Author Topic: 2011, the year that was. (Read 18340 times)

achilles · « **Reply #60 on:** January 29, 2012, 12:41:15 pm »

I thought I had been using it since 99, but according to wiki it wasn't released until 2001.

wonderer · « **Reply #61 on:** January 29, 2012, 06:29:34 pm »

WinMx more or less looking as it looks now has been released in 1999 for the first time

GhostShip · « **Reply #62 on:** January 29, 2012, 07:04:09 pm »

This is some history I put together in 2005 to fill the shelves here, the version I'm missing is 1.80 but I have been told that it was never properly publicly released before the 1.81 that appeared a few days later, one of the old beta testers used by frontcode provided many of the otherwise unobtainable versions we hold in our archives but even they didnt have the 1.80, anything prior to that was never released.

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=1242.0.html

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:38:21 pm »

Reading up this morning, 31/1 i could not help thinking, if Miners' solution to the outbound traffic issue is so elegant and simple FOR A NERD to implement, perhaps he should get busy and write it into a patch or script that anyone can 'run', so that it can be distributed widely and implemented.

Lots of things that need doing can be performed with a simple batch file or even a regedit file. many of us are comfortable doing certain things with out computers, but many more are not, so perhaps those of us who CAN could make life simple like that, instead of just ranting and carrying on about how easy it is to do such-and-such

We have indeed seen such methods in the past used to insert malware, but that is usually sneaky and silent insertions. A public and discussed batch/script file can be harmless but useful, especially if the author fully describes its function

Lets see Miners share his knowledge and skill...

GhostShip · « **Reply #64 on:** January 31, 2012, 01:50:43 am »

I am torn as to what to say to that Bluey, on the one hand it would be nice to see Miners show off his talents but on the other I would be be wrong to sit and say nothing and watch him to waste his time, there are serious problems with the current WPN protocol, these have been known about by members of the community since at least 2006 and no script however well intentioned can fix such things, there are some things that can be done to slow down the attacks but theres little point in releasing anything from our perspective as as soon as we do so the attacker will simply exploit one of the other holes we know exist and declare what a talentless and clueless bunch we are, that would drive other folks away due to the loss of confidence in our abilities, once again I ask for patience and trust, you will not be let down, rest assured that while we are waiting on the new client if some miracle cure or mechanism comes to our attention it will be rolled out in hours and not months.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 31, 2012, 02:03:13 am »

My point being, GS, that Miners described something that could be a working solution, albeit temporary, for him.

A Kludge.

But as something that others could emulate, for short-term relief, it may be beyond their tech ability to implement, whereas a script or batch file could do the job. I wasnt referring to it as being a permanent solution...

GhostShip · « **Reply #66 on:** January 31, 2012, 02:14:09 am »

A fair point Bluey, I just felt it was only fair of me to point out that these attacks look trivial but are in fact not so trivial and not just aimed at the network, the caches suffer too with specifically targetted attacks designed to disrupt or impeded users, such attempted censorship is however unsuccessful and more folks have in fact offered to run caches when informed of such cowardly attacks, no one likes to be bullied in this community it seems.

wonderer · « **Reply #67 on:** January 31, 2012, 03:41:33 am »

Quote from: GhostShip on January 29, 2012, 07:04:09 pm

This is some history I put together in 2005 to fill the shelves here, the version I'm missing is 1.80 but I have been told that it was never properly publicly released before the 1.81 that appeared a few days later, one of the old beta testers used by frontcode provided many of the otherwise unobtainable versions we hold in our archives but even they didnt have the 1.80, anything prior to that was never released.

https://forum.winmxworld.com/index.php?topic=1242.0.html

it has been released but had many problems and was follpwed up by 1.81 within three days after the release of 1.80 which has been retracted from release on the first day of release due to the many problems.
Probably the reason why no one has kept that version.

