FileScope was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gnutella2. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gnutella2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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". - ArneBab 6. August 2008
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".
References
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). - ArneBab ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed content related to alleged licence violations for various reasons [3] however, my edit was reverted [4]
This content can not stay in wikipedia for several reasons:
Please do not re-add the statement suggesting a violation until reliable sources are found. -- SF007 ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
FileScope was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 June 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gnutella2. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gnutella2 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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". - ArneBab 6. August 2008
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".
References
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). - ArneBab ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed content related to alleged licence violations for various reasons [3] however, my edit was reverted [4]
This content can not stay in wikipedia for several reasons:
Please do not re-add the statement suggesting a violation until reliable sources are found. -- SF007 ( talk) 22:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)