aMule Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We're back! (IN POG FORM)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8

Author Topic: protocol obfuscation  (Read 95808 times)

nubtumbler

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2006, 09:57:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Typhon
Even if it runs OK, that would be only a temporary solution for me, since we have an ed2k client - aMule. It just needs to be fixed.

Obfuscation is a new feature, not a simple bugfix.  New code must be written or borrowed from eMule and then it must be tested.  It may be quite a while before obfuscation make it into a stable aMule release.  Then again, it could be next month.  Only the devs really know and I don't think they're talking on the matter.

Many people have been unable to run aMule for months already so it makes sense to find the best way to run eMule in the meantime.
Logged

Typhon

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
    • my deviantART
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #46 on: November 26, 2006, 01:27:01 PM »
Well, I tried to run eMule on Crossover Office emulator yesterday evening, alas without any success It didn't even start.
Logged

bad-times

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #47 on: November 27, 2006, 01:11:50 PM »
networking runs fine on wine now,
but other stuff is not so good.
it seems that everytime they fix something they break something else :(

a bit off topic, but the wine devs need to stop concentrating on fixing "solitair" and fussing over MSI installer & MS-office and make it work with app's we dont have *nix versions of.
Logged

jps

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #48 on: November 28, 2006, 08:01:56 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by nubtumbler
It is entirely possible that eMule runs well under the latest version of Wine.

I'd love to hear if anyone here is able to run eMule under Wine 9.25 in a stable way (for 2-3 weeks at a time without crash.)  I am still gunshy from my last eMule + Wine experience to try it so early.

Thanks very much for the tip. Wine 0.9.25 and eMule 0.47c with protocol obfuscation work fine since two days now without crash. Seems very stable with this new version of wine. With an Upload of 16ko/s, I have an average Download of 32ko/s with files sources between 2 and 50. Amule is unusable since 6 months with my isp.

Update: one week now without crash. Definitively stable. Best way waiting the developpers of amule implement protocol obfuscation, imho.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 12:51:21 PM by jps »
Logged

mikool19

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #49 on: November 30, 2006, 01:13:57 PM »
For those who work on MacOSX, there is Parallels Desktop (free for 1 month in evaluation) which make the same thing as VMware.

I have tested Parallels Desktop 2.2 on an iMac Core 2 Duo (1 GO RAM) in OSX 10.4.8 with WinXP SP2 (500 Mo RAM allocated) and eMule 0.47c without any problem : it's stable and efficient.
Logged

anonymous-Mule

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2006, 09:14:05 PM »
is obfuscation in ? we should stay compatible with emule, especially if one of the further versions is delivered with connections to obfuscation only..
Logged

wuischke

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 183
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2006, 09:36:40 PM »
Nah, it ain't implemented yet, but people are working on it. You know, will be implemented soon® and stuff.

In other words: There are efforts to implement this feature, but developers are busy (real life) and therefore the support is still missing.
Logged

lulu135

  • Newbie
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
RE: Finally!!!
« Reply #52 on: December 04, 2006, 12:21:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by melendro
I don't want to be very rude, because I love your work and I thank you very much for it, but some statements like "but something like that (protocol obfuscation) will not be implemented in amule" (in the sticker "Features NOT to request") should never had been done.
I agree completely.  If the amule developers don't want to listen to users, that is of course their right since they work for free.  But I also don't think they would want to work on amule if nobody uses it (maybe Im wrong).  Now that eMule under wine works again I am happy and I will use that for a while, at least until this issue gets sorted out.

Sometimes I wish the amule developers had some innovation of their own and didn't just copy every feature from emule 1-2 years later.  (like Kad)

There are other examples of features that should not be in the "never" list like anonymization and webcache.  Saying "never" is just based on some personal opinions about what is "possible" or "legal".  OK, right now webcache is irrelevant and anonymization is inefficient, but network technology and laws change over time, and anyone (even the devs) might change their opinion in the future.

Anyway, it's good that protocol obfuscation is coming, even though its only because they were "forced" by emule and server operators.
Logged

Kry

  • Ex-developer
  • Retired admin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: -665
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5795
RE: Finally!!!
« Reply #53 on: December 04, 2006, 12:40:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by lulu135
Sometimes I wish the amule developers had some innovation of their own and didn't just copy every feature from emule 1-2 years later.  (like Kad)

[snip]

Anyway, it's good that protocol obfuscation is coming, even though its only because they were "forced" by emule and server operators.

I had a very offensive reply written, but I decided to edit it out and let you look like an idiot by yourself.

Damn, I did it again.
Logged

Aethereal

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #54 on: December 04, 2006, 08:47:35 AM »
As stated in several places, developers' aim in aMule project is to create the best client for the existing ed2k protocol.
So I am quite happy they don't introduce any "innovation" in how the protocol is handled, because that would mean creating a restricted alternate network of users of the new protocol. That's also why they don't include in the tree some "extreme" mods...
The fact that some servers decided to allow some functions (search) only to obfuscated clients, and that a lot of eMule users are activating their "obfuscate connections only" option is quite arbitrary and souldn't have happened.
The "don't ask" list is of course a right thing, in order to avoid a flood of unnecessary requests. As you see, when something is really needed, the devs take the necessary steps.
And, of course, aMule is full of innovations, only not in in the protocol section. Look at the daemon, the remote GUI and so on...
Logged

Menion

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
  • Winter is coming...
RE: Finally!!!
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2006, 09:09:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kry
Quote
Originally posted by lulu135
Sometimes I wish the amule developers had some innovation of their own and didn't just copy every feature from emule 1-2 years later.  (like Kad)

[snip]

Anyway, it's good that protocol obfuscation is coming, even though its only because they were "forced" by emule and server operators.

I had a very offensive reply written, but I decided to edit it out and let you look like an idiot by yourself.

Damn, I did it again.

Kry, you know, such people exist on every forum.... You must think that for each person like this, 100 will continue to use and love your work!!! Bye!!!
Logged

TASADAR-F

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Karma: 2
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
    • http://www.juventudaranda.com
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2006, 06:14:29 PM »
I use and love Kry's work  :baby:  :baby:  :baby:  :baby:  :baby:
Logged

xupetas

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #57 on: December 19, 2006, 06:14:56 PM »
Dear Santa,

Can i have protocol obfuscation this Christmas??
I've really been a good boy... please?

 :))
Logged

wuischke

  • Developer
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 183
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4292
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #58 on: December 19, 2006, 10:04:54 PM »
I'm not Santa, but: No, I doubt it.
Logged

Op15L

  • Approved Newbie
  • *
  • Karma: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
Re: Protocol Obfuscation
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2007, 06:03:26 PM »
what is the current status?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 8
« previous next »