Talk:EMule/Archive 1

REWRITE NEEDED
A large part of this article and hitory was removed because it was a copy of some pages on emule-project site. SOmeone needs to write something about the basic concepts how emule works. temp page here: (since temp page on emule seems to be not policy or something like that.) User:Leuk_he/eMule

Shouldnt there be a list with all emule risk when its being used
already described here. no need to duplicat i would think? : EDonkey_network :Leuk he

Server list
Wikipedia is not a link collection. We should not link to all the ED2K server lists out there, rather one should be enough. --Marco 13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right, but is that really the officially endorsed one? Gruk seems to be recommended now. --User:Tombom23


 * Help&Support->Servers->Addresses to server list The long time proven server list shold, if any, in my opinion be used. Anyone care to motivate why another list should be prefered? --Marco 20:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * These official lists sometimes even carry the fake servers. Anyway the officail web page does not seem to get updates for the new versions anyway except the download. (e.g. look for docs of collecions that has been in emule for 6 months at least) :Leuk he 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

emule is a file sharing program P2P
emule is a file sharing program P2P

why its good to use

1 Files cannot be corrupted. A hash set is calculated for each file. the hash is based on the contents of the file. It can tell the difference between a genuine file and a fake with the same name and size. no more files that dont work ,play, open.

2 It conserves bandwidth. download a 700 mb file the overhead is maybe 10 mb. also it divides a file into 9 mb parts. if a part is faulty it can recover the damage inside the part sometimes and if not just redownload the damaged part. Programs like shareazzar are faster BUT they download multiple copies of the same piece of a file, download 700 mb use 1400 mb, really bad if you pay for bandwidth.

NOTE bittorrent is usually faster if a torrent is available

for Music that is hard to find WinMX is probably the best as is shows BOTH what is available NOW and what has been available. you can schedule to get what has been available and when it comes back on the network it will download


 * eMule files can be corrupted - there have been many recent examples of file spoofing. Most of them are hosted by hundreds of bots and no real users. The bots are probably set up by private companies paid to curb the network's usefulness.

Search dialog
I disagree with this image because I do not feel that it adds anything to the article. Anyone care to give me a reason why it should be here? --Marco 15:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It is common that articles about computer program have some screenshot. And I think it is useful to show how the program looks like. -- Taku 03:12, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Speed throttling: upload/download ratio
I don't know were you taking this figure ?? How could it be ?? I am using emule for many years and i never saw such a terrible ratio !!Vorash 15:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all I don't like the term "hidden" download limiter, because it adds a certain POV into the article, but I don't want to discuss that now.

The Reason for the enforced upload/download ratio of 1:4 is (as mentioned in the Article) that the limit for the overall download speed of all eDonkey-compatible Clients on the eD-network is the sum of all upload speeds of all eD-clients. That means, as a byproduct, that anyone participating on (and not abusing) the eD-net for a reasonably long period of time, his ratio of total uploaded and downloaded data will be very near 1. However on short timescale (maybe a few days, or even weeks) the ratio can be "better" (for the client) up to the point where one user could (given the physical internet connection bandwith) theoretically monopolize a certain file. so the eMule client tries to countermand this by enforcing that no user can use up more of the others' uploads than 4 times of what he himself contributes to the global upload resource of the eD-net.

