Big Muscle

and I like the name of file which arne added to project - StupidWin.h btw I thought up a new solution. Instead of porting DC to Linux, we will make WTL Port for linux now we need a person who will do it :)

yeah, you finally understand it. And this is the reason why it won't be implemented.

System Windows allows file copying with corrupted files I can remember that long time ago I got a corrupted HDD (I think that cache was corrupted). Everytime I tried to copy big file (small files was ok) to this HDD, it ended in infinite file copying (as remaining 5 minutes, 10 hours, 10 days etc.) and noone cared about this problem. It was my fault, that my HDD was corrupted, so why anyone could anything with it.

no, it doesn't. You still don't understand the case of corruption. DC++ allows only 100% OK downloads. Corruption occurs when the file is stored on your HDD which has nothing to do with downloads. Neither Windows itself handle such kind of corruption. It's only our good will that we does it.

there was no bug, so it couldn't be fixed. Only checking mechanism has been improved. If someone gets corrupted file with segmented downloading, it's not bug of segmented downloading. If someone gets corrupted file with normal downloading, it's not bug of normal downloads. Both download methods work as expected. Corrupted files mean bug in the PC and not in download mechanism. Btw I've already asked you, but don't remember whether you replied. Why don't you complain to Microsoft that Windows' copying allows corrupted files??? And onemore thing. Why are you the only one with corrupted files wanting some your solution? Yes, you pointed to some threads where people complain about corrupted files. But why no other person with corrupted files writes to this topic asking for your solution??? Maybe there's currently no other user with corrupted files. Maybe those users in other threads managed to fix their computer problems, don't have corrupted files, so they don't need any your solution.

yes, true. That's why there is a lot of "same" files with different TTH and we want to change it. Also DC++ wants to changes and current SVN contains also rereading last downloaded block from disk and if it's corrupted, it will be redownloaded. And there's no your solution, just a redownloading corrupted block. Features which may work sometimes for someone is no worth to do. I wish you finally understand it, that if you make your solution, it will only work for you and maybe one other person. And it won't work either for you always but only sometimes. When your HDD moves to corrupted place (if it's HDD error) in normal downloading, you will get corrupted file for normal downloading :)

How can you know it? I have never checked what I've shared. It was moved to finished downloads (= it is ok) and I check only whether it is what I wanted to download.

It should be rewritten to something like wxWidgets which is multiplatform. I will stay at WTL, I don't need any SmartWin which can only bring problems.

The real fact is that maximum benefit can be reached by fixing hardware problems, then no switching to other methid would be needed and there would be no waste. Dot.

I will never reply to this topic anymore. If you can't understand that the success rate in normal mode and other p2p clients is only a circumstance and it can behave differently for other users, than don't wait any answers from me.

you can't know it. I've already said that the probability of corruption is stll same. Yes, your success rate, but it's only circumstance. For another user it can be viceversa.

I think you haven't understood my car story. Car A was "segmented downloading", car B was "normal downloading". And the hole on the road was a bug in memory/HDD etc. And it meant that no matter which method you will use but you will always fail if you fall into hole. And it won't switch to normal downloading because it's unsafe. Segmented downloading redownload corrupted chunks (maybe redownloading will never finish) but it doesn't allow to have corrupted file as finished download and that's the most important. Normal downloading has only standard TTH consistency checking but allows corrupted downloads if they get corrupted after sending data to your OS. So why your solution has never been implemented in normal downloading?

Sorry if it's look like I'm trying to insult you. Some things are hard for me to tell in English and sometimes I use worst word then I really mean. I only really don't know how to write in english and finally should understand that you solutions aren't acceptable and won't be implemented and I'm too tired that if I write it to you, you still say "Solution is blablabla..".

If couldn't understand it, I'm trying to explain it in non-computer words. There is some big hole on the road. You will drive car A and fall to the hole. Your solution is to use car B. You will fall to the hole too! Now understand that your solution is rubbish?

heh and shouldn't we send corrupted files to Microsoft, they will fix them and send it to us back??? (just a joke, but same kind of solution as you have) I don't know why you are stll talking about some failure in segmented mode. I said you many times that it has nothing to do with segmented downloading, but you aren't able to accept it. So why are you still talking about segmented downloading??? Why don't you make a solution which will also work if normal downloading fails etc.? I'm again telling that this corruption has nothing to do with segmented downloading. And also it has nothing to do with any downloading. The corruption was "created" after the file had already been saved to disk and it's unable to detect which download method had been used. If you had copy the file using standard windows copy mechanism to same disk area (if it's HDD error) then there would be a corruption too and Microsoft wouldn't be interested that your file was corrupted after using windows' copying. If the corruption had been caused by Strong/Apex then we could talk about some solution. But the corruption isn't caused by Strong/Apex, neither in communicating with remote client, so there's no reason why we should implement some addition code to Strong/Apex. Please read this thread at least 3x before you write anything more to this topic.

