It would be great if every software developer could be as clear as you are. JFM 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC) Reply Well, thanks for all the info, JFM. To call this a bug or an issue shows a misunderstanding about the purpose and operation about the program. The reason for an IP being in the blocklist is usually clearly explained (unfortunatley after the dispute over control our blocklist information page is down temporarily). It does not break the applications it only prevents them from connecting to IP addresses in the blocklist, the same thing will happen to any other application where the IP is in the blocklist. I have already stated my involvement with this project, so that there can be no doubt or suspicion about this - I am being open about that and thus far I have refrained from writing a longer article about this application because I have feared that it would be considered biased. This is similar to the operation of most firewalls (where the user is prompted to allow an application to connect to the internet).
#Peerguardian alternative manual
Have you read the manual of the program? It makes these issues very clear, and I have already stated that a simple choice to "allow" an IP address permenantly will make the application work correctly. Unfortunately it is impossible to distinguish between the different parts of an orgs webservers. The developers themselves have been reluctant to comment on the STEAM and BF2 issues and the fact that this software breaks them. The desire to play legitimate games far exceeds that of software piracy. The fact that this program breaks Battlefield 2 and Steam VAC connectivity is a huge concern considering its audience, doubly so because it gives no indication to its gaming audience that it will purposefully break such applications. JFM 14:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC) Reply You're involvement in the project itself is skewing your positioning of this article. That is neutral (I think), while this is, while an issue people discover, not an actual problem with the application. I'm trying incredibly hard to keep this article accurate and comprehensive, and I am actually setting out the largest section of the article to the analysis of criticism of it. If you wish to hear exactly the same argument again you can post on the forums about it. In the persuit of fact I have reverted your entry, and I think have justified myself from the evidence above.
This application is not simplistic, it's built from several elements and has often been hyped by non-savvy media orgs - there are misconceptions about the application, this being one of them. This means when you connect to counter-strike, etc you can just switch to pg, right click on the Valve IPs and choose to allow them.
As I also say in the article, any IP address can be allowed by right clicking on it and choosing to allow the IP.
#Peerguardian alternative full
The reasons behind Valve's addition to the blocklist follows a number of occasions where the organisation posted fake BitTorrent downloads." to back this up see the BBC article at It is not valid to make criticisms without full understanding. For example, a lot of ranges owned by Valve Software are blocked, meaning that some users must allow these IP addresses in order to connect to game servers. This is sometimes a case of over-zealous or incorrect moderation at, but can also be for other reasons. I say: "Occasionally IP addresses of "friendly" organisations and groups may be added to the blocklist. I comment on this issue in the section about the Lists in criticism. While I'm not impartial here, from npov this is an invalid criticism since this is what PG is DESIGNED to do. The servers of games companies are blanket blocked to avoid issues related to DRM and numerous anti-piracy measures from these companies. See proof in bug list here: This is neither a bug nor an issue. Updating with information regarding BF2 and HL:Source games not working with PeerGuardian 2.
0 kommentar(er)
