|
|
Posted by db on 10/07/79 11:29
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3rf3r3Fj4k4rU1@individual.net...
> http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=955
>
> Full text below:
>
> Virtually every WinMX fan can articulate the history of this network,
> especially the last month. Over the last month, this network has seen
> perhaps some of the most interesting developments. Many know that
> FrontCode Technologies, the development team behind WinMX, ceased
> operations on September 21st. The remaining community was thrown into
> chaos, unwilling to abandon this client as FrontCode had many months,
> perhaps even years, prior.
<snipped>
>
> Each side has created the power to make the resurrection of WinMX work
> (while interestingly also creating the power to destroy it.) Working
> together will achieve this goal.
The way I see it is that you basically have 2 programmers/developers that
don't like each other. Each of those has, or is part of, a solution to the
problem of getting WinMX to connect to the new peer cache servers. Either,
or neither, side seems willing to let go of enough personal pride (pride the
correct term here?) in order to cooperate; each side believes they have the
better method; each side believes the other is causing more damage than
good; etc, etc, etc...
Typical power (ego?) struggle I think, although I don't believe all involved
are thinking that way, just a few who appear opposed to others for what
appear to be personal rather than technological reasons.
I don't think the network will split (that may not even be feasible at all),
but, do tend to believe that if things carry on the way they are then you'll
probably end up with the caches being split according to which fix is used
by users, and continue forever more to hear opinions about 'the other side'
being all evil and stuff, whereas 'this side' is nothing but pure and clean
and honest.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, as an end user, as both (of the 2 main
current) methods should get a user connected to the network one way or
another to result in the same thing (being connected to the WPN). The DLL
has further abilities here though that's merely an aside from the main
function of allowing users to be able to connect.
I have some thoughts about how things might end up going with regards the 2
methods of getting connected, one thought being that the host file method
may soon start to realise its shortcomings as a long-term solution due to
limitations in only being useful for redirecting old winmx.com hostnames to
the new cache servers. The DLL method is, in my opinion, the better
long-term solution as it has a lot more potential to tackle other
client/network-related issues than being simply being a solution to the
connection problem. I wouldn't be surprised to see the host file team
attempt to move away from the hosts patch towards a modified WinMX client or
something in the future, particularly if they're interested in challenging
issues, or making further modifications, other than simply connecting users.
Either that, or maybe they'll, in addition to the hosts file fix, attempt to
introduce some third-party wares to achieve these things. I doubt very
much, if there is even any truth in this, that the hosts file crew would
start looking into a new solution based around a DLL, though, purely down to
pride with regards their previous statements about the 'other side's' method
and how bad it is...
Bottom line is both methods have the ability at present to do precisely
what's necessary for users to be able to reconnect to the network (which was
the whole point in the first place). That has been taken care of. Now what
remains is how each of these sides will evolve their product to try to
better it, or how they themselves will evolve given their new positions of
power...
Just some thoughts.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|