MinersLantern · « **Reply #68 on:** January 31, 2012, 04:43:25 am »

Blue, what is your personal issue?
My real JOB is medical care for someone who needs it. Perhaps you think I should just quit doing that, let my client die, and totally devote my entire life to a software product which I have no involvement in.
I am not a Microsoft software engineer but I'm also not ignorant either.
Maybe you should spend 17+ hours a day caring for someone and then write a patch by Yourself.
I dont have time for rewriting WinMX.
If I did, I would sooner spend the time doing, like.. oh I dont know.. using the internet to make something involving money. (yes I do have a mortgage to pay)
Buzz off on your criticism.
I am just saying a temporary patch to remove most of the fake flooding output from WinMX and its chatservers would help, and it doesnt require a masters in theoretical physics to do it.
It really isnt in the best interest of our network when it sits there spewing out flood attacks at government military ips.
Government doesnt take things like that lightly, esp the military. Think about the laws that are very close to going into effect. Give them a reason and they will pass it.
Cute little ideas like voting and web 'blackouts' are not going to make any difference.
Should WinMX be ignored as far as those attacks?
So what if 'some' people take 2 years to update? Anything is an improvement.
I doubt that most users are perfectly happy with the current situation as far as performance is concerned and most are wanting something, anything, to improve the network.
But it is evident that nothing will do but absolute perfection on the first try.
There is no absolute perfection. Ask Microsoft, Apple, Linux, Google, Facebook, etc, etc, etc.
Sure, it would be all kinds of wonderful if WinMX would transfer 100 terabyte files and searches would instantly cover the globe, play nice with IPV6 and be unhackable while also being beyond the reach of law and the cartel.
Baby steps first, perfection later.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #69 on:** January 31, 2012, 04:50:20 am »

Dunno what or where you are reading from, Miners, but you addressed what I WAS saying, right here:

Quote from: MinersLantern on January 31, 2012, 04:43:25 am

I am just saying a temporary patch to remove most of the fake flooding output from WinMX and its chatservers would help, and it doesnt require a masters in theoretical physics to do it.

If you have found a way to do some of that easily, share it with others, and if need be, put it into a script or batch file to automate the setting up of it.

For heavens sake, dont read stuff into peoples words that they didnt write

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #70 on:** January 31, 2012, 04:52:18 am »

Otherwise you just make yourself look like a long-term complaining critic

I do what I can, so do others, and you too can toss in your 50c worth...

¿Åliçe · « **Reply #71 on:** January 31, 2012, 10:46:53 am »

My understanding of the situation is that while a fix is needed pretty quickly and for various reasons, a new client is the more practical and time saving approach?

For coders to spend time on an 'interim fix' is still quite time consuming, (and they also have lives i assume) so, if they spend x amount of time on a 'patch' rather than the same time on a new client, it would take twice as long to get to the final solution. Just my 50c.

achilles · « **Reply #72 on:** January 31, 2012, 12:29:18 pm »

MinersLantern, I work 70 to 80 hours a week so I understand about not having any spare time. The coders have jobs as well, and they are sacrificing their time for the benefit of everyone. You get really offended everytime someone ask you to make a working model of your ideals, but you want to preach about how coders should be working on a patch instead of a new client. When I read your post it sounds like you are preaching about their ignorance. It has already been explained to you the reason for taking this approach, and you should be more supportive of those sacrificing their time.

MinersLantern · « **Reply #73 on:** February 02, 2012, 03:50:34 am »

Sounds like im 'preaching' or 'preaching' of the programmers ignorance? lol
Firstly, I dont do religion, so im not preaching.
I have never said anything about the guys working on this job as being ignorant either.
I am quite certain that they know infinitely more about programming than I do.
One more reason that I would love to play around and experiment with WinMX but dont have time. I would have to re-study C. It takes eons to relearn a language. I used to be quite good at it around 10 years ago... I also would love to experiment and play around with solar energy, gold prospecting (I have lived in gold country for over 2 years, but havent had the time to even do that) and a few other things. There isnt time. I do know that more users are leaving at an exponential rate. You are telling me that a patch that blocks outgoing attempts is as difficult as writing an entire new client?
I dont think so.
No mattter peeps. Im outta here. Not going to make any more comments and not going to waste my time and lose any more sleep just to think about WinMX.
As the song says, 'You can go your own way'. Ill just sit about and not even bother thinking about anything that involves WinMX. The pathway to the future has evidently been carved in stone.
Now yall wont anything to complain about I guess.
Bye. And have a good day.

