Talk:Direct Connect (protocol)

message: I notice there is no mention in here of direct file transfer using websites like http://jetbytes.com/  which create direct links to the file on your computer that can then be used by someone else to directly transfer the file. It's a rather different, simpler, yet more limited process than other methods listed on this page, but seems that it should get a mention herein. --202.168.117.24 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted direct file transfer system? 

message: I'm against the merge.  Direct connect file-sharing application is pretty much used as a blanket for DC incarnations... whereas NeoModus is the original... but now, not nearly the most popular.  I think mergins ia bad.  gren グレン 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 85.179.26.170 wrote "
Due to the centralized nature of Direct Connect, some doubt that the protocol belongs to the P2P family.". Who are these "some"? Source for that claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ullner  (talk • contribs) 04:25, September 3, 2006  (UTC)
:The Peer-to-Peer article defines P2P to be the same as what I'd call decentralized file sharing algorithms.  I was around when Napster rose to popularity, and I made no centralized/decentralized judgement to consider a given network P2P.  Even so, the P2P article itself mentions "hybrid P2P", which DC is (since the independent servers are akin to those used in Napster or eDonkey 2000).  I don't think that sentence fits with how Wikipedia defines P2P, so I'm removing it.  --GargoyleMT 12:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belonging 

message: ADC protocol isnt really "better". originally it was supposed to use less bandwith and less resources than DC++ protocol wich is not the case, it removes the "myINFO" line wich was almost always unnessecary, but instead it intorduced something much longer INF line and some ID's that are in most cases unnessecary, wich makes it even worse than the original protocol, the only good thing is the id's ability to ban a user even if he changes nick/ip (or use the id for authentication) Gunnaraztek 16:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you basing your judgement on? The initial INF is larger, yes, however; as people send updates as they're in the hub (share, slot, hubs updates etc), ADC will use less bandwidth, as less is sent. (Only the actual changed info.) I've attempted to document the differences at the DC++ blog, and so far I've only come up with instances where ADC will out-perform NMDC. Unfortunately, there have yet to be a real test with a hub and the consumed bandwidth over time. The different IDs serve a purpose, although they may seem redudant at first glance. In what way are they "unnecessary"? In addition, I'd like to say that this article doesn't explicitly say that ADC is better, or worse, just that its "designed to address the former's [NMDC's] weaknesses." --Ullner 17:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADC 

message: I'm finding the dates section a bit pointless. The only date that should really remain is the Open Direct Connect project reference. The dates of when Neomodus was created and when the project died might be interesting. Also, the date of the first third-party hub, and the first version of DC++. 
But I'm not sure any date at all is even interesting here... I'll remove that section, if there's no objection. --Ullner 13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: Why isn't spamming problem mentioned at all? I mean those unsolicited bulk private messages sent to p2p-clients. For example, advertising (especially promoting rival DC hubs) and slot-begging (fully automatic!). It looks like this problem doesn't bother any developer, and absolutely no client-side countermeasure is available, while a plently of spamming tools apparently exist. Even such a simple feature like banning a user is not implemented, so you have to rely on firewall (which only helps if offender's IP address is static). Isn't is strange not to account for spam in the modern world? 217.172.21.161 (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: Software listed in several tables makes it difficult for people to compare it. For example, some client software, like Jucy, is listed as able to run on Win, Linux, Mac and others, when in fact it is written in Java, which a lot of people are trying to avoid, due to it's virtual machine overhead. It's just an example, but really all software should be put into 1 table with different columns to be easily compared. If columns are too wide, then some markers should be put instead a descriptive text and a Legend table should be created under to provide the way for people to figure out what marker in the table means what.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burek021 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge multiple tables into one 

message: As of February 2009,[8]﻿[9]↵[10]﻿[11]﻿[12] an extension for clients was proposed in order for the attacked party to find out the hub sending the connecting users
Can somebody clear the 8-12 references and make the more clear where they should be put?
Robert (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many references in one place

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Direct Connect (protocol). 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prolexic.com/news/20070514-alert.php
*Added  tag to http://www.adcportal.com/wiki/index.php/REF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707083925/http://www.adcportal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=431&start=0 to http://www.adcportal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=431&start=0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125134932/http://www.dcbase.org:80/ to https://www.dcbase.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Direct Connect (protocol). 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/20161220045744/https://archive.dcbase.org/dcdev_mail/ to https://archive.dcbase.org/dcdev_mail/
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.dcbase.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220045913/https://www.dcbase.org/resources to https://www.dcbase.org/resources
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified