DC++ 0.7xx based CZDC Client?

[Dooble]

Hello out there,

it's quite a long time since anyone posted something on the forum Well...

I would like to know if there will be a CZDC++ Client anytime soon that is based on the new DC++ Client Source (V0.702 and up)! I have been using CZDC++ for years now and I'm very happy with it. Since there is a lot of change going on with the DC++ Client, Protocol, HubSoft etc... I'd love to hear that CZDC++ will be a part of it so I can stick with it in future

Same thing of course goes for PtokaX Hubsoft as some of the features in the new client should/have to be supported by the hubsoft...

[PPK]

Same thing of course goes for PtokaX Hubsoft as some of the features in the new client should/have to be supported by the hubsoft...

Last thing in DC++ (0.687) for DC that needed support with hubsoft was ZPipe support, and that is already supported. Nothing new in DC++ that can be used on DC and need support with hubsoft was not created after.

I was busy with PtokaX development, that is why there is not updated CzDC on 0.70x core (it is not contains anything important, only many new bugs and DC incompatibilities.. last stable DC++ was 0.674).

[Dooble]

Nice to hear that you are yet very busy developing, PPK! On the other hand I'm not really missing anything in the current client and it's also very stable - at least for me. What I was really wondering about is TLS/SSL Support - will something like that be implemented in CZDC++ and/or PtokaX?

[PPK]

Yes TLS is in my TODO for client/hub (imho on hub side it will not be much used, but users want it). Problem with that is that in DC++ is it ADC only, so it need some hacking to get it working for DC

[Dooble]

Sounds good! I bet you'll make it - keep my fingers crossed and wait patiently

[Chris]

Great to hear! But will it only work between 2 nmdc tls supporting clients?

I mean, do both clients have to be CZDC++ in order for tls to work?
I don't know any other clients supporting tls in nmdc 

[PPK]

Of course it will work only with clients supporting it

[Chris]

* added support for encrypted NMDC transfers

StrongDC++ seem to have implemented this feat - will CzDC's method be compatible or different with it?

Thanks in advance for any info on this

[PPK]

StrongDC++ uses partially my protocol extension, but only partially and incompatible with that what will be implemented in CzDC. That way sucks anyway, and it's my fault that i'm posted info about it when i don't have working and tested implementation 

[Chris]

StrongDC++ uses partially my protocol extension, but only partially and incompatible with that what will be implemented in CzDC. That way sucks anyway, and it's my fault that i'm posted info about it when i don't have working and tested implementation 

Oh, sorry 

Your client client's still the best, and I was eager to know only because it would've been nice to have encryption with other clients aswell.

But hey, if you make a better version, there's chance that it'll be followed, right? 

[Big Muscle]

StrongDC++ uses partially my protocol extension, but only partially and incompatible with that what will be implemented in CzDC. That way sucks anyway, and it's my fault that i'm posted info about it when i don't have working and tested implementation 

I'm sorry, but I didn't know that it's YOUR protocol extension. It hasn't been developed with any relationship with you. It was developed with help of Flow84 who was the first person who implemented it in his client. Maybe his implementation has been done according to your specification, but my implementation wasn't. Flow84 just told me "I implemented this, please implement it too. Just must do this and this and this" and I've just implemented.

I know that your main goal is now to develop "better" encryption which will be absolutely incompatible with StrongDC++. But I must say you that there's nothing better, at least nothing better from programmer's point of view. Even though, you will implement it with flag 0x10 in $MyInfo and make other changes to break StrongDC++ compatiblity, it won't have so much success, because StrongDC++ is used by more than 80% of users (talking about users with disabled emulation).

it would've been nice to have encryption with other clients aswell.

But it's not possible. It's obvious that due to PPK's hate to StrongDC++ client, he will make encryption in CzDC absolutely incompatible with StrongDC++. And if you take CzDC's usage rate in hubs, you will get encrypted transfers only from really very small amount of users (unless you visit PPK's hub only).

[PPK]

at least nothing better from programmer's point of view

And that is wrong view, you must see that from user view With your implementation user notice higher cpu usage and slower downloads, when he found that it is caused by encrypted transfers then he will disable them. On end you will have only few users to use encrypted downloads from (because you have them enabled for all transfers, or not enabled at all).
That is what i want and must fix, allow that user can have them disabled for downloads but allow them for uploads.

make other changes to break StrongDC++ compatiblity

I don't need to make any changes, StrongDC++ implementation is already incompatible with my original version.

it won't have so much success

That is not what i want, i want only to show that nmdc protocol is extensible and remove one of few adc advantages Encrypted transfers on public hubs are only false security anyway

because StrongDC++ is used by more than 80% of users

Keep dreaming :laughing1:

It's obvious that due to PPK's hate to StrongDC++ client, he will make encryption in CzDC absolutely incompatible with StrongDC++.

It's obvious that due to BigMuscle's hate to anything created by me, he make encryption in StrongDC++ absolutely incompatible with CzDC.

