TLS -- Offtopic

[StrongDC++]

No, 0.401 hasn't full TTH support, because TTH leaves exchanging has been added in 0.402.
I don't want to say that there's no reason to have compatibility with original NMDC client, but exactly with clients which are not developed anymore.

And answer to your question?
StrongDC++ is a modification of DC++, so StrongDC++ will ever support all client which DC++ does, because DC++ rules DC world nowadays. Btw, FulDC removed NMDC compatibility long time before StrongDC++ did and noone said a single world, but when StrongDC++ removed it, PPK went crazy and started to throw a mess on it. Btw, there's no official specification which NMDC clients should follow, so nobody can't say anything about breaking protocol compatibility.

[CrazyGuy]

FulDC wasn't used, that's why nobody complained 

There is official specification of the NMDC protocol. The website it was one has disappeared but the contents have been copied and can be found on this forum.

You said in an earlier post that DC++ will not have NMDC TLS support and that that client cannot be added in the equation.
As StrongDC++ is a mod of DC++, and it is compatible with whatever DC++ is compatible with, I don't see how to add StrongDC++ to the equation then.


Anyhow..... The original post by PPK is a feature proposal to be added to the official specifications of the NMDC protocol.
As it is a feature proposal, such a draft should be made so that compatibility with all clients can occur.
If StrongDC++ has implemented an own conclusion of what Flow wrote down as being PPK's proposal, and that implementation is not compatible with other clients, I'd suggest it to be changed. The more clients implement features the same way, the better for the client users. Regardless of client/version/core. 

[StrongDC++]

FulDC wasn't used, that's why nobody complained 

it was used by more people, but fulDC wasn't PPK's interest.

There is official specification of the NMDC protocol. The website it was one has disappeared but the contents have been copied and can be found on this forum.

There has never been any official specification. Specification was written by 3rd person after it has already been implemented in NMDC client.

Anyhow..... The original post by PPK is a feature proposal to be added to the official specifications of the NMDC protocol.
As it is a feature proposal, such a draft should be made so that compatibility with all clients can occur.
If StrongDC++ has implemented an own conclusion of what Flow wrote down as being PPK's proposal, and that implementation is not compatible with other clients, I'd suggest it to be changed. The more clients implement features the same way, the better for the client users. Regardless of client/version/core. 

The real reason I came to this forum was to said that TLS for NMDC has already been implemented perfectly and it's 100% working without any problems. And this implementation can be used global, so original draft could be changed according to it. It was PPK who started to spread shit that StrongDC++ implementation is incorrect (although it works without any problem and it's good from user's point of view and also from programmer's point of view).

[PPK]

but fulDC wasn't PPK's interest.

Incompatibilities in fulDC causes that users move to another clients and fulDC died. I don't have reason to care about something that died without my help.

The real reason I came to this forum was to said that TLS for NMDC has already been implemented perfectly and it's 100% working without any problems.

No it is not working 100 %, for example you don't noticed that on some hubs running YnHub it is not working because for some reason (maybe bug, maybe some setting) YnHub in some cases change magic byte after connection.

It was PPK who started to spread shit that StrongDC++ implementation is incorrect

It is not shit, it is incompatible. You steal part of my extension and make it incompatible with original. That is your problem and i will not change it only because bastard like you steal something that i'm created.

[StrongDC++]

Incompatibilities in fulDC causes that users move to another clients and fulDC died. I don't have reason to care about something that died without my help.

fulDC died because Trem lost interest do continue it and it was long time after compatibility was removed.

No it is not working 100 %, for example you don't noticed that on some hubs running YnHub it is not working because for some reason (maybe bug, maybe some setting) YnHub in some cases change magic byte after connection.

So as you are saying too, my client implementation works 100%. It's hub fault that changes clients command without reason.

It is not shit, it is incompatible.

Again saying, it can't be incompatible with something that doesn't exist. Your implementation doesn't so my implementation can't be incompatible with it.

You steal part of my extension and make it incompatible with original.

lol, I knew that you are blind but didn't know that so much, I already wrote that I didn't know any your extension exists. My implementation has been done according to Flow's words. I know you will write again that I stole you something, but please, try to think before writing. The day before yesterday I checked CzDC source after very long time, and there was really a lot of stuff you stole from me. At least, you stole it with bugs (for example, alpha channel for emoticons)

That is your problem and i will not change it only because bastard like you steal something that i'm created.

This is just another proof that my implementation is the best, because when you have no other arguments you ban me in your forum or start insulting.
Btw, aacording to your sentences it seems you miss the basic programming thinking, so you should give up a try to program. Also, your english doesn't sometimes make sense.

[PPK]

The day before yesterday I checked CzDC source after very long time, and there was really a lot of stuff you stole from me.