A user not contributing upload bandwith himself (as with certain hacked clients) is hurting the net, and by that he is basically hurting himself. (credit system aside) That's the reason why such behaviour is frowned upon by many other eD-Users (who undrerstood the simple fact that their download speed comes from the upload capacity of all eD-Users together, including their own)--Deelkar (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In any case you cannot present here figures from your own practice and claim that its an average for ALL EMLE USERs.Vorash 15:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * my source is the (german) newsgroup de.alt.comm.datentausch-dienste, not my personal experience alone.--Deelkar (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine by me !! State your source in the article so !! I will agree ! Vorash 15:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest getting rid of the repetitive use of the word hidden referring to the bandwith limiter, it looks like you have some personal agenda against the eMule client. I'd suggest using it at a maximum of once (then it should be clear which limiter the article is referring to, namely the hidden one) in the article not twice in one paragraph. I'd be happy if you could explain to me why you describe it as hidden because from my understanding this function of the eMule client is quite obvious, so that's the reason why I removed it in the first place.--Deelkar (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand whats the problem with a word "hidden". EMule's programmers choose to "HIDE" limiter. So why it should be a problem to write in the article that their limiter is hidden ?? If you want to use synonym to word "hidden" i will agree, but you should present the right facts !Vorash 15:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * state that once, then refer to it, don't repeat the word "hidden" every time. If you have a problem with the existence of the limiter, else it looks too much POV. Additionally: Could you please clarify "hide" as eMule is open source. Hide from who, and how? --Deelkar (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

You probably didn't understand about what limitter i am talking about. I am not talking about regular limitter. I am talking about another limiting algorithm that exist in the official version and is hidden from user !Vorash 15:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand that there is one limiting function that prohibits entry of download limits more than 4 times the upload limit set, and one actual traffic limiter in the client (which you refer to as "hidden") which prevents foul play by artificially limiting upload by means of traffic limiters put "between" eMule and the internet. Basic example: A User doesn't want to contribute but wants access to fast downloads, so he sets his eMule to "no limits" but configures an external (to eMule) traffic limiter so the effective upload will be throttled severely. This would circumvent the intended goal of limiting the load the client puts on the eD-net in relation to it's contribution.--Deelkar (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No.am not talking about this.....i am talking about some hidden limiting algorithm that exist in all "Official" versions. I tested it by myself. Even when my upload is TRUE and on Maximum, but it doesn't fits 1/4 ratio...Official version limits my bandwith to 50%. For example I have 100k/s max down and 12k/s UP max. So because 100/12=8 and it doesn't "good" for network official version limits my bandwith to 50k/s max, even when i am uploading at full 12k/s max speed!!. With exactly same files on "OS" download speed rises to 100k/s. It means that there is hidden algorithm in official version. Same 50k/s figures were exactly in LSD and in Sivka.Vorash 16:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I admit my information was a bit outdated, and eMule really forces no limit/ratio on the downstream, if the upstream limit is above a certain value, however I do not know wether or not there is another limiting algorithm present with a different purpose, for example less strain on routers or whether this just might be considered a bug. --Deelkar (talk) 01:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is absolutely untrue. Being the main developer of aMule and also close co-worker on the protocol and codebase with eMule developers, I can say there is no such ratio 'hidden' on the code. The only ratio is the 1:4 on the upload/download limits, and it's abosultely not hidden but there on the preferences. Such claims you are making are absolutely false, and so I must ask you to put facts where words are. Find a single line of code that causes that, and then I would agree. But as I know there is not such line, I don't think that will happen. --Kry (talk) 14:19, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * The ratio is not 1:4 on the upload/download limit. You can download at unlimited speed as long as you upload at 10KB/s.--Taida 19:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The ratio of upload:download is restricted at 1:3 for all upload limits less than 10Kbps. In other words, for upload limits less than 10Kbps, your maximum download limit can only be three times as much as that of upload limit. For 10Kbps or more upload limit the ratio still exists, except that you can uncheck the download limit from this point on. At least that's what I've observed.


 * Technically, the ratio is 1:3 for a 1-3 KB/s upload limit and 1:4 for a 4-9 KB/s upload limit. Once you reach 10 KB/s, there is no automatic setting (hidden or otherwise) of the download limit so the ratio no longer exists.  It is simply that if you set your upload limit to less than 10 KB/s and your download limit setting is above the cooresponding download limit ratio, eMule will decrease the download limit to the appropriate setting.  Kry was correct when he stated that there are NO hidden limits of any kind, the only limits exist in clear detail in eMule's Options.Frozen North 06:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias to the article.
I don't understand why someone with such a bias to a program made this entry..