I see that DC++ is switching from WTL to SmartWin. I think it's bad step It would be better to switch to QT or wxWidgets to support Linux too.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO POINT IN OCCUPYING WITH ANY SOLUTION. UNDERSTAND IT??? AGAIN, THERE'S NO POINT IN OCCUPYING WITH SOLUTION 1. UNDERSTAND IT???

LOL nothing more to say here. It's like talking with robot which still say one phraseand can't understand what anyone says to him.

AGAIN, THERE'S NO POINT IN OCCUPYING WITH ANY SOLUTION, NO MATTER WHETHER IT'S SOLUTION 1, 2 OR 50000. DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT???

I have already reply but you weren't able to understand. True, I haven't replied to solution 1 but to all solution generaly. so again my answer THERE'S NO POINT IN OCCUPYING WITH ANY SOLUTION BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY SMALL AMOUNT OF USERS WITH CORRUPTED COMPUTER, SO THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING MORE THAN REDOWNLOADING CORRUPTING CHUNK. IF REDOWNLOADED CHUNK IS CORRUPTED AGAIN, IT'S NOT OUR BUSINESS!!! UNDERSTAND IT??? I WILL NOT SAY THE SAME THINGS STILL ROUND.

WHY YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT I WROTE TO YOU ??????? If you restart complete file it will be much more waste than only restarting corrupted chunk!!! Now you understand it???? The probability that new redownloaded file will be OK is same as redownloaded corrupted chunk will be OK!!!! Now you understand it???? The probability that redownloaded corrupted chunk will be again corrupted is same as new redownloaded file will be corrupted!!!! Now you understand it???? NOW YOU UNDERSTAND IT??? Test whether you understand it - Which of following option comes with more waste: a) you download 40MB. Chunk from 39-40 MB is corrupted. So we redownload this 1 MB. But this redownloaded chunk is corrupted again,so redownload again and again and again etc. (take we must redownload 1000x). So 1MB x 1000 = with redownloading we wasted 1000MB (= 1GB)! you download 40MB. Chunk from 39-40MB is corrupted. So we redownload this 1 MB and again corrupted. According to your solution we try it 10x (value settable by user). So we waste 1MB x 10 (=10 MB) and after these 10 tries we redowload this file completely, but it will be corrupted again and again and again. (take we must redownload 1000x). So 40MB x 1000 = we wasted 40000MB (= 40GB) + 10 MB in tries to redownload only 1 chunk. So we waste over 40GB! Select A or B according which option brings less waste.

It's not possible to specify your own definition. Bug definition has already been established and noone (even you) can change it. Btw I can't understand that you don't understand that your solution will bring much more waste than current solution :P

just a definition: A software bug is an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program that prevents it from behaving as intended. -------- Excelsium is still trying to refer to some bug which (according to "bug" definition) doesn't exist. Everything in segmented downloading (except the crash), including the corruption definition, works as intended. Yipee! I've manage to decrease memory used by userlist (10000 users in hub took about 30 MB before and now it's about 23 MB) :P

no, it's not. Corrupted chunks are detected and redownloaded automatically. to some moderator - I think that this thread can be locked because it has already been solved on the first page. Summary: - I will try ti fox the crash - I will add TTH to "Corruption detected" message - other solution written by Excelsium won't be done, because it would cause much waste - for example redownloading whole file instead of corrupted parts only. - Excelsium is still writing the same words and he can't understand the answers, so it would only fill the forum database. I don't have time to still write the same answers. There's better things to improve in StrongDC++ => currently I'm optimizing userlist memory usage :thumbsup:

btw to your solution... (deleting file from queue and starting it again) I don't see any benefit in it. How can it avoid wasting??? a) current solution - 1000x redownloading corrupted chunks :thumbsup: your solution - 10x redownloading corrupted chunks + 1000x redownloading whole file Your solution will do much more waste than current solution. But according to your writing, I think won't understand it. You are sitting in this forum for whole day. You should fix the bug in your computer instead of forcing us to fix some non-existing bug. so again NO AUTOMATED SOLUTION WILL BE IMPLEMENTED!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT??? I think that you want only to call attention to yourself. I have never seen anyone who made 4 topics about same "problem" and wrote 5 pages of still same sentences without understanding what everyone writes to him. I don't think that you can't understand it, problem is you don't want to understand it. OK. Just different situation. Imagine you wouldn't have a bug in your computer and you wouldn't have corrupted files. Would you write to this forum about this problem??? I don't think so. SO STOP SPAMMING THIS FORUM IF YOU AREN'T ABLE TO FIX YOUR COMPUTER!!!