TTH: List of non-unique files.

[foxyshadis]

Glancing at the status bar on the bottom after hashing is finished, especially a mouseover that brings up the last few changes, I found that I have a few duplicate files. Oops! However, the only information given is what file is the dupe and where it is, and only shows the last few. It would be extremely useful to have a screen that would show every detected dupe file in your share, and what they're dupes of, so that I could figure out which I want to keep and clean out the rest.

[GargoyleMT]

All of the messages that appear in the status bar can be logged to disk if you enable it under Logs and Sounds. You can see all of the duplicated files there, though you'll have to do some guesswork to find out where the original is.

[Wormsworth]

Actually it only shows half of the duplicates (there may be more than two of the same)

To make it really usefull, we need a list of all the identical files and full directory.

How about a list of duplicate (or possible duplicate) files in download queue?

-Chuck

[GargoyleMT]

Actually it only shows half of the duplicates (there may be more than two of the same)

I understand what you're saying, but logically speaking, DC++ tells you all of the duplicates. The other files are the originals.

Showing the path of the duplicate as well as the original wasn't easily possible last time I looked, which was when DC++ was still juding duplicates by filename and size.

How about a list of duplicate (or possible duplicate) files in download queue?

That's a logical extension. It'd be neater if DC++ refused to queue duplicate files.

[Wisp]

That's a logical extension. It'd be neater if DC++ refused to queue duplicate files.

I have a few windows-setups in my share, and some of the files from different setup dirs (2000/xp/2003) have duplicates, so dc++ made the xp and 2003 version incomplete by removing the dupes

[Todi]

I have a few windows-setups in my share, and some of the files from different setup dirs (2000/xp/2003) have duplicates, so dc++ made the xp and 2003 version incomplete by removing the dupes

Off topic, but you should probably be sharing those as CUE/BIN or suchlike you know..

[GargoyleMT]

I have a few windows-setups in my share, and some of the files from different setup dirs (2000/xp/2003) have duplicates, so dc++ made the xp and 2003 version incomplete by removing the dupes

There's already a configuration option for keeping duplicates in your share. Where's the problem?

[Wisp]

Off topic, but you should probably be sharing those as CUE/BIN or suchlike you know..

no this is better

- if you have the setup cd and there's a read error in one of the files, you can download only that file
- you can download from many people at once
- you can choose which files you will or will not download (why download the example movies if you have a slow connection)

[Wisp]

There's already a configuration option for keeping duplicates in your share. Where's the problem?

I know, the problem is that the option is turned on by default, so people who share programs have a big chance they spread incomplete installations

[GargoyleMT]

I know, the problem is that the option is turned on by default, so people who share programs have a big chance they spread incomplete installations

What's wrong with that? Users are warned about duplicates. Sharing installed programs are discouraged.

It's a user configuration issue - keeping duplicates out of the file list by default is a perfectly sane option.

[Sedulus]

Off topic, but you should probably be sharing those as CUE/BIN or suchlike you know..

no this is better

no it's not

- if you have the setup cd and there's a read error in one of the files, you can download only that file

use Rar's or GetZBlock

- you can download from many people at once

use Rar's

- you can choose which files you will or will not download (why download the example movies if you have a slow connection)

the horror. this will introduce shrinkage. i.e. after a while, there floates an installer around that only works on one specific configuration of a system, comes with some strange language only and lacks anything but the most basic functionality.
no thank you.

[Wisp]

What's wrong with that? Users are warned about duplicates. Sharing installed programs are discouraged.

There's a difference between sharing an installed program and a setup directory

It's a user configuration issue - keeping duplicates out of the file list by default is a perfectly sane option.

I know but in this case users will become victim because of the misconfiguration of others.
It's just that i don't see the use of a feature that removes things out of your share, and if you decide to implement it, turn it off by default and warn the users if they enable it

(but that's my opinion, no flame intended )

Another example: I have a lot of albums and sometimes a specific track appears on a normal cd and on a compilation cd, dc++ first sees the compilation cd and then removes the tracks from the other cd, if people search for the cd and rightclick>download whole directory, then they download an incomplete album
(i know: this happens only if users don't know about the option to disable removing duplicates, or forget to disable it)

[Wisp]

use Rar's or GetZBlock

How can you know which file is in which RAR if you haven't download it yet

use Rar's

It's rarely used, and if everybody makes his own rars it won't work

the horror. this will introduce shrinkage. i.e. after a while, there floates an installer around that only works on one specific configuration of a system, comes with some strange language only and lacks anything but the most basic functionality.
no thank you.

Offcourse if you decide to download only small pieces of a directory, you must not share that directory and pretend it's the whole program, that's another story

Last week I was at my fathers home because i had to fix his MS office, the thing told me he was missing a DLL which I couldn't find on the web, so I used radmin to run dc++ on my home computer, then downloaded the specific file and sent it over by radmin. Because my father has only a 33k3 line, i couldn't download the whole BIN so I was glad people shared the setup-dir.

I also use ISO or BIN a lot of times, but it's also good that people share setup directories.

[GargoyleMT]

It's just that i don't see the use of a feature that removes things out of your share, and if you decide to implement it, turn it off by default and warn the users if they enable it

Your arguments fail to convince me.

[Borlag]

Another example: I have a lot of albums and sometimes a specific track appears on a normal cd and on a compilation cd, dc++ first sees the compilation cd and then removes the tracks from the other cd, if people search for the cd and rightclick>download whole directory, then they download an incomplete album
(i know: this happens only if users don't know about the option to disable removing duplicates, or forget to disable it)

Poor example really... I've tested this myself and if the files have different mp3 tags, for example one says Band this and that - studio album a - song b, and other says Band this and that - compilation b - song b. They're considered different files by the TTH hashing even if same filename and filesize because the contents are different, even if only by few bytes (the actual tag).

Besides, if you're sharing music, keep the tags correct...personally I absolutely hate having to fix them if someone hasn't made them or if they're wrong...

As for that installed vs. install directories...poor argument also. If you share them in a .bin or .rar format, the person who is downloading from you will get every file needed for the installation, and provided your file is good, he or she will get an uncorrupted file, thus there's no need to download single files because it was never corrupted in the first place.

If you'd share the install directory, you'd have literally thousands of files at the worst case scenario, and that way it would be very easy to miss some file and thus the installation pack wouldn't work. Also in your example you used Windows installations as your example, it's a moot point since if windows installation is missing a file or a file is corrupt, it will ask for a specific .cab file that contains the actual file needed. Rar packages of those in maybe 5-10 cabs in one aren't much to ask really as most hubs with any kind of sharechecking will boot you for sharing installed if you have any .ini or .dll files, not to mention the other possible files you'd have when sharing windows.