we list innovations by the creators of MLdonkey ?? As it was the very first eDonkey client to share sources, it even used a clever way to send sources to clients that did not support this feature yet. It was also the first eDonkey client to save sources and so was able to function even if servers were momentarily down. Not sure about this but if it was not the first it was one of the firsts to support the 'release' mode for sharing files. It was the first to offer the option to first download parts of video files required to preview it. You can go on and continue the list! So i think this is well deserved by the authors to list their contributions to the peer to peer community. -Stéphane —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.163.209 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you may. :) Just add what you think the article lacks (don't forget sourcing it plz)!

mfg, OldDeath - 00:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MLDonkey. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114231255/http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=719769 to http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=719769

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) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]