StrongDC++ as CZDC++ mod contains many stuff from me , much more than i have from StrongDC++. When i'm not stealing your code, because i'm using it with GNU GPL permission, you are violating GNU GPL because you use code from CZDC++ where license don't allow compiling with OpenSSL and code from DC++ 0.701 and higher where license don't allow compiling with WTL. So it's you who steal code

for example, alpha channel for emoticons

Wrong, alpha for emoticons is in CzDC partially from http://www.fengyuan.com/article/alphablend.html and rest what i need for that was in msdn.

For rest of your post. You steal part of my extension because you are stupid and not able to create your own. You can't force others to compatibility with you because you are not even able to be compatible with protocol for network that you creating client for (apply for both, nmdc and adc).

[StrongDC++]

StrongDC++ as CZDC++ mod contains many stuff from me , much more than i have from StrongDC++. When i'm not stealing your code, because i'm using it with GNU GPL permission, you are violating GNU GPL because you use code from CZDC++ where license don't allow compiling with OpenSSL and code from DC++ 0.701 and higher where license don't allow compiling with WTL. So it's you who steal code

I don't use any code from CZDC++. I use code which is available on open source website as codeproject etc, yes it's true that CZDC++ was the first who used this code, but still the code has nothing to do with it  Also, all your own code has already been removed, because it had performance issues. Ah, and I forgot, you have no other arguments, so you try to blame me from GNU/GPL violating 


btw, DC++ license says: "Copyright (C) 2001-2006 Jacek Sieka, arnetheduck at gmail dot com

This program is licensed under GPL-2 with the notable exception
that you may compile it with OpenSSL (www.openssl.org). "

and as stated in copyright it pays only from 2001 to 2006 

Wrong, alpha for emoticons is in CzDC partially from http://www.fengyuan.com/article/alphablend.html and rest what i need for that was in msdn.

if it is true, than you could probably explain why it is exactly same line by line as code in StrongDC++. And code from StrongDC++ is derived from my own Super Mario game which i developed as university work and alphablending code has just been developed on my own with method attempt-mistake. And it's also interesting that code in page you post doesn't have problems which appears in code of my Mario/StrongDC++ and same problems appear in CzDC. Also it is interesting that you introduced after StrongDC++ introduced it first.

You steal part of my extension because you are stupid and not able to create your own.

Why are you still blind? I TOOK FLOW'S SPECIFICATION AND NOT YOURS, READING IS LEARNT IN THE 1ST CLASS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, SO RETURN THERE.

You can't force others to compatibility

I don't want to force anyone. It's not my problem that StrongDC++ is used by majority of users and other clients derives Flow's TLS NMDC method. They have choice to create their own method but they use StrongDC++ implementation. Also, very low amount of users use CzDC, so there will be no problem with StrongDC++ compatibility (CzDC users won't be able to download from majority, other users will be able to do it).

[PPK]

I don't use any code from CZDC++.

Then how is possible that if i'm searching for czdc in strongdc++ 2.21 source that it is found many times ?

Also, all your own code has already been removed, because it had performance issues.

You removed some my code, but it is far far away from all. Removing my copyrights in files that you use from CZDC++ is not enough 

if it is true, than you could probably explain why it is exactly same line by line as code in StrongDC++.

You should finally learn how to use winmerge, then you will see that it is everything but not same code.

I TOOK FLOW'S SPECIFICATION AND NOT YOURS

No you don't you IDIOT. Using bites in magic byte for supports was my idea, using 0x10 is part of MY TLS extension. Using S after port in connecttome is part of MY TLS extension. Flow specification is here http://www.thenighthawk.biz/smf/index.php?topic=233.0 and it needs to change not only clients but hubsofts too.

Also, very low amount of users use CzDC, so there will be no problem with StrongDC++ compatibility

So you should finally shut the fuck up and stop caring about me and CzDC.

[StrongDC++]

You should finally learn how to use winmerge, then you will see that it is everything but not same code.

ah, true... it's not really same, you changed variables names and added there one more bug 

BTW YOU FORGOT TO EXPLAIN WHY YOUR CODE SUFFERS FROM THE SAME BUG AS MINE !!!

No you don't you IDIOT. Using bites in magic byte for supports was my idea, using 0x10 is part of MY TLS extension. Using S after port in connecttome is part of MY TLS extension.

how cares?

Flow specification is here http://www.thenighthawk.biz/smf/index.php?topic=233.0 and it needs to change not only clients but hubsofts too.

It's not true, Flow implemented it here: http://flowlib.googlecode.com/files/FlowLib20080628.zip, it was the first TLS implementation for NMDC and he told me about it, I checked his code and implemented it on my own. FlowLib was the first implementation, the exact implementation as in StrongDC++, and you didn't say word! When it appeared in StrongDC++ you started to spread that it's implemented incorrectly. Why didn't you say the same about FlowLib? Maybe just because you are furious that StrongDC++ is one of the most favourite clients 

So you should finally shut the fuck up and stop caring about me and CzDC.

