No it does not harm the gnutella network because gnucleus and morpheus
both provide their own ultrapeers to support the load. It is true the
version of gnutella in gnucleus is not up to date, but it does not harm
the network for the reason above. The gnutella2 implementation took
time to do, but it was well worth it. We are in the process now of
updating the gnutella protocol to be more compatible with limewire and
bearshare clients.

- John

i e-mailed John Marshal, the developer of gnucdna

Wow that reply was stupid from John and proves he doesn't care about gnutella.... True gnucDNA has ultrapeers, so what, without them they would not even connect to gnutella What do you think makes that people are still using Morpheus... They get downloads!!!! From who: others clients!!! What they give back:nothing!!! What is the principle of P2P??? Sharing with others by providing available downloads.... GnucDNA is NOT P2Ping on Gnutella. It might be doing so on Gnutella2 (they do) but we could care less about that as it only benefits shareaza users.

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/

True, true, peerless they only have an app that integrate other pieces of work made outside morpheus and that before they were on fasttrack... However this does not make harmful, just creditless and shows how this company should die...

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/

ok so morpheus is a worthless peice of crap


but what do u all think of gnucleus?

Gnucleus would be good if you could desactivate gnutella support, using only the g2 protocol, where effort has been put on. Given a choice between gnucleus and morpheus, I'll take gnucleus in the second, however there are better gnutella alternatives and even other protocol to consider before I'd think using it full time rather than for testing purposes.

Ciao

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/

There is nothing wrong with Morpheus AT ALL, Morpheus provides a decent amout of users to Gnutella & G2.

Here is a change log:

Class created for rolling averages, slower download hosts replaced with faster ones during transfer

Geo Loc methods added, QA bandwidth reduced, crawler extended
Reduced memory requirements of G2 Nodes (supposedly by almost half)
memory and bandwidth req decreased, profiled for less cpu
id3-less hashing (disabled)
Less memory used in g2 hub mode.
Optimized parts with a profiler (less cpu).
Less bandwidth used in G2 hub mode (acks not requested, optimized
response path)
Tested for long term stability.
Search auto-pause after 5 mins (large reduction of udp traffic)
Detection if client has been assigned a private IP address
Searching network more evenly distributed

Ah yes? You know anything we don´t know? Morpheus is bad for the Gnutella network several developers confirmed this, no propaganda will change this.

Morgwen

How about stop nagging about GnucDNA, because you know it all so good, and help John Marshall develop it? IT IS opensource you know...

The last change to GnucDNAr3 was approx 3 days ago, so the project is far from dead. John is working hard, and if you doubt he wants to be compatible with the_gdf, read the changelog and todo FFS.

GnucDNAr3 is for porting gnucdna to other platforms so I don't care, the changes in the last 8 months have been only on GnucDNAr2 (gnutella2), the gnutella implementation in harmful leeching and outdated. Plus the source code of gnucleus is diffucult to understand as John doesn't document is code. Now with the number of people using gnucdna you would think they commit patches but it isn't the case because the code sucks. You can compare that with LW and Gtk-gnutella that are open source but reveive many patches (even if gtk-gnutella is less known).

Die gnucdna die. I can't believe it has supporters, you must be blind.

Edit: If you want gnucDNA to be more loved ask John one thing:
1) removes the gnutella portion of gnucdna and become g2 only
or
2)gnucdna should never start up as an ultrapeer (this is the reason why I HATE gnucdna, but I do not like the fact that it leeches).

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/

FYI I emailed this thread to John Marshall (gnucdna developper) just to have the feeling of playing fair

__________________
Liens d'intérêt /Links of interest:
Gnutellaforums en français /The House's rules you have to respect / First search the forum, then create a thread / Free software alternatives! - Logiciels alternatifs gratuits!/