I replace the 2 "_" after the server name to put my. In this nf file, I just change the server line to put my local IP:6080 on wich soulseek is running. I have a question as i don't succes to put the reverse proxy on this container with linuxserver/letsencrypt docker. Hey there, Thanks for this container it works perfectly. Fixed a crash bug on Mac and Linux when files or folders with the same name but different capitalization are shared.Feel free to modify this, ssl.conf and nf are part of linuxserver.io's letsencrypt nginx server, but it should run fine without them, the key thing is the /websockify connection upgrade.Īccess_log /config/log/nginx/soulseek_access.log Įrror_log /config/log/nginx/soulseek_error.log.Upload place in line is now returned to downloading users.Fixed a bug that sometimes prevents the client from reconnecting after a disconnect from the server.Fixed a bug that shortens messages in the chat log if they contain international characters.Private room operators and owners are now marked in the room user list in bold and underline, respectively.Do be advised that uploads are automatically retried periodically. Fixed a bug that sometimes prevents uploads from starting.You can keep track of which users have had the message sent to them under the Diagnostics->Logs->Shared tab. Set your desired message under Options->General, check the 'Send warning message to downloading users with empty shares' option, and your client will attempt to browse every downloading user in the background, and send them your message each time it comes up empty. And for that purpose I've implemented an automatic empty share warning mechanism in tonight's build. Whatever the case may be, there seems to be no scenario where simply saying something to the user isn't the better alternative. Or more likely, someone hasn't been on the system long enough that it had occurred to them they really should share if they intend to download from others. Perhaps someone is sharing privately and hasn't gotten around to adding you to their list yet. And though they all vary in degrees of offense, they all share one basic trait: outright banning isn't going to do anything to better the overall situation. As I've said many times before, there are many different reasons someone who is downloading from you doesn't appear to be sharing anything. Still, outright banning has always struck me as too harsh a measure in this case. Others are justifiably angered that some of those who are benefiting from their kindness aren't in turn doing their part to support this system of exchange, and who could blame them. Many don't see it as a matter of strict give-and-take, and are happy to share what they have with all and sundry. Suffice it to say that I understand that Soulseek relies on openness, on the willingness of its users to share the things that they love with those around them. I have no desire to repeat the many fine points that have been raised time and time again on either side of the argument in a multitude of discussions here and on our original forum. One of the most oft requested features over the years, and one I've always resisted strongly is that of automatically banning users who aren't visibly sharing anything from one's download queue.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |