Get real, it isn't that great

[MusicMan]

Although it may be a good little piece of software, it isn't that great right now. It's like a Gnucleus but with no options what so ever, I felt like a toddler using that piece of software. No control at all is it's main fault, it has about the same connectivity as other Gnutella Apps and the speeds of XoloX should not vary from any other program, it;s practically dependent on who you're connected to. The thing that bothered me the most though was that I couldn't control who I connected to, does this program even use SuperNodes? I usually connect to my friends over the Gnutella Network but with this it seems impossible. I much more beef with this program, but I have not enough time to whine that much.

I'm not just some cranky user with a bad track record with the program, I was actually very optimistic from all the hype I heard about it, but that all changed once I ran the program.

Hopefully future non-beta versions will be better, until then I'm sticking with Gnucleus.

Any comments?

[Roamerick]

I don'ty know, I'm downloading stuff with XoloX at pretty much my bandwidth limit. Last night I was tinkering with Gnucleus to see what everyone's been going on about and still I fail to see its greatness.

It only ever connects to one supernode and that's it. search results are not that great and downloads take forever to connect. I'm not firewalled or anything, I've added every hostcache there is, and still I cant get it to do stuff for me.

Where am I going wrong? Is it measnt to immediately say "Cache Full" at startup in the connections window?

[MusicMan]

Here are all your answers:

Cache full is a good thing, it means it has a cache of hosts ready to connect to if your current connection fails. (yes it is meant to say that)

The program only connects to one SuperNode, because otherwise with a 56k, it would take too much badnwidth for you to connect to more. (How do you know XoloX doesn't do it the sam way?)

Your problem about connectivity is the same problem that XoloX has, they operate under the same network ya know. But Gnucleus has the option of only letting availible downloads show up on your search results, (downloads from people with availible upload slots will only show up). If you select this option, your search results may go down a little, but your connectivity will skyrocket.

Gnucleus works much better with a high -speed connection rather than a dial-up connection. With a 56k you need to tinker around to get the maxium results you want.

GNUCLEUS IS GREAT!!!

[Roamerick]

I have DSL, so why does Gnucleus only connect to one supernode? Isn't that a waste?

Also, I am aware XoloX and Gnucleus work on the same network, hence my puzzlement on the fact what XoloX always gets better results and much, much faster downloads for the same files.

So I still do not see the value in Gnucleus.

[Sephiroth]

Thats because your not on a ultrapeer in xolox which i dont think supports it and you are in gnucleus which you should not be a cilent on a ultrapeer because you have broadband.

[MusicMan]

It's crystal clear, anyone of any computer knowledge knows that Gnucleus is just the better choice. XoloX is actaully hurting the well-being of the Gnutella Network because it doesn't support SuperNodes (which Gnucleus and others do). This degradtion of the network should be stopped at all costs.

[Wheelz_Off]

I just ran the newest version of gnucleus and the supernodes are good, i can finally use my upstream bandwidth for uplaods now, its nice. And about xolox, I have the new beta and it doesnt seem any better or different than the old version, it just looks like the same xolox with 0.6 connecting capability, I'll stick with bearshare and gnucleus for now.

[Morgwen]

Originally posted by MusicMan
XoloX is actaully hurting the well-being of the Gnutella Network because it doesn't support SuperNodes (which Gnucleus and others do).

Why hurt clients without superpeers the Gnutella net? EXPLAIN!!!

No client without the superpeers hurt the gnet, superpeers help ONLY users with slow connections with the search traffic!

Did bearshare also hurt the net, they have no superpeers yet!

Its funny the new Xolox beta isn´t released yet and the first people are claiming about it! Hey people remember Xolox wasn´t in active developement the last six months - so you can´t expect a SUPER-ULTRA-MEGA client within some days!

Morgwen

[MusicMan]

Hey hey hey calm down Morgwen, it's only file-sharing, jeeze. The fact is that, SuperNodes DO help any file-sharing network, take FastTrack for an example. They started off with SuperNodes intergrated into the network, and look how popular and efficent it became. For the Gnutella Network to catch up, it does not need a whole bunch of crappy clients thrown into it, it needs quality control and effiency through it's downloads.

FastTrack is only what it is because of SuperNodes, any program that makes users switch away from Gnucleus's supernodes is in my mind hurting the network.

Also BearShare and other popular clients have already started working on getting SuperNodes a while ago.

[Morgwen]

Originally posted by MusicMan
The fact is that, SuperNodes DO help any file-sharing network, take FastTrack for an example.

Yes they help the net but clients without it don´t hurt the net!

The most files (the last I read over 70%) are shared by users with fast connections - superpeers help ONLY users with slow connections! So superpeers would really help the net but not as much as you think!

Limewire for example has the option to disable their superpeers, why should they do it if that would hurt the net?

You should see a difference between "not helping" and "hurting"!


FastTrack is only what it is because of SuperNodes, any program that makes users switch away from Gnucleus's supernodes is in my mind hurting the network.

Only supernodes really? There are some more features that makes fasttrack so good!


Also BearShare and other popular clients have already started working on getting SuperNodes a while ago.

A yes? So bearshare is not hurting the Gnet because they work on superpeers? You should read Matt´s interview with team Xolox:

http://www.zeropaid.com/news/articles/auto/05012002a.php

They said they are also working on superpeers!


