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...
Quote from: Dooble on 07 May, 2008, 20:58:48
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 (http://wiki.ptokax.ath.cx/doku.php/changelogs/ptokax/changes_after_0.330_15.31), 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).
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?
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 ;)
Sounds good! I bet you'll make it - keep my fingers crossed and wait patiently ;)
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 :unsure:
Of course it will work only with clients supporting it :rolleyes:
Quote* 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
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 :(
Quote from: PPK on 20 July, 2008, 21:57:53
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? 8)
Quote from: PPK on 20 July, 2008, 21:57:53
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).
Quote from: Chris
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).
Quote from: Big Muscle on 21 July, 2008, 00:13:10
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.
Quote from: Big Muscle on 21 July, 2008, 00:13:10
make other changes to break StrongDC++ compatiblity
I don't need to make any changes, StrongDC++ implementation is already incompatible with my original version.
Quote from: Big Muscle on 21 July, 2008, 00:13:10
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 :P Encrypted transfers on public hubs are only false security anyway ;)
Quote from: Big Muscle on 21 July, 2008, 00:13:10
because StrongDC++ is used by more than 80% of users
Keep dreaming :laughing1:
Quote from: Big Muscle on 21 July, 2008, 00:13:10
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.
Quote from: PPK on 21 July, 2008, 00:34:43
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.
Quote
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 :ppp:
Quote
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? :w00t:
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 :rolleyes:
:shocking: :noexpression:
Oh my god, you guys are really and totally in war
Sorry for asking compatiblity, it seems like I started it all :shocking:
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 :'(
So what are other new (and still WTL based) clients doing currently? :blink:
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.
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.
That sucks :'( But czdc is still the best client available! I hope you find a solution :D
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 ;)
Quote from: Chris on 21 July, 2008, 19:27:53
:shocking: :noexpression:
Oh my god, you guys are really and totally in war
Sorry for asking compatiblity, it seems like I started it all :shocking:
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
Quote from: spinmagiic on 24 October, 2008, 12:32:20
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 ;)
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 ;)
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 :(
Sorry to hear that... :(
So I'll just wait patiently and wish you good luck & no more problems!
Are there any news on a new CzDC version? Some users are dying to have a shiny new updated version :rolleyes:
(and to see some of the new feats being talked about here)
Thanks for any info in advance!
Hello Chris,
did you read the last post from PPK? Looks like you didn't, 'cause you wouldn't ask then.
New Version is not ready yet and PPK will surely announce it here as soon as it's done!
I am also looking forward to the new version, but 0699 is running fine and we should be patient I think.
Haste makes waste ;)
Still no new version :mellow: i really hope that new version is coming soon... if u are not working this project anymore please inform that so i dont have wait
I'm not worked on CzDC much from 28 november when first hard drive died, another hard drive died on 9 december. In both cases it was system drive where i have all development tools (i'm replaced first one with new 640 GB drive that died after 10 days :'(). In first case it was drive where i have all DC sources. Last CzDC source backup was from 9 august, so i'm lost few months of work (TLS support, partial source sync with DC++ 0.7xx and half of WTL remove changes).
Changes done from last CzDC release to that backup from 9 august:
Quote
Fixed: Bug with downloading file instead of tthl resulting in tthl not matching tth root in some cases.
Fixed: Bug in login when hub sending first hello with wrong nick.
Fixed: Share formating when user have share lower than zero.
Rewritten: IP-to-Country database loading.
Rewritten: Cleanup in thread code.
Updated: bzip to 1.0.5.
Fixed: Missing nick check on received private message (thx CrazyGuy for report).
Fixed: Missing last char in filtering userlist (thx Titanium for report).
Fixed: More 64bit compiling problems.
Changed: Ignore now working on OPerators too to allow ignoring spamming hub bots.
Fixed: Problem with uploading different files with same TTH.
Fixed: Updating in favorite users frame when user goes on/off.
Changed: IP column in userlist to Country column, when is IP know then it show country + ip for ops and country for non-ops.
Changed: Encoding for chat and pm messages, they are now sent in utf-8.
Rewritten: Users ignoring. Now ignored users are saved, modified favorite users frame to favorite/ignored users.