[Big Muscle]

With your implementation user notice higher cpu usage and slower downloads, when he found that it is caused by encrypted transfers then he will disable them.

What you said is really weird, my implementation has been tested for low speeds (below 10 kB/s), for normal speeds (about 300 kB/s) and also for very high speeds (above 5 MB/s) and CPU usage and download/upload speed was absolutely the same with and without encryption. so maybe you did something wrong.

Keep dreaming

No, I'm not dreaming... count for example StrongDC++ users in AmigoHub (yesterday it was about 81% of users with StrongDC++ tag) and it is not the only hub 

It's obvious that due to BigMuscle's hate to anything created by me, he make encryption in StrongDC++ absolutely incompatible with CzDC.

How could it be incompatible with something that doesn't exist? 

[PPK]

Banned, why allow him on board of something that doesn't exist for him :laughing1: He banned me on his board when he start blocking transfers to my clients in StrongDC++ 2.0
And about TLS implementation in CzDC, even when it will be compatible with StrongDC++ it can't help because StrongDC++ is not able to download from actual CzDC SVN version

[Chris]

 

Oh my god, you guys are really and totally in war
Sorry for asking compatiblity, it seems like I started it all 

[PPK]

That's ok

Back to topic, DC++ license changed to 0.701 version.
That make 2 problems for CzDC.
1 ) License change to 0.701 is not allowing anymore compiling DC++ code with wtl (framework used for gui in pre-0.700 versions licensed under license incompatible with GNU GPL). CzDC always using wtl for gui (and i don't have reason to change that), so for CzDC is code from DC++ 0.700 last what is possible to use.
2 ) License change to 0.701 allowing compiling with openssl (that is what is used for TLS connections, again under license incompatible with GNU GPL), but older license don't allow that. So i'm not allowed to use openssl and that cause that i have big problem with implementing TLS

[Chris]

So what are other new (and still WTL based) clients doing currently? 

[PPK]

I'm not 100 % sure, i'm waiting for reply from license experts. But in my humble opinion mods using wtl and code from DC++ 0.701 and higher violating license.

[PPK]

It was confirmed and it is much worse that i'm expected.

1 ) I can't use WTL and code from DC++ 0.701 and higher.
2 ) I can't use OpenSSL (that is what CzDC using for TLS connections, it's license is not compatible with GNU GPL) and code from DC++ 0.700 and older.
3 ) I can't use OpenSSL and code that i have from older DC++ mods.

I have finished version with TLS support, but i can't release it without license violation. I'm tryed to found acceptable replacement for OpenSSL with license compatible with GNU GPL, but none of available libraries is good enough.

Result is that i must remove all code that i have from older DC++ mods, and for missing things code replacement.
WTL dependency will be removed too, that way i can move to DC++ 0.701+ license that is allowing OpenSSL use.

[petter]

That sucks   But czdc is still the best client available! I hope you find a solution  

[Dooble]

Very interesting topic to read since my last visit Last time I wanted to check Forum was offline for some technical error...

Well, I hope that you will find a solution that is fine for everyone. Looks like this means a lot of work to do for you PPK, I'm really looking forward to the next version of CZDC++ and I bet it will be one of the best DC++ clients available as it always has been. If I don't find any better client I will stick to CZDC++ forever (and I haven't yet)

So good luck with this difficult task! Really appreciate your good work
I'll be stopping by from time to time looking for news

[spinmagiic]

Oh my god, you guys are really and totally in war
Sorry for asking compatiblity, it seems like I started it all 

This is about sharing stuff with friends. Its NOT about who has a better mousetrap. BigMuscle, sir, i really dont understand why you continue to force people into a corner with your compatibility issues. PPK, i use your client and love it, can i offer you two a Peace Pipe and yall work TOGETHER to form a solution? 

A Man with no Music is a Man with no Heart

[Big Muscle]

BigMuscle, sir, i really dont understand why you continue to force people into a corner with your compatibility issues.

errm, could you explain it? What do you mean by forcing? What do you mean by compatibility issues?

forcing? Users have a free right to select their client. It's not my problem that they are selecting StrongDC++ most of time.
compatibility issues? The first client which implemented TLS for NMDC was FlowLib and I implemented it in StrongDC++ so it would be compatible with it. There's no other client who implements it, so there can't be any compatibility issues. If some client implements it in different way in the future, it will be that one who breaks compatibility with already existing solutions 

[Dooble]

Hello out there!

I'd like to ask if there is any news on this topic. Any progress with a new CZDC Version?
Don't want to put any pressure on you developers, but about half a year has passed since the first post in this thread

Well, well, keep up the good work. And if there would be some new beta ready, please let me know so I can test it. Thx!

BTW... is there any way to contribute to the project by donating? I'd love to since I had a long and good time with CZDC

[PPK]

First here is only one developer. Second here are no news about this topic, two dead hard drives caused that here is no CzDc based on 0.7xx core yet