Talk:Leecher (computing)

message: This article is wrong in so many levels. Dubious and original research. One could argue that the whole concept of leeching has no merit. Admittably, the article seems to take a neutral point of view to leeching. I see that word 'anti-leeching' has been mentioned in this talk page. One could deduce that it is only fair to create an article for that and describe anti-leeching operations from a NPOV. Now, which is worse, actually "leeching" or a webmaster doing something to prevent leeching? It gets interesting at this point, and now we arrive at the actual talking point. This article has no merit in any broader sense and it indeed is, original research. It's like literary criticism but applied to concepts taken from the realm of "Internet culture". I don't know. This article and many articles like this are just plain wrong and not many people understand it.
---  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.222.156 (talk) 10:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why does the article say, "This term does not apply to Open Source projects?"  It says so shortly after it says, "Mainly, leeching is taking without giving."  It looks like it's saying that Open Source projects take without giving, but that they are exempt from being called leeches for some technical reason.
Maybe the author meant to say that people who redistribute Open Source IP are not leeches; but that wouldn't make much sense either.  If you take credit for somebody else's work, or if you get paid for somebody else's work, how does it matter if the author gives it away for free?
It's a different story if you add value to an open source work, and then ask to be paid for the value that you added, while acknowledging the source from which you derived your work.  That's what companies like Red Hat do.  That's not leeching.
I like the part where the article says that leeches take without giving.  That should be enough said. 192.55.12.36 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Source 

message: The "prevention" section of the bittorrent portion of this article currently says
While editing the ipfilter.dat currently remains the only way to weed out leechers, a more advanced method should be developed
"Should be developed" sounds like an opinion, not encyclopedic information, and in my opinion this should be changed. I think the entire "prevention" part of the bittorrent section should be removed since it contains no real information, but I don't want to do that yet in case someone disagrees. Rfschmid (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bittorrent "prevention" section 

message: Otherwise we might as well have Leech (home economics) (not repaying the cup of borrowed flour).  I have been in the computer industry more than 25 years and I am not aware of "leech" being recognised computer jargon.  There are myriad uses of the word "leech" in a figurative context.  This WP:OR should be deleted forthwith.  Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely an established term. See the Google news and books coverage for searches on "file sharing leech" for example. The page needs sourcing and cleanup, certainly, but we don't delete articles because of that. Jfire (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The slang term "leech" as used here has a long-running history in the warez/phreaking scene of the 1980s and 1990s, where it originated. It should therefore be called "Leech (k3wl warez skr1pt k1dd13 slang)" and not "Leech (computing)." 71.72.235.91 (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It's no misunderstanding, and it's not synthesis. I use the terms together to locate the relevant sources. Examples: , , , . Those that are found cover the concept of leeching from file sharing services specifically and as an independent concept, and reveal that when used in the context of computing, "leech" or "leeching" most certainly does take on an independent meaning which can be discussed in an encyclopedic manner. For example, one aspect that is unique to computing is the development of specific leech resistance technologies in protocols such as Bittorrent. Jfire (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's delete this article 

message: Quote: These clients are quite common because the tendency to open source has made it relatively easy for modders to change the source code of most file sharing clients accordingly. This has led to the development of a multitude of technologies to ban such misbehaving clients.
Can anyone please point me towards specifications of these and related features? The official bittorrent specification does not include any details on anti leech techniques. I also did not find much using Google. :-/ Help appreciated. --Robert Nitsch (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti leeching techniques 

message: While I can see how the information regarding Pokemon relates to this, I don't see what it adds to the article. Any thoughts? SGPolter (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need the information on Pokemon?