DC++ 0.263

ATV · Post by **ATV** » 2004-06-20 19:33

Does this client work with the " Safe and Compressed downloads " feature originally enabled by default? I've been wondering cause I'm using this one as well

Thanks!

Xan1977 · Post by **Xan1977** » 2004-06-20 22:25

changelog wrote: -- 0.302 2003-11-14 --
* Added (well, enabled) GetZBlock, a feature that makes all transfers safer by checking CRC's during the transfer and if possible, compresses. ...

It wasn't enabled until .302. Note the version number.

Is there a reason for not using at least a post .301 version of DC++?

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2004-06-21 19:16

Code: Select all

 -- 0.307 2004-03-10 --
* End of zlib transfer test period, semantics slightly changed ($GetTestZBlock -> $GetZBlock, $Sending changed)
* Compression totally rewritten, should also fix a few minor issues

Even for the versions before 0.307, new DC++ versions won't interoperate - because the TestZBlock was in testing phase.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » 2004-06-24 21:53

Xan1977 wrote:Is there a reason for not using at least a post .301 version of DC++?

No, just curiosity. But I'd prolly go like: I somewhat dislike this DC++ featuring 'cause, I just don't think it's truthfully reliable to use together on downloads. Is there any arguments against what I said?

Todi · Post by **Todi** » 2004-06-25 01:22

Arguments against what you've just said? I'd say there is no argument for what you've just said.. That pretty much sums it up. Oh btw, watch out for that big security exploit in < 0.300 version...

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2004-06-26 08:38

ATV wrote:I just don't think it's truthfully reliable to use together on downloads. Is there any arguments against what I said?

DC++ 0.401 versions are not reliable to use at both ends of a transfer?

Is that what you said? There's nothing that supports that conclusion.

ATV · Post by **ATV** » 2004-06-26 19:32

GargoyleMT wrote:DC++ 0.401 versions are not reliable to use at both ends of a transfer?

Is that what you said? There's nothing that supports that conclusion.

I mean using it with both "Safe and Compressed dl" and "Anti-fragmentation method for dl" together or even lone. I used to use like that way, stopped though.

Post by **GargoyleMT** » 2004-06-26 19:48

ATV wrote:I mean using it with both "Safe and Compressed dl" and "Anti-fragmentation method for dl" together or even lone. I used to use like that way, stopped though.

No, that's fine. There are probably a few changes in there to your download queue that will prevent you from going back to 0.263 after upgrading. (Which means reseting progress on your partial antifrag downloads.)