Talk:DC++/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

Protocol Documentation

Maybe a good idea to include this link --> DC++ Protocol Documentation --Gunnaraztek 11:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Direct Connect network is already linked in the article, where the documentation is linked to. (The link to ADC should still be here because the article is as of yet not written.) --Ullner 12:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)