Rewritten: All imagelists from CImageList WTL class to winapi HIMAGELIST.
Rewritten: All menus from CMenu WTL class to winapi HMENU.
Rewritten: All rects from CRect WTL class to winapi RECT.
Rewritten: All brushes from CBrush WTL class to winapi HBRUSH.
Rewritten: All pens from CPen WTL class to winapi HPEN.
Rewritten: All points from CPoint WTL class to winapi POINT.
Rewritten: All menuiteminfos from CMenuItemInfo WTL class to winapi MENUITEMINFO.
Rewritten: All bitmaps from CBitmap WTL class to winapi HBITMAP.
Rewritten: CDC WTL class to winapi HDC.
Rewritten: All edits from CEdit WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Rewritten: All lists from CListViewCtrl WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Rewritten: All buttons from CButton WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Rewritten: All statics from CStatic WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Rewritten: All listboxes from CListBox WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Rewritten: All comboboxes from CComboBox WTL class to ATL CWindow.
Actual CzDC is always based on 0.699 DC++ core, it is have 90 % of wtl removed (wtl is fat layer between gui and atl [that is another layer between app gui and winapi], removing it make gui using less resources) and i'm fixed all 64bit problems in sources.
Quote
[16:34:49] <PPK> -=[ CzDC 0.699 (x64) ]=-
-=[ Uptime: 7 days 19 hours 28 min ]=-
-=[ CPU time: 0:09:42 (Avg. 0,09 %) ]=-
-=[ Memory usage (peak): 30,34 MB (43,97 MB) ]=-
-=[ Virtual memory usage (peak): 28,42 MB (28,44 MB) ]=-
-=[ Downloaded: 9,14 MB ][ Uploaded: 41,74 kB ]=-
-=[ Total download: 1,37 TB ][ Total upload: 817,32 GB ]=-
-=[ Total Uptime: 3 years 11 months 29 days 8 hours 16 min ]=-
-=[ System Uptime: 7 days 19 hours 41 min ]=-
So if you waiting for CzDC based on 0.75 core or CzDC with TLS support then i'm sorry but i can't release that soon :(
Quote from: Dooble on 17 February, 2009, 19:10:22
Hello Chris,
did you read the last post from PPK? Looks like you didn't, 'cause you wouldn't ask then.
New Version is not ready yet and PPK will surely announce it here as soon as it's done!
I am also looking forward to the new version, but 0699 is running fine and we should be patient I think.
Haste makes waste ;)
I'm sorry, I was in a hurry, and I've thought to have already seen the (at that time) latest post
PPK, will you stick with Visual Studio, or change as DC++ did?
Wish you a better luck with hdds, what brand were the fautly ones from?
Of course i will stick with visual studio, or better with ms compilers (64bit build is compiled with command line compiler because visual studio express not supporting 64bit).
DC++ changed to compiler that is worse that ms one, and not supporting x64 compile.
Dead hard drives are Western Digital, but i'm sure that with my luck will die drive from another brand too ;)
Any news about the new version? Also, are you going to release also x64 version of CZDC PPK?
Im working on it. Sadly it next release (testing) will be always 0.699, but it will have gui rewritten and many bugs in it fixed. And of course 64bit version will be available too (i'm using 64bit version from february).
Quote from: PPK on 31 October, 2009, 12:43:11
Im working on it. Sadly it next release (testing) will be always 0.699, but it will have gui rewritten and many bugs in it fixed. And of course 64bit version will be available too (i'm using 64bit version from february).
Great news!
Also, DC++ recently allowed WTL again in license, so if your gui still contains it, DC++ 0.7xx src is free to use
I know that WTL is allowed again, but i'm not using it anymore ;)
Quote from: PPK on 02 November, 2009, 15:01:09
I know that WTL is allowed again, but i'm not using it anymore ;)
This is awesome news! :)
i am looking forward to a new version, keep up the good work! only client worth using.
Quote from: PPK on 31 October, 2009, 12:43:11
Im working on it. Sadly it next release (testing) will be always 0.699, but it will have gui rewritten and many bugs in it fixed. And of course 64bit version will be available too (i'm using 64bit version from february).
Really cool, can't wait!