Hey hey hey calm down Morgwen

Did I offend you? I ask you to explain it and said my opinion!

Morgwen

[Morgwen]

P.S.:

The GDF should create a new protocol with superpeers and other features as a standard, this is the way to force developers (especially new ones) to add superpeers!

Morgwen

[Roamerick]

Say what you will but

Gnucleus: 1 supernode connectuion always, no files, slow dloads (always waiting, waitng, waiting... 14 sources online and still needs more fúcking sources...)

XoloX: files, files and mroe files. Good searches, fast downloads.

Need I say more? Didn't think so.

[Shannon57662]

Originally posted by Roamerick
Say what you will but

Gnucleus: 1 supernode connectuion always, no files, slow dloads (always waiting, waitng, waiting... 14 sources online and still needs more f***ing sources...)


I agree always need more sources. I don't have any better luck with XoloX, or any other gnutella client for that matter. It seems to always time out.

[Roamerick]

Do an experiment for me: give XoloX some rare-ish movies/series (I suggest any manga) and leave it overnight. Do the same to gnucleus. Then tell me which one downloaded the most, if anything at all. My money's on XoloX.

[Morgwen]

I think every one should choose the client he likes most, but I can´t understand that some people claim MY client is the best! There is NO best client in gnutella, ALL clients have to be good to have a good net!

ALL clients should have superpeers, partial sharing etc.!

Morgwen

[Roamerick]

I agree, but clients trying them in early implementations should at least provide the means to allow the user to turn off Supernode funtionality, or at least to manually increase the connections beyond the 1 superpeer limit.

With Gnucleus, it simply isn't working out. I'm sure the next update will address the issue, but for the moment the program is crippled.

[Shannon57662]

Originally posted by Roamerick
Do an experiment for me: give XoloX some rare-ish movies/series (I suggest any manga) and leave it overnight. Do the same to gnucleus. Then tell me which one downloaded the most, if anything at all. My money's on XoloX.

I had more search results from one supernode through Gnucleus but the d/l never started.

http://www.tatesports.com/images/experiment3.gif
Here is the second image.
http://www.tatesports.com/images/experiment4.gif

I will continue to use both clients. I would be willing to bet that the results vary from time to time. I will admit Gnucleus seems to have problems connecting to the host that has the d/l I am requesting. XoloX would be better in my opinion if they added some more user control.:hole

[Roamerick]

That is exactly what happened when I tried the same thing, except I had more files. Xolox managed to complete the files while Gnucleus still claimed more sources were needed (despite some of them having 14 hosts?!)

Gnucleus needs fixing, something's not right.

[Shannon57662]

I read a post on some other forum that said go back to v1.7.4.0 because it did nnot have this problem. Guess I will try that, it does not do much good to get more search results if you can not download any of them.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Roamerick
Say what you will but

Gnucleus: 1 supernode connectuion always, no files, slow dloads (always waiting, waitng, waiting... 14 sources online and still needs more fúcking sources...)

XoloX: files, files and mroe files. Good searches, fast downloads.

Need I say more? Didn't think so.

Using Gnucleus 1.7.7 connects me to a minimum 8 supernodes,(see pic) simply because I share a lot of stuff.
In Gnucleus the more you share the more supernodes you are connected to,hence more search results,which is nice.
Sorts the men from the boys really.

[Roamerick]

Do you by any chance have "dedicated Supernode" enabled? That's the only way I can get that many connections, and I don't use it because it simply compounds the problem.

[Liberator]

No,I only have 128k upstream so my crappy cable isn't what ideal Supernodes are made of,hence I have no Supernode options enabled at all.
I read on the official Gnucleus forums that the reason some get one Supernode and others multiple Supernodes is simply down to the amount you share.
If you are only getting one Supernode try a little experiment.In the Gnucleus options under 'share', whatever directories you are sharing share them again,you should instantly double your Supernodes,do it again and you should triple your Supernodes.

People could abuse this to basically freeload,but it's just an illustration of what people can do to get more Supernodes, ie share more.

[Roamerick]

Did I mention I was sharing in excess of 35GB?

And that's not enough?

[Liberator]

35gigs? you should be connected to 20 Supernodes in that case then(if the more you share the more Supernodes you are connected to theory really exists)

I must just be lucky,I suppose.

[Roamerick]

After checking this thread and more over at gnucleus.com I decided to make sure of a few things... And I found out nucleus was not actually sharing all it could! I re-entered the shared directories, adding a lot of MP3's and stuff, and voila', gnucleus popped up a few more connections to both Super and normal nodes. Great! Except that shortly after that, I got a BSOD (in XP!) and that was it for me gnucleus evening.

I havent gotten a BSOD in ages. Could ZoneAlarm Pro and Gnucleus be acting up again?

[mrgone4662]

Zonealarm is notorious for consuming system resources. If you're up for learning a bit about firewalls i recommend switching to Kerio Personal Firewall (http://www.kerio.com). Not quite as point and click, but it gives you more of the power and it is much more lightweight. You can find alot of support for kerio here (http://www.dslreports.com/forum/kerio).

Don't know if this'll take care of your BSOD, but at least it is a really good free firewall.

[Roamerick]

Well, the least I can do is have a look. I've also tried Norton and I hated it. I used to prefer good ol' AtGuard.