Share request

[Mikey_69 0]

I'd like the possibility to set up different shares for different hubs. IE in public hubs I don't want to share 500+ gb illegal material, not completely risk free.

Just a luxury thingy, can always set up a 2nd client for those hubs I hate, problem is I can't seem to get 2 clients to work at the same time, opening ports here n there but nothing works...

[Greg 0]

Been suggested before, unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. It'll probably never happen.

[Mikey_69 0]

is it too hard to do or would it just eat too much memory?

[Zlobomir 3]

is it too hard to do or would it just eat too much memory?

Both, at least on NMDC protocol.

[Big Muscle 1]

it won't be done because of leechers - users that will share only minimum amount of data on each hub

[Mikey_69 0]

Too bad, oh well, started up 6 clients last night, see if it will work in the long run

[Zlobomir 3]

it won't be done because of leechers - users that will share only minimum amount of data on each hub

What about users staying only in 0 GB min share hubs with 0 GB share then?

[Noctis 0]

You can't do nothing about that, it's up to hub owners to solve that problem. Like... for example you can disable searches and downloads in YnHub for regular users, and you won't register anyone with 0 share.

[Zlobomir 3]

Exactly, I meant client should not put restrictions, hub(s) may. Why there are cars capable of more than 120 km/h?

[poy 0]

Exactly, I meant client should not put restrictions, hub(s) may. Why there are cars capable of more than 120 km/h?

because some countries limit speed to 130 km/h. :)

[Mikey_69 0]

Yeah, but then you have Germany's autobanh with free speed (meaning drive as fast as you want).

Too bad, would've liked to see this function in a client... Cause as it is now if you're in a rar hub that wants rar only, you'll have to set up 2 clients, or ditch all files not rar...

[ifmn 0]

me doesn't like all that "anti-leecher" stuff - you can't use limiter without showing it in your tag, same with sockz, can't add useful features "'cuz of leechers". Do internet browsers 'tell' you are using proxy? no, you can even spoof ur user agent (with some tweaking). not that i can't change my tag

imo a good client should give the user complete freedom and complete customization. it's user's choice how much he shares and what he shares. what about forcing ppl to share all their drives? . there are many ways to leech, u cant stop 'em all. and actually, with this feature i will share more.

anyway, this has been discussed many times and it's devs' decision what to add or don't. just my 2 cents :)

[Greg 0]

me doesn't like all that "anti-leecher" stuff - you can't use limiter without showing it in your tag, same with sockz, can't add useful features "'cuz of leechers". Do internet browsers 'tell' you are using proxy? no, you can even spoof ur user agent (with some tweaking). not that i can't change my tag

imo a good client should give the user complete freedom and complete customization. it's user's choice how much he shares and what he shares. what about forcing ppl to share all their drives? . there are many ways to leech, u cant stop 'em all. and actually, with this feature i will share more.

anyway, this has been discussed many times and it's devs' decision what to add or don't. just my 2 cents

Indeed, restrictions put in place because of leechers do lead to restrictions for normal users. However, we try to make any limits as fair as possible, and I don't really think they're too restricting to normal users. To be fair, showing the fact you're using a limiter in your description shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you really wanted to limit without people knowing you would probably use an external limiter which isn't detected by your client. Also, if you use traffic shaping (and a program like cFosSpeed) then you're not likely to need to limit.

At the end of the day, this is open source software, if there's a feature you don't like then take it out. There's plenty of ApexDC++ mods out there already, some of which are bound to reverse some of the stuff we've put in. The developers and hub owners, to extent, are the ones who understand how the network works and you should trust them to make the right decisions about the client they're producing.

Not putting in this feature because of leechers isn't the only reason this hasn't been implemented, show us a stable client where it's well implemented and we'll see about adding it then. At the moment there's other things we'd like to work on, especially considering we're releasing the betas leading up to a version 1 of ApexDC++. Stability is our main concern at the moment, not adding new features. This would not be quick and easy to implement therefore it can't even be realistically considered at the moment.

[ifmn 0]

_{... To be fair, showing the fact you're using a limiter in your description shouldn't be an issue for anyone. If you really wanted to limit without people knowing you would probably use an external limiter which isn't detected by your client, or recompile. Also, if you use traffic shaping (and a program like cFosSpeed) then you're not likely to need to limit.}

some (stupid) hubs kick for this (dont ask me why im in), no matter if I limit over 2MB(uploading slows down my pc during gaming f.i). also didn't it break emulation? and why installing limiters if apex can do that for you. the limiter was more like an example, why should ppl know in how many hubs i am (op, active or passive)? it's my bandwidth and my slots. why giving up im using socks? and yes, there are malicious users, the socks tag (and the limit "L:..") are not rly a problem, just comment out some lines same with search spy and other stuff...

_{At the end of the day ... producing.}

true, open source is great, but should everybody mod apex every time new version is out or use its mods?

_{Not putting ... at the moment.}

then please don't use leechers as the only reason

i think we are getting offtopic now, the feature request wont be added, no need arguing more if you want to, there are several topics with the same request, merge them for clarity, more ideas and arguments (and lock them).

[Greg 0]

some (stupid) hubs kick for this (dont ask me why im in), no matter if I limit over 2MB(uploading slows down my pc during gaming f.i). also didn't it break emulation? and why installing limiters if apex can do that for you. the limiter was more like an example, why should ppl know in how many hubs i am (op, active or passive)? it's my bandwidth and my slots. why giving up im using socks? and yes, there are malicious users, the socks tag (and the limit "L:..") are not rly a problem, just comment out some lines same with search spy and other stuff...

It's less than perfect but if you can suggest a better method which won't leave room for abuse, please suggest it. Hub owners have the right to choose who and what they kick for. If you're limiting at a reasonable speed and they kick you, then that's their loss as well and I don't see why they would do it. It's unreasonable to expect us to take out this little thing because of them. As for knowing how many hubs you're in... If you join more hubs then you reasonably provide enough slots (with reasonable speeds for) then hub owners shouldn't have to accept that. If a hub owner kicks people in more than 10 hubs, good. That just means all users on there are likely to get more slots.

true, open source is great, but should everybody mod apex every time new version is out or use its mods?

then please don't use leechers as the only reason

Everyone should just trust the people who produce the clients to have enough idea of what they're working on to do what is best.

i think we are getting offtopic now, the feature request wont be added, no need arguing more if you want to, there are several topics with the same request, merge them for clarity, more ideas and arguments (and lock them).

It probably won't be added, but not simply because of leechers, that is a trivial factor in this. I won't bother merging the topics, as it would produce a thread which made little sense. I also won't lock this thread, I was debating it after my previous post but I feel people should be able to discuss this. In future, if I spot very similar threads about this before they develop their own discussion I will make sure I close them and direct people to numerous other topics about it.

[Satan 1]

The idea on it's own is great, I mean, I would like share my rar's in rar hubs etc....but having said that, it would be abused.