Half of the so called facts are just false..

There are no facts that that say one version is faster then the other.. None.. Show me in the code what makes the recent versions any slower... I want to see the code.. There are always a set of users that say the earlier verison is fast.. Always.. If this was true, the client should not be working at all anymore.. I know for a fact of some releases that changed absolutely no code that effected anything to do with downloading or uploading, there were pure GUI change releases.. And still users swored up and down that the previous version was faster..

Saying that the "Bad Source List" is bad and slowing people down is another false fact based on someone that doesn't even know how it works.. This actually saves a LOT of wasted overhead freeing up bandwidth that can be used for uploading real data..

Hidden limiter?? Again, show me in the code this hidden limiter.. I want proof, not opinions.. This can be a network issue that is effecting eMule.. I know for a fact winXP's QOS service and my firewall did all kinds of strange effects to eMule..

(unsigned comment by IP:205.175.225.23, 19:09, 13 Jun 2005)--Deelkar (talk) 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you can see "hidden" limiter word doesn't appear in article. Vorash 20:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that parts of the article appear to be biased. For example, an impression is created that "official representors" are wrong saying that "Bad source list" is useful, and many users complain about it. Meanwhile I never heard any such complains, except in this wikipedia article. Can the author of this text cite his sources? If not, I think the paragraph describing "bad source list" should be deleted. If such sources exist, at least it should be re-worded to be more NPOV --Vlad1 01:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you to visit forum on Official emule site and to see 100s of complaints on differnt issues there Vorash 01:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) See here http://forum.emule-project.net/lofiversion/index.php/t70422.html and here http://forum.emule-project.net/lofiversion/index.php/t73424.html http://forum.emule-project.net/lofiversion/index.php/f3.html Vorash 01:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think that just a few hundreds of users are a representative part of the total eMule users, so that argument isn't really valid in my eyes (convince me).
 * The major problems being the following:
 * If something bad happens (what I call a slow day on eD-net) it gets (falsely) blamed on the new version.
 * If something good happens nobody says a thing (it's expected that a new version works better than the old one)
 * citing IP:205.175.225.23 "I know for a fact of some releases that changed absolutely no code that effected anything to do with downloading or uploading, there were pure GUI change releases.. And still users swored up and down that the previous version was faster.. " this is a common "crowd behaviour" penomenon, as I would call it, related to the first problem.
 * Deelkar (talk) 01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well i think 100s of people are better source than one anonymous IP adress "205.175.225.23". Vorash 02:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is invalid to compare Wikipedia to the eMule Forum in this matter. But that aside, as Vlad1 said, I'd give the benefit of doubt to the eMule developers, because the eD-net can perform quite differently at different times so that's easy to mistake for a fault in the program while it's actually not. From the theoretical standpoint I like the Idea of "dead sources" management, because there really is much network overhead to the point of DDoS on IP-adresses recently used by eD-network users.--Deelkar (talk) 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just read these threads. Mainly they consist of questions "what does it mean when I have log messages about dead sources". Did not find any proofs or at least somewhat convincing arguments that it hurts download speed. It hurt, it might help, and on balance I tend to give the benefits of the doubts to emule developers. I think this "dead sources" issue is not worth mentioning in the article.--Vlad1 02:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"dead sources" is very important issue and should be presented in article !! I've just rewritten it to present both parties. Vorash 02:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. I checked what is the ban time (it is 60 minutes), and rewrote this paragraph to be more NPOV.--Vlad1 03:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you please provide a link to "60 minutes" figure. Vorash 03:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked the source code. See DeadSourceList.cpp, line 32 --Vlad1 03:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "loss of temporarily unavailable sources"? I figure the loss would only be temporary as the "lost" sources would re-integrate into the eD-net in a maximum of 20 minutes (or whatever poll time the clients have) when they themselves query their sources, or some other client asks their server for sources for that file. --Deelkar (talk) 03:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest "temporary loss" or losing that phrase completely --Deelkar (talk) 03:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Side-Effect of Queue System
cut out the page:

Many eMule users can simultaneously download files larger than 100 MB. This can lead to huge queues of up to 5000 users. Such queues make eMule very hard to use for exchanging unpopular smaller files (such as an MP3 with 1-20 sources) and large files (such as albums or videos) from the same user (when a big file has only 1-2 sources).
 * this is almost completely incorrect. This has nothing to do with the queue system. This is just the fact that a is sharing more files than he/she can actually upload,yes then there is a big waiting queue. The fact that there are many files > 100 MB has nothing to do with the fact that there are huge queues. ANY FILE that has a low number of sources is hard to exchange. this has nothing to do with the file size at all. And you queue up for a chunk (9.2 MB) of the file, not for the entire file. True: Emule is used manly to exchange whole sets (albums/cd''s/movies) instead of simple mp3's. :Leuk he

Update required
The newest emule version isn´t 0.42f but 0.46c. For reference: http://www.emule-project.net/home/perl/general.cgi?l=2&rm=download One should update the picture. --84.190.65.208 13:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Except for the version number, it looks exactly the same. --Marco 13:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delisting eMule.org
Since emule.org is a fake site, shouldn't it be delisted from the external links section, and the information that such sites do exist be placed somewhere in the article? --Soumyasch 09:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Done! 19:52, 17 April 2006 (GMT+8)
 * I did it a little less obvious. And why talk emule.com, (unless it ahs some hidden pages), i do not link about flower eiter? :Leuk he

Verbatim Copy!
Parts of this article are verbatim copies of eMule documentation. See Network Guide and Colors of the Progess Bar then compare them to the appropriate sections of the article. These parts of the article need to be rewritten.&mdash;Kbolino 05:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As I can't tell if the text of the documentation is under an acceptable license, I've taken the steps listed at Copyright problems. PoptartKing 03:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.emule-project.net/home/perl/help.cgi?l=1&rm=show_topic&topic_id=313#copy reverting. If you really really really want to help here then rewrite the network guide part and the colors of the progress bar. or remove that part, not the entire article. But i do not think there is a problem. Do not revert the entire article to a very old version!  :Leuk he 14:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any percieved copyright paranoia, but this article does have some serious problems with possible copyvio. The credit system section is from this page, the Basic Concepts, Classic server based ed2k, Kad serverless network, and Summary sections this page, and Colors of the Progressbar section is from this page.  In sum, that's over half of the current article.  As Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, this is unacceptable. PoptartKing 16:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, I asked about the licensing of the documentation. If it's GFDL (as would be expected of a GPL program) then there are no problems here (except for stylistic ones, of course). PoptartKing 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They did not do the licensing to GFDL, just the yes, you may copy as long as you link back to emule-project.net, The part "colors of the bar" is very bad anyway. If you remove it nobody will really miss it. "Basic Concepts, Classic server based ed2k, Kad serverless network, and Summary sections " might need a rewrite, THe problem is that in emule-project there is not really anyone to ask, since the authors seem to have vanished anyway, and it is entered via a anynymous edit fucntion anyway. Reverting any of the other sections I will consder rude to all the effort that has been done to it. anyway did you read this:"May I copy the Help / FAQ for my own site?

You may copy any parts of the Help and FAQ as long as you keep the author and place a link to http://emule-project.net. It is nice and shows respect to drop me a note("monk" when doing so.". I don't really get this GFDL thingy, but do you really think there is a problem for a free doc where the docs are freely published program here, and when this pages links back a LOT to the original emule site? btw, i did send a message to "monk" who is supposed to be the author, but got no reply yet. Just leave it now please, i keep monitoring. :Leuk he 12:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you really want to copy paste, the amule doc is under gfdl: and contains the smae content. http://www.amule.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ_eD2k-Kademlia#What_is_ED2K? :Leuk he 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's copyright rules are very clear - any content sourced from elsewhere may only be used on wikipedia if it is licensed under the GFDL, or it is explicitly public domain. The emule documentation does not fall into either category - it is not released under GFDL, and it is only released on condition the author be cited and a link included, that is not a public domain release. Wikipedia cannot ensure that the link will remain intact and therefore it is not possible to ensure compliance with the terms of the copyright release of the source material. The material cannot, therefore, be included on this page.

