Kenny Milkensen
New member
I want a Vinnie/Borg T-Shirt!!!! Where do I get one?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
OpenSource P2P Debate, it's about choice
- Thread starter mandexlufc
- Start date
> Not all clients can act as superpeer (not enough bandwith, CPU
>
If a client is incapable of acting as an Ultrapeer, it can either continue to operate as a regular peer or connect to an Ultrapeer as a Leaf client.
> so not all Limewire users can act as superpeers
This is why (in LimeWire) you can disable Ultrapeer functionality, and the user will become a shielded leaf node.
> so you get a mix of superpeer and normal clients.
Can you give me technical reasons why this is a bad thing?
> What do you wanna cluster, superpeers away from normal
> client?
I see... Ultrapeers are not completely seperating themselves from regular peers. AIUI, Ultrapeers are fully capable of connecting with regular peers.
> exactly what was the idea behind superpeers, to balance and
> reduce load and traffic.
Ultrapeers shield low bandwidth users from high amounts of traffic. When Ultrapeers are clustered together, the possible search horizon is increased.
I agree with Rapheal Manfredi (sorry if I spelled that wrong) that Moak, and users of both sides are not listening to eachother.
>
If a client is incapable of acting as an Ultrapeer, it can either continue to operate as a regular peer or connect to an Ultrapeer as a Leaf client.
> so not all Limewire users can act as superpeers
This is why (in LimeWire) you can disable Ultrapeer functionality, and the user will become a shielded leaf node.
> so you get a mix of superpeer and normal clients.
Can you give me technical reasons why this is a bad thing?
> What do you wanna cluster, superpeers away from normal
> client?
I see... Ultrapeers are not completely seperating themselves from regular peers. AIUI, Ultrapeers are fully capable of connecting with regular peers.
> exactly what was the idea behind superpeers, to balance and
> reduce load and traffic.
Ultrapeers shield low bandwidth users from high amounts of traffic. When Ultrapeers are clustered together, the possible search horizon is increased.
I agree with Rapheal Manfredi (sorry if I spelled that wrong) that Moak, and users of both sides are not listening to eachother.
If anyone else (including Vinnie) is abusing the gnutella network then they are wrong too!!! But that doesn't make what Openp2p is doing any more "right". It just makes you hypocrits from complaining about the same type of behavior that you're participating in and advocating.
littlezeus92
New member
Here is a link to another thread, this one about Black Holes
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9192
Nos
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9192
Nos
Zombie Bob
New member
can there not be a thread about gnutella issues where mrgone4662 doesnt flood? come one now... i think that we are all old enough to know when to keep our hands off the keyboard...
ps to mrgone4662 please dont go tearing everything that i say appart and over analysize what i say. this just makes things worse. i know you are a mixer, but i believe what this network needs right now is some stability and not people mixing things up.
ps to mrgone4662 please dont go tearing everything that i say appart and over analysize what i say. this just makes things worse. i know you are a mixer, but i believe what this network needs right now is some stability and not people mixing things up.
allie lewis
New member
Then you should contact the vendor who makes the client that everyone *choses* to block and urge him to take out the spyware/adware so people won't block it anymore and "diminish your quality".
There must be some reason why it is getting blocked, so go to the source. People don't seem to like that client for some reason. It's your responsibility if you want to keep using a spyware client, and it's your choice to do something about it.
What other defense do file swappers have against corporate greed sucking off of Gnutella?
Turn about is fair play Mr. Gone!
Moak, cool T's
There must be some reason why it is getting blocked, so go to the source. People don't seem to like that client for some reason. It's your responsibility if you want to keep using a spyware client, and it's your choice to do something about it.
What other defense do file swappers have against corporate greed sucking off of Gnutella?
Turn about is fair play Mr. Gone!
Moak, cool T's
what do you think you can achieve with the OpenSourceP2P network? do you really think you can change the world by changing the connect string? what makes you believe that this will lock out any closed-sourced or commercial client?
if this new network should get as popular as the old one, there will definitely be commercial and closed-source servents on it sooner or later. do you think they wouldn't dare connecting just because the connect string contains the words "open source"? I guess you will tell me about the user's choice to block them and that they are free now and greed will no longer be supported and all those arguments we heard before...
this is fact: any company can write a commercial servent and join your precious network by simply pretending to be gnucleus. indeed, due to a bug there is no way to determine whether you are uploading a file to morpheus or gnucleus 1.6.0.0. just identify yourself as GNUC and everything will work. even better, i could modify my servent to use a vendor code that consists of random characters. what are you going to do then? drop every client you don't know? including new and experimental ones you just haven't heard about?
