View source for Talk:Gnutella2

{{afd-merged-from|FileScope|FileScope|30 June 2021}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Software|importance=}}
}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=Talk:Gnutella2/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=100K
| archiveheader={{Talk archive navigation}}
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
{{archive box |search=yes |auto=long}}

== The introduction of 'Gnutella 2' didn't cause a "shism" == 

It created aversion against Mike, who had without any discussion with other Gnutella developers grabbed the gnutella2.com domain name and started on his own to create an incompatible protocol whoose name sounded like it was a followup on Gnutella. 

So I'd replace "shism" with "aversion", as shism suggests the Gnutella developers where split by "Gnutella 2", which casts them into a light which is just plain wrong. Most Gnutella developers where very much united in being pissed that one single individual suddenly claimed the rights to the name "Gnutella 2". - [[User:ArneBab|ArneBab]] 6. August 2008

== Removed snippet ==

I removed the snippet posted below. 

Reason: very much biased style. 

It cites one singe developer as "developers who have come after the flame war" and follows up with "still maintain ... (GGEP) allows for" which suggests that GGEP doesn't allow for flexible additions, while the cited developer just said "it's cleaner with Gnutella 2". 

::While developers who have come after the flame war have said that this feature makes it much easier to code a client for Gnutella2 than Gnutella<ref name="Developer discussion of Gnutella and Gnutella2 packet formats">{{cite web| url=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/16290| title=Developer discussion of Gnutella and Gnutella2 packet formats| publisher=The Gnutella Developer Forum| accessdate=2006-05-15}}</ref>, Gnutella developers still maintain that the Generic Gnutella Extension Protocol (GGEP) allows for flexible additions to the Gnutella 0.6 protocol.

{{reflist-talk}}

== "Weak points" ==

I just read 

"It adopts an extensible binary packet format and an entirely new search algorithm, both weak points on the Gnutella network."

and the search algorithm definitely isn't a weak point of the Gnutella network, just like the original packet format allowed for quite a lot extensions, so this statement is misleading. 

The link compression makes using a new binary format not that much of a step forward - it mainly split the network (while LimeWire introduced rich XML queries in a compatible way - without splitting the network).  - [[User:ArneBab|ArneBab]] ([[User talk:ArneBab|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ArneBab|contribs]]) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

: I think that the packet format should be amended to mention that every current gnutella peer uses [[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/database?method=reportRows&tbl=10 GCEP]].  The reference [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/16290 12] was probably written with the original Gnutella packet format in mind.  Many of the issues mentioned about the gnuella protocol circa 2002 have been addressed in different ways (and different time frames) by both protocols.  There is a discussion on the GDF about current deficiencies of the gnutella [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/23690] [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/23647].  They would be better references.  At the very least, the article should be clear that it is referring to the state of affairs approximately 5-7 years ago. [[User:Bpringlemeir|Bpringlemeir]] ([[User talk:Bpringlemeir|talk]]) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

:: 100% true. BTW, as for the G2 documentation, have a look at [http://g2.trillinux.org g2.trillinux.org], it's short but still very complete. Some client specific features are not listed, however...
:: mfg, [[User:Old Death|OldDeath]] -  22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

== Alleged license violations ==

I have removed content related to alleged licence violations for various reasons [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnutella2&diff=473378671&oldid=470680524] however, my edit was reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnutella2&diff=473581342&oldid=473378671]

This content can not stay in wikipedia for several reasons:

*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|No reliable sources]], not even any source whatsoever
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources|Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence]] - Not only is the accusation badly sourced, accusations of this nature require even better references than "normal statements"
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence|Burden of evidence]] - similar in spirit to the entries above - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it"
*Possible [[Wikipedia:No original research|Original research]] and/or [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position|Synthesis]] - it is not our job, as editors, judge is something is a violation, no matter how obvious it might seem.
*[[Wikipedia:Libel|Possible libel]] - quoting from the policy "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" and "[…] It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. […]"
*Likely violation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|Biographies of living persons policy]] - while this article is not about a person, the (poorly-sourced) statements about the developer(s) violating copyright law can be easily viewed as a breach of policy: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''" (emphasis is from the policy, not mine)
*[[WP:NPOV]] - giving undue weight to un-sourced accusations

Please do not re-add the statement suggesting a violation until reliable sources are found. --[[User:SF007|SF007]] ([[User talk:SF007|talk]]) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

: OK, I won't disagree as I am unable to find a valid web source myself (except for some leaked copy of the Foxy code which I downloaded by chance two years past, but that would count as "own research", wouldn't it?). I'm not sure why Foxy is contained in this comparison article anyway, as it does not allow connections from any other G2 client. So maybe we could simply  remove the program from the comparison list because of it's incompatibility and thereby avoid the problem altogether.
: What do you think?
: mfg, [[User:Old Death|OldDeath]] -  15:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)