There are a few options - either the source can be licensed under the GFDL, explicit permission for use on wikipedia can be provided by the owner of the copyright (see instructions on WP:CP), or the article can be re-written such that it is not a copy.

User:PoptartKing was correct in his action by replacing the article with the copyvio template. That template is explicitly clear on why it has been put there and what steps need to be taken to resolve it. I have, therefore, replaced the template. This is not "rude to all the effort that has been done to it", but simply an effort to ensure compliance with the requirements of wikipedia. The easiest solution to this problem is to re-write the offending sections, which can then be included in a new article. Please see instructions on the template for how to create a temp page on which to do this. I am not sufficiently knowledgable about the subject to do the re-write, otherwise I would do so. Kcordina Talk 08:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * removed all the sections which were believed to be a cpvio. That should solve this believed conflict. I still think it is rude to remove alss the section that are not beleived to be a cpvio and might attemt a rewrite. I think this is coming from the copyright paranoia police who also  think emule is an illegal program.IT IS NOT. :Leuk he

It is not rude, it is a simple result of the fact that us admins are trying to keep on top of a 7 day backlog of copyright violations, each day having at least 50 articles to review and deal with as appropriate. Without that work wikipedia would rapidly be one the receving end of any number of legal actions. We are not copyright paranoia police, some of us happen to work in this field and are very familiar with the legal background surrounding copyright violations. The idea of using the template is that it is an easy way to signify to editors that there is a problem, and offers a simple way of fixing it that leads to a legally acceptable solution to the posting of copyright material.

The instructions state to create a new article at the temp page so that it can replace the copyvio article. This is for the very good reason that by simply removing the template and rewriting the copyright material is still present in the history, which is not acceptable as it could easily resurface.

I am about to delete the old copyvio versions of this article, leaving only the latest 2 version in place. Please try and follow wikipedia procedures, no matter how much they grate with you, they are there for very good reasons. This matter has now taken a number of people far too long to sort out, when it should have taken a matter of minutes. Kcordina Talk 14:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Like i said before: the GFDL does not seem to conflict with the license of the copied text. if you call "you may copy this text on your website" text a license. I must be missing a lot, but i still do not get it why it is said that some sections may be copied and then the entire aritcle is tagged cpvio. But is sure don't want to involve myself in those discussions. (my english is not goord enough for that. :Leuk he 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * About not following procedures... well i am allowed one mistake i hope... :Leuk he 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to read up on copyright. In general, someone's work is copyrighted unless released in to the public domain. On wikipedia, we only accepted public domain and GFDL licensed text. The copyright owner of the text on the emule website may or may not be willing to release their text under the GFDL. Currently, they have only released their text with the link required condition which is clearly NOT GFDL licensed text. It is not possible for anyone but the copyright owner to release the text under the GFDL or in to the public domain. As such, until and unless the copyright owner does so, we should not include said text in wikipedia. As other's have mentioned, there are various reasons why text which required acknowledgement/links are considered bad for wikipedia but at the end of the day, it's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, it's our policy all text should be public domain or licensed under the GFDL. Until and unless you change this policy, it's no use arguing. If you believe you have sufficient grounds for wanting to change the policy, there are appropriate places to take such a discussion. This page is not such a place. Nil Einne 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Devs
Unknown1 (John) has retired from the project, see http://forum.emule-project.net/index.php?showtopic=108287 --84.248.57.66 15:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited in article. As indicated there there are more devs active than only ornis. May that "developers" should just be removed since no verifyable inforamtion is available.

Emule
They need to have emule on tv there cuz its cool.