Talk:DC++

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Free software Portal This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 NPOV concerns 2 fulDC 3 SababaDC 4 Linux Clients 5 Hubs 6 LinuxDC++ merge 7 RevConnect Merge

[edit] NPOV concerns

The article's wording is too heavily in praise of the software.--24.114.252.183 14:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This sounds more like a plug for the software rather than a neutral description or comparison. 69.227.23.179 15:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever considered the notion that maybe DC++ is all-around better than Direct Connect? 24.177.11.130 01:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten this article somewhat, do you think the NPOV dispute tag can be removed now? Solver 16:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Your changes were definitely an improvement, but there is still a ways to go. As I see it, there are two major problems vis-à-vis NPOV: things given as facts that may or may not be factual, but that aren't verifiable either way (e.g., the assertion that most people connect to DC networks using DC++), and things given as facts that are out-and-out opinions (e.g., the characterization of various features of DC++ as advantages over NMDC). Ruakh 03:36, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The assertion that most connect using DC++ is verifiable. When I connect to a DC hub, I can see what client is used by every other user. A quick look through the user list reveals that differnet versions of DC++ by far make up the majority. I couldn't find any statistics online to link to, though, but I wanted to include such a link in the article. Solver 22:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can verify that most users on a given hub use DC++, but I don't see how you could verify it Direct-Connect-wide. After all, this is a prime example of selection bias: since people find out about a given hub from other people (likely their friends), and since people find out about a given client from other people (likely their friends), I'd assume that people on the same hub are more likely to use the same client than people on different hubs. Ruakh 04:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your selection bias does not hold true in this case. As an hublist (dc.selwerd.nl/hublist[.xml].bz2) admin I have visited countless hubs while assessing the hublist pinger (a bot that scans the hubs for user count and share size) performance, and can confirm that the _vast_ majority uses DC++ or a derived version. As a hub owner, I have spoken to several other owners and seen the state of their hub. And as a Direct Connect veteran I can confirm that historically Neo Modus Direct Connect usage dropped dramatically around the introduction of DC++ version 0.181. Yes, it is possible to modify the pinger bot to get fairly accurate client usage statistics, but this is not at all necessary. Fetch a hublist, and go join a random couple of hubs. You _will_ find an overwhelming percentage of DC++ and derived clients. (The "friends" argument holds only partially true as well, the hub list system allows users that become a bit familiar with the software to join any random hub on the list, spreading the population drastically.) Sedulus 12:55, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

Regarding out-and-out opinions: "Many users feel that DC++'s interface is easier to use. Differences from NMDC include: (..three points..)" This can be scrapped yes. After a long period of silence from Jon Hess (NMDC) he did update his client. I have seen it once (I don't like to install software that has ads/adware), and his version 2 is able to connect to multiple hubs and I assume able to resume files from a different user. I can't even confirm that it still has ads/adware (the old version 1 most certainly did though). So, I'll remove that and will wait for others to do a comparison against current NMDC. Will this un-NPOV-dispute it? Sedulus 13:04, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag, read through the article and I think it's neutral now. If anyone disputes this feel free to put the tag back, but state the reasons why, because I've addressed all the NPOV issues described here. Splintax 11:48, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

It looks much more neutral now, thanks. Now all it needs is a good copy-edit. :-) Ruakh 17:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How is this link: Commercial Managed DC Hub Hosting Provider related to DC++? Removing it. Gustavb 19:49, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

[edit] fulDC

I removed the following text under fulDC. "This client is the successor of oDC. It is also the most commonly used mod of DC++." Reason being that the firt sentence is untrue, fulDC was originally a modification of another client, never released to the public. Some code was taken from oDC and implemented into fulDC but in order for it to be a successor it should be completely based on oDC or be created by the creator of oDC (using the handle: Opera). Regarding the second sentence I feel that there is no evidence at all regarding popularity of the different DC++mods and thus this is POV. Manos1394 09:40, 2005 Oct 06 (UTC)

Regarding the successor comment, I believe you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word. It is being used here in the sense of the second definition given on the Wiktionary page (linked). Specifically, "A person or thing that immediately replaces another". People used oDC before, then they used fulDC to replace it when it was no longer being maintained. Succession. In this fashion, it could also be claimed that DC++ is the successor of NMDC. If the statement had said something along the lines of "fulDC is the next version of oDC" then your comment might have some merit. I am therefore going to reinstate that sentence. --TheParanoidOne 19:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I still don't agree that the comment is valid. Your way of portraying it assumes everyone previously using oDC now use fulDC, wich may or may not be true, but still there are no facts backign this assumption. I myself use fulDC and I think it's great, but I do feel that the comment is innacurate. Maybe something in the line of: "Many users chose to use fulDC when the development of oDC ceased:" And also I believe we need to have oDC written about aswell. It is the DC++ mod that made the biggest changes and advancements, adding things such as colors and sfv checking. What do you think? Manos1394 08:57, 2005 Oct 07 (UTC)

[edit] SababaDC

I removed the addition of SababaDC for two reasons. Firstly, the list of mods is becoming a bit long. It already takes up a hefty chunk of the page. Secondly, there were just too many things listed for it. It looked a bit ridiculous. In that vein, I'm tempted to chop out some of the bullets from StrongDC as well ... --TheParanoidOne 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux Clients

Why are the Linux clients has been removed?

• valknut
• microdc
• ...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.94.21 (talk) 18:52, February 19, 2006.

Simply because they are not DC++ and not even DC++ mods. This article is about DC++, a specific Direct Connect client. –Gustavb 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Atm no Linux client/server is listed...! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.160.94.21 (talk) 18:52, February 19, 2006.

An linux port of DC++ is listed under External links, it could also be mentioned in the article, feel free to add it…

The clients you listed are in the Direct Connect (file sharing) article, where they belong. –Gustavb 00:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs

Why are hubs advantageous? Why can't the entire userbase of dc++ be a single hub, so that one can locate just about any file? It would be so much stronger if everybody on the network where connected, no? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.80.214.158 (talk) 14:59, August 30, 2006.

The design of the protocol does not lend itself to that. It could be argued that one of the Direct Connect's network advantages is being decentralized, allowing users to form their own communities based on whatever criteria they're comfortable with. Your point about the lack of a global search is one I've seen before, and it has merit from an end user point of view. --GargoyleMT 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LinuxDC++ merge

LinuxDC++ is just a port of DC++, so it really makes no sense to have it have it's own article, that would be like the GIMP's Microsoft Windows/GTK port get it's own article - it's just not it's own thing. 65.94.100.225 01:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Half of it is a port, the source under client/. The Windows GUI is written in WTL, which is not portable across platforms. I think that's a point worthy of consideration. --GargoyleMT 18:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The gui was completely built from scratch for Linuxdcpp whereas GIMP uses the GTK Toolkit for windows requiring little if no changes to the source. bheekling 08:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RevConnect Merge

The RevConnect page is very sparse, and I'm not sure it deserves its own article when so few other DC++ derivatives do. --GargoyleMT 20:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The contents on RevConnect are the same as in the DC++ derivative section. I'm not even sure if there's anything to 'merge'. The RevConnect page can be removed without loss of information. --Ullner 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. --GargoyleMT 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)