Different shares for different hubs

[Kulmegil 1]

I know the problem... but I think it's really a must to open two different clients - and not only because of the share ammount but for the better slot distribution, better drop sources & segment downloading optimisation, ect.

If you're sharing that much You probably care also about it, why else to wait 1/3 of the day or more for hash (8-10h for me). I don't know if there is any client now that provides better slot distribution except maybe LDC++ witch allows giving slots for prefixed nicks (and my mod. Zion++ - for IPrange or prefix)

IMHO : It would really make a point to sit on single client on all (local and Inet hubs) after some P.F.S. improvements

[#1 $tunna 0]

I didn't read the entire thread yet, but this is a feature that I would like to see also.

Example Usage:

Using a hub that requires a certain type of file only (e.g.: .ISO) & using other hubs at the same time or using a VIP Only hub & other hubs simultaneously.

-$tunna

[Crise 26]

I didn't read the entire thread yet, but this is a feature that I would like to see also.

Example Usage:

Using a hub that requires a certain type of file only (e.g.: .ISO) & using other hubs at the same time or using a VIP Only hub & other hubs simultaneously.

-$tunna

Quoting myself as a reply:

currently there is no way that this can be done properly. (read: many users exspecially op's use old versions/mods of DC++ so the user identification fix in latest release of DC++ won't have much impact)

[Zlobomir 3]

But until there is not a new client supporting this, these conservative users and OP's will not make the switch. And as we are planning also a new OP version of Apex DC++, this could be the chance to win the user's and OP's p references. Each change must be initiated by smth...

Edited May 21, 2006 by Zlobomir

[Greg 0]

As an OP on 19 hubs myself I see running a seperate client as fine. One with full share for private hubs, another for public hubs which I OP without any movies or whatever, just music basically. I did also run another client with a seperate share for just one hub once, but that wasn't a massive problem. I can see the use for it and all, but it's not a priority to me.

[logi 0]

As an OP on 19 hubs myself I see running a seperate client as fine. One with full share for private hubs, another for public hubs which I OP without any movies or whatever, just music basically. I did also run another client with a seperate share for just one hub once, but that wasn't a massive problem. I can see the use for it and all, but it's not a priority to me.

as hubowner and OP in 13 other hubs i run seperate clients aswell, but i think it would be an addition if ppl could share different things in different hubs. cos they might be great users but just because porn isnt allowed they keep getting kicked. that way they could share their "nature movies" in one hub and unshare it in another :lol:

[Zlobomir 3]

[quote name='logi

[Lee 84]

Yep, because an OP is somehow "dedicated" to DC++ and doesn't care too much about resources, etc., but the ordinary users will be annoyed to run two or more clients. Plus, it says "Apex DC++ is not enough".

Multiple instances of ApexDC++ canbe run. ApexDC++ is enough. ;)

[Crise 26]

Multiple instances of ApexDC++ canbe run. ApexDC++ is enough.

that's not entierly true you can run multiple instances, but to do that you need manually to duplicate your setup with differernt ports & share. (as this can be partly automated)

[Zlobomir 3]

And there still be the irritating message: "Another instance of Apex DC++ is running. Are you (f*) sure?" It is the only reason for me to use different clients.

Edited May 25, 2006 by Zlobomir

[logi 0]

Yep, because an OP is somehow "dedicated" to DC++ and doesn't care too much about resources

thats bull****. i always curse my pc cos it acts like my husband...........

they both acting wierd and both never have enough memory ;)

[Zlobomir 3]

thats bull****. i always curse my pc cos it acts like my husband...........

they both acting wierd and both never have enough memory

I must say that:

1. Most of us are cursing or have been cursing at our PCs at least once.

2. If you take good care of a machine, it will never let you down. Unlike a woman, who can let you down regardless of what you do. :lol:

Sorry for the off-topic... :)

Edited May 25, 2006 by Zlobomir

[logi 0]

Zlobomir your forgiven ( or at least i forgive you)

rofl can someone help me up?

[Crise 26]

And there still be the irritating message: "Another instance of Apex DC++ is running. Are you (f*) sure?" It is the only reason for me to use different clients.

that msgbox can be "disabled" via command line option /q (i added it in pwdc way back)

[Greg 0]

Hehe, nice little addition Crise, we need documentation for that kind of stuff. Anyway, in relation to OPs being willing to run a seperate client, well sure we are, but that doesn't mean that on the hubs we use more specifically for sharing that we wouldn't like to see this feature either, and value the feature somewhat if it did happen. I just don't have a problem sharing all of my share in most hubs.

[TheBlazingIcicle 0]

This feature, whatever you think of its rights and wrongs, is not one to go in ApexDC in its current form. The reason is that it would require such a huge amount of change to the assumptions that are inhenrent in the design of the client that a complete rewrite would be the best way (given that dc++ needs a complete rewrite anyway).

[balder 1]

Joined: Yesterday, 08:00

Welcome TheBlazingIcicle ;)

[Pothead 0]

I think there was a special ODC++ version, which has that feature. I remember someone sent it to me, but I cannot recall if that was the source or the client...havent tried it.

I did have it a few years ago, and know where i can get it from again if wanted . But it still exhibits the "guess-the-hub-the-user-is-in" characteristic.

This feature, whatever you think of its rights and wrongs, is not one to go in ApexDC in its current form. The reason is that it would require such a huge amount of change to the assumptions that are inhenrent in the design of the client that a complete rewrite would be the best way (given that dc++ needs a complete rewrite anyway).

Wouldn't need a complete re-write. Just have "hub = addy:port" in the client to client communication. Or the token idea. But this protocol change would need to be done in dc++ to be effective.

[Goralf 0]

For me it would make a lot of sense, as it would for other people who live in countries with attempts to exercise rigid control over 'undesirable' Internet resources and 'indecent material'.

This means that in hubs based in our country, we have to disallow 'homo sapiens mating variations revealed' films to be on the safe side. But in international hubs, these files could be shared...

I don't think most people are lazy/stingy enough to limit their sharing to the lowest required level for each individual hub.

It doesn't cost anything to share... and even if they would use it that way, then it would be up to the hubs who have a problem with this, to raise their minimum shares even higher.

[Greg 0]

It's not palnned, but has already been discussed waaay back. Decisions had been made before this thread was made really. Maybe one day, but not in the near future by any means.

[Zlobomir 3]

And still, please, please, please. :thumbsup:

[Greg 0]

Haha, ask again in a few months when we may be more open minded about it? I can't imagine it happening for the moment. Also, if this was to be added, you;d have to make it so you can only remove stuff from your default share, to ensure that it is not used to the advantage of leechers. You could have a list where you can tick or untick the folders you ahve ad ded via the sharing menu within the settings..... GUI-wise I think that would be sound (availble via the favorite hub options obviously), however, it's not happening anyway. :(