Template talk:Gnutella

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gnutella template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
	This template is supported by Networking task force.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Software.

Headings

I am not sure if the magnet sights are warranted. Especially as LimeWire discards SHA1 searches, so only exact source magnet links are usable. The magnet URI are a technology. Some of the technology links are really terminology. I found these links interesting Ethics of file sharing, ~~Privacy of the Gnutella Protocol~~, Privacy in file sharing networks, Media Defender, MediaSentry, Anti-copyright and Peer-to-peer#Attacks_on_peer-to-peer_networks. Feel free to edit this template. Bpringlemeir 22:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a separate terminology heading after Thumperward removed the magnet category. Bpringlemeir 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Software

The intent is to give a flavor of gnutella clients. I don't think that an exhaustive list should be put in the navbox. I have culled the list by only including original software. Ie, gnutella clients that aren't a fork (or are the only actively maintained version). The software link for the group heading was more obvious originally (but looked ugly). I concur with User:Thumperward to keep the list in alpha order. Bpringlemeir (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also now wonder if ultra-peer capable software should be listed seperately. This software forms the back-bone of the Gnutella network. I would be for a way of differentiating the ultra-capable nodes from those that are not in this template. Bpringlemeir (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't so many servent links that we need to separate them out, and to my knowledge all the mainstream servents have ultrapeer capability these days anyway. Chris Cunningham (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]