EnelyaElensar · « **Reply #74 on:** February 24, 2012, 10:51:06 pm »

oh man...

I kind of agree with GarryB, I'm afraid I'm a total n00b when it comes to things like this. All I can offer is support, strength, determination and will for all the coders out there who are working to fix this. You rock ladies and gents, I know you do.

Also I want to give some kudos for the patience and maturity shown here by the staff when dealing with Miners Lantern. I read through this chat, at some point I just started skipping over his posts not wanting to read them anymore because they contained what seemed only anger instead of actual help.

I know I only registered today, but I've used WinMX for years. It was a great program in the past, and despite the difficulties it's experiencing now I am willing to bet it still is. You don't throw your dog away in the trash folder just because it's got a cold. You TLC it back to full health.

Keep on rocking like you always have.

Love, Enelya.

silicon_toad2000 · « **Reply #75 on:** February 25, 2012, 02:48:06 am »

Thanks for the message Enelya. It's always great to hear and reminds those working on the project why we do what we do.
depsite the misunderstanding and a few harsh words thrown around now and then, there is an awesome community behind winmx.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #76 on:** February 26, 2012, 01:04:07 am »

Right...

Jehosephat · « **Reply #77 on:** March 15, 2012, 06:50:26 pm »

Peace everyone. As a user of winmx for over 10 years (since 2001), and I currently supply files when I come on the network nowadays, I had to chime in with my 2 cents worth. I find it sad that winmx is just a shadow of what it used to be. Searching for files now just brings up a bunch of nothing. Especially when looking for hard to find music. Years ago that was not the case with winmx, no matter what band you were looking for you could almost always find what you were looking for, even deep cuts. Now, even using open nap servers are pretty much useless. Just the same results showing on all the different servers. If you can tie into 20 - 30 srvers out of the hundreds out there, it's just the same people and their files showing up. Winmx network itself is totally useless today.
Someone could come up with the ultimate patch right now (not me, I have forgotten more about computers than I'll ever know again, and I never did know language or programming) but it would make no difference. The thousands of users of winmx who have left are gone for good. And the people out there hacking the site would just simply come up with a different hack. There will never be another program as great as winmx was. All free, unlike bearshare and kazaa, etc who want you to pay to be able to actually download most of what you find. Must be their way of paying off the effing RIAA. My thanks go out to all who were ever involved in the creation of this site, and may eternal damnation fall upon those who haver pretty much helped to destroy the site.
BTW, what is up with all those OpenNap servers anyhow? I have tons of them downloaded and saved and it seems 99% NEVER connect! What is with the people who supposedly run those sites? Why host one if your machine is never up for people to connect to? And if these sites are to be always "un-connectable", isn't there a way to have them be NOT show up as to being available for downloading? Take it easy one and all.

silicon_toad2000 · « **Reply #78 on:** March 15, 2012, 08:29:06 pm »

Hi Jehosephat, many sentiments there shared by a lot of the comunity.
Many users who have left winmx since it's heyday have gone for good, but many haven't left for good and are just waiting. When the malicious traffic on the network ceases, there is usually an increase in users seen on the network. Many also haven't left at all.
As far as opennap goes, check the opennap section in the winmxworld archive. Look for a wsx server list called pauls tested. The gentleman that puts it together spends a fair bit of time gathering servers and checking they can be connected to.

wonderer · « **Reply #79 on:** March 17, 2012, 01:48:49 am »

using winmx client and WinMx peer to connect to open nap
there is no relation to bad or unreacheable nap serverand winmx giving disturbed search results imho