Talk:Comparison of file sharing applications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Extra info and Rec 2 file sharing networks 3 WinNY is not closed source 4 Spyware?! 5 adware rumors and a "caution" header 6 freenet 7 verosee 8 missing apps 9 Organization 10 Delete this article 11 Usefulness of article.

[edit] Extra info and Rec

The colums Extra Information and Recomended are highly subjective and incomplete.

Yes. We should dump the "recommended" section definitely, and in "Extra Information" we don't need comments like "one of the best"... – ugen64 22:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should supply facts only. Then readers can decide weather the app is worth a try or not, based on those facts. Therefore I strongly agree that the Recommendations column should be removed, and replaced with somehting useful, such as what language the app is coded in or what the total file size is. I could probably do this for many of the apps on the wiki, since I've used many of them myself. I also think a few more BitTorrent clients should be added to the list and perhaps even a link to Wikipedias comparison of BitTorrent clients. Unless someone is negative to this, I'll get started with these updates pretty soon. -Mirshafie

Ok, so i removed those recommendations and added a Programming language column. I also updated some of the other info and added links to several words. -Mirshafie

Thanks guys, it seems much better now. Time to get the "neutrality" header off then? Ultra Loser 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PS - Should the "programming language" and "license" columns be moved to a new table altogether? Perhaps to a "technical information" section? Ultra Loser 06:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The extra information section is heavily subjective - It's not sufficient to write "slow" or "good for rare downloads" - Wikipedia is not a usage guide to the world - it's here to present verifiable fact. A proper article can deal with the differences between protocols, not a column. Tompagenet 19:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that comments like "slow" are highly subjective, other comments like "Alternative client for the WinMX network. Requires .NET Framework 2.0" are quite useful. I think that the section should be cleaned up, not removed. Ultra Loser 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You cleaned up a lot, too much ! And the comparison is relative to each other, so still relvant, you can verify by trying out the programs or read the description of how they work. :Leuk he 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Many comments in "Extra Information" (Good for rare items, Good for big files) refer to the p2p network rather than the specific client app. There should be a comparison of networks, and then a comparison of clients per network, as this is the logical way to go when you choose a p2p client - you decide on the network first. This sort of conflation is all too widespread (people say "Limewire" when they mean Gnutella, "Emule" instead of ed2k, etc.) Wikipedia shouldn't perseverate it.--84.188.162.118 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A comparison of file sharing networks would be fine. However multi-network clients make this very complicated. not instead, but as addition?

[edit] file sharing networks

Does anybody else think that we also need a comparison of the different file sharing networks?

[edit] WinNY is not closed source

The table says that is closed source, but here is the WinNY sourcecode and WinNY software (http://www.b-geeks.com/index.shtml)

Do you know the license?

[edit] Spyware?!

I wonder on what basis is the info on the column Spyware/Adware determined. I have a source for this with different info. For example, the free version of BearShare is said to be infected with spyware.

http://www.spywareinfo.com/articles/p2p/

This site should be trustworthy enough, since it povides a spyware removal tool.

agreed. Bearshare contains spyware. whenu send the browsing information to a centrail point and that is spyware in my opinion. Having a uninstall option does not make it less privacy invading. The bearshare program is even an example of this on the spyware page :Leuk he 11:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] adware rumors and a "caution" header

Rumors has it that µTorrent supply adware. As several of the programs on the list are open source, there's also a an undergrowth of dubious clones. An example is the disraeli version of emule which message other users with seemingly an advertisement for itself and emule.net which looks very much like emule-project.net but different enough to maybe be an adware clone?

[edit] freenet

Freenet is a design network, but running the java app from freenetproject.org that contains freenet gives enough possiblities to use it a file sharing application. just as bittorent is a protocol but also a application. :Leuk he

[edit] verosee

Is not anonymous. The vendor does not claim this. on the contrary, it uses strong encryption to veryfy the identity of a user. I think it still discloses the ip of the sender (there is something about relay servers in the documentation, but i doubt it is for anonimysation)  :Leuk he 16:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] missing apps

Where's bitcomet and DC++ on the list? 128.6.176.14 21:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

I think we should organize this by protocol/network for example have all the Gnutella clients in one section, etc. MattTheMan 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delete this article

Why does this article exist? It is completely unencyclopedic and totally unsourced. It seems to be entirely original research. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. --Tysto 22:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Please use correct arguments.... :Leuk he 12:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usefulness of article.

I find this article extremely useful and do not believe it should be deleted. Don't let preconceived notions of what Wikipedia is or is not stand in the way of information distribution.

I would however find an objective "rating" very useful; or perhaps a bandwidth utilization ratio/percentage. Something to further determine what to try or what piece of software might be an improvement.