I just care because CzDC behaves in many ways differently than original NMDC client and many OPs already complained about it 

btw, you have really beatiful vocabulary. You really show your human level and your IQ with it  Your dictionary = "I have nothing to say, so I must use some vulgar words" 

[PPK]

1 ) I can't explain anything on bug that nobody reported, and that not happen to me.
2 ) I don't know that flow implemented it incorrectly. I'm not spreaded anything, user asked me on my forum and i'm replyed. That will be all but you are stupid and must start war again.
3 ) StrongDC++ is most favorite client only in your dreams.
4 ) If CzDC behaves differently then they should report it. Nobody complained to me. Maybe they complains only in your dreams
5 ) If someone have nothing to say it is you.

This post is last my reply to stupid with nick StrongDC++. I will send report to sourceforge that he is violating license.
Other things to terminate that incompatible client are already done:
1 ) It is not able to download from actual CzDC SVN (block is in StrongDC++ so he can't complain because it is his fault).
2 ) It is not able to login to actual PtokaX SVN, because sending incorrect command on login (again he can complain because it is his fault) and PtokaX users voted to block clients like that 

[StrongDC++]

By the violating license, you mean my yesterday conversation with Jacek Sieka that he's adding WTL to list of exception for me?  Or that you didn't updated license as DC++ did? Or you just have nothing to say, so you must say at least that I violate license?

They already reported that CzDC behaves incorrectly in mainchat of the big hubs. And you can test it on your own by sending certain commands to CzDC and to original NMDC client. There are cases where CzDC says "Connection closed", but NMDC client behaves normally. But I must admit that it's not reason to ban CzDC, because it is CzDC user who see "Connection closed" and not the others 

Nothing to say has person who uses vulgar words in his posts. Who is it? 

And nevermind that StrongDC++ is not able to download from CzDC. 1% of not possible downloads don't change anything. And also PtokaX change doesn't influence anything, because PtokaX isn't able to handle so many users as other hubsoft. 

[PPK]

Oh that is a big bug in CzDC. Yes older versions show connection closed instead of no slots available ? It is only from few nmdc incompatible client and connection is closed in both cases anyway

And about PtokaX, WAKE UP NEO!

------------------------------------------------------------
Current stats:
------------------------------------------------------------
Version: PtokaX DC Hub 0.3.6.0 built on May 11 2007 22:19:08
Users (Max/Actual Peak (Max Peak)/Logged): 8000 / 7904 (7963) / 7831
Users shared size: 539272752966025 Bytes / 490.47 TB
------------------------------------------------------------
CPU usage (60 sec avg): 51.53%
Mem usage (Peak): 157.43 MB (398.71 MB)
VM size (Peak): 157.09 MB (431.46 MB)
------------------------------------------------------------
Compression saved: 5.12 GB (5303)
Data sent: 12.35 GB
Data received: 146.76 MB
Tx (60 sec avg): 5.57 MB/s (6.31 MB/s)
Rx (60 sec avg): 20.98 kB/s (56.12 kB/s)

[StrongDC++]

Oh that is a big bug in CzDC. Yes older versions show connection closed instead of no slots available ? It is only from few nmdc incompatible client and connection is closed in both cases anyway

Yes, it is closed anyway, but users aren't interested whether it is closed or not (and according to post in your forum, you areinterested mainly in user's point of view). User just see "Connection closed", so he can think something it's wrong. And it's wrong and it doesn't happen with StrongDC++ based clients only, there are still old NMDC clients which have this problem too.

And as I said, it's not able to handle so much users. Because 8000 users with 51% cpu usage and such high memory usage is really bad.

[PPK]

1 ) Only who complains about connection closed was you, maybe you are op on some hubs so one op complains. Complain was only on that connection closed is on your $Maxexout somestupidnumber|, nobody else complained and as far as i know here is no problem with nmdc compatibility in CzDC.
2 ) Saying that cpu usage is high if you don't know what cpu was used is stupid, it only proof that you are really stupid. You should compare memory usage with other hubsofts befiore you say that memory usage is high. Again it's proof that you are stupid, you don't know if that hub run script and if yes then what scripts and how much memory they used

[StrongDC++]

No, it's not only me... it was another 3 OPs in Bestofall hub. But true, it's only 3, because no other person uses CzDC  And I can remember at least another 2 NMDC clients (one based on DC++ 0.306 and one is client with own core) which send it. And because original NMDC client manages it correctly and your client doesn't than CzDC break NMDC compatibility.

And again, you show that you have low IQ when you can't talk without vulgar words when you have no more arguments 

Btw, since today, I have ensured maximally support for StrongDC++ and its TLS support from some bigger Czech hubs and some foreign hubs with more than 10 000 users, so now we can officially say that CzDC is dead and it has already been added to the official list of unmaintained clients