IMHO a split of the network is all you are gonna achieve. no less, no more. instead of one gnutella there will be two ones that only differ in the name. i would like the idea of a true open p2p network. but that is not in the least what you present. if one CHOOSES to use a client that displays ads or uses spyware because it has the better technology than that is none of your buisness and you have no right to block him. you DO have a reason to prevent a servent from abusing the protocol for commercial interests, that's clear. but i can't see how changing the network name will do that.
why don't you use your energy to create anti-clustering features on a protocol level? why not creating a network that has no vendor codes, that doesn't publish the user-agent, that doesn't allow proprietary formats or even encrypted messages? improve the protocol so that it cannot be abused that easily? that would be useful. your current implementation of the OpenSourceP2P network is not. although i am a supporter of open source, chose to use gnucleus rather than limewire and dislike bearshare's clustering politics, i can't see any reason to support this new network.
if this new network should get as popular as the old one, there will definitely be commercial and closed-source servents on it sooner or later. do you think they wouldn't dare connecting just because the connect string contains the words "open source"? I guess you will tell me about the user's choice to block them and that they are free now and greed will no longer be supported and all those arguments we heard before...
this is fact: any company can write a commercial servent and join your precious network by simply pretending to be gnucleus. indeed, due to a bug there is no way to determine whether you are uploading a file to morpheus or gnucleus 1.6.0.0. just identify yourself as GNUC and everything will work. even better, i could modify my servent to use a vendor code that consists of random characters. what are you going to do then? drop every client you don't know? including new and experimental ones you just haven't heard about?
IMHO a split of the network is all you are gonna achieve. no less, no more. instead of one gnutella there will be two ones that only differ in the name. i would like the idea of a true open p2p network. but that is not in the least what you present. if one CHOOSES to use a client that displays ads or uses spyware because it has the better technology than that is none of your buisness and you have no right to block him. you DO have a reason to prevent a servent from abusing the protocol for commercial interests, that's clear. but i can't see how changing the network name will do that.
why don't you use your energy to create anti-clustering features on a protocol level? why not creating a network that has no vendor codes, that doesn't publish the user-agent, that doesn't allow proprietary formats or even encrypted messages? improve the protocol so that it cannot be abused that easily? that would be useful. your current implementation of the OpenSourceP2P network is not. although i am a supporter of open source, chose to use gnucleus rather than limewire and dislike bearshare's clustering politics, i can't see any reason to support this new network.
[email protected]
New member
more arguments for an existing GDF lobbying
- GDF was/is long hidden from public, mentioned on no vendor homepage, still not listed in groups listing
- a documentation of protocol was not available long time, still chaotic
- support of new developers does not exist, of course GDF members have a working client already
- dissing against Xolox was unfair or tolerated, communication was not tried/wanted by GDF
- clustering takes users/files away from other (independent) vendors, superpeer clustering is a self created bottleneck
- clustering and blocking was tolerated for GDF member Bearshare, now also for Limewire
- proprietary messages and undocumented extensions from Bearshare are tolerated
- spyware/sumware in Bearshare and Limewire are tolerated
- public statistics from LW's crawler are inacurate, mode changes without notice, no statistics for everyone
- Bearshare and Limewire saying they have the best Gnutella client and being "the establishment"
- GDF was/is long hidden from public, mentioned on no vendor homepage, still not listed in groups listing
- a documentation of protocol was not available long time, still chaotic
- support of new developers does not exist, of course GDF members have a working client already
- dissing against Xolox was unfair or tolerated, communication was not tried/wanted by GDF
- clustering takes users/files away from other (independent) vendors, superpeer clustering is a self created bottleneck
- clustering and blocking was tolerated for GDF member Bearshare, now also for Limewire
- proprietary messages and undocumented extensions from Bearshare are tolerated
- spyware/sumware in Bearshare and Limewire are tolerated
- public statistics from LW's crawler are inacurate, mode changes without notice, no statistics for everyone
- Bearshare and Limewire saying they have the best Gnutella client and being "the establishment"
tennis playa
New member
Nice try of mobbing, show me your IRC logs please.
I have helped the Gnutella community as long as it was fun & fair. What have you done?
Sorry guys, some of you are leaving the path of seriousity. I need to do some coding, that's more fun, yeah. You find a lot of infomation in this thread, I tried my best to show you an alternative sight about the raising commercial Bearwire-Gnutella-propaganda and how bad things run in Gnutella development.
I can't waste my time with fighting, there is no love, fun or improvement in it. Take some time (and your favourite cafeein) and judge on your own. Oh and do something (alter-na-tives), don't get paralyzed from all the greed, create something better and improve things! Btw Xolox will come back soon... *g*
Stay informed and happy sharing. Moak
[update] PS: Join our mailinglist or meet independend developers on IRCnet #gnutelladev [/update]
I have helped the Gnutella community as long as it was fun & fair. What have you done?
Sorry guys, some of you are leaving the path of seriousity. I need to do some coding, that's more fun, yeah. You find a lot of infomation in this thread, I tried my best to show you an alternative sight about the raising commercial Bearwire-Gnutella-propaganda and how bad things run in Gnutella development.
I can't waste my time with fighting, there is no love, fun or improvement in it. Take some time (and your favourite cafeein) and judge on your own. Oh and do something (alter-na-tives), don't get paralyzed from all the greed, create something better and improve things! Btw Xolox will come back soon... *g*
Stay informed and happy sharing. Moak
[update] PS: Join our mailinglist or meet independend developers on IRCnet #gnutelladev [/update]
David.hamster
New member
My problem is with the "appears to be"... They haven't even told the community...
From a post on gnuclues forums:
Swabby, one of gnucleus developers....
Probably? That's what worrys me....
From a post on gnuclues forums:
Swabby, one of gnucleus developers....
Probably? That's what worrys me....
Vinnie now has a excuse to cluster, he can simply put in superpeer code. It doesn't have to work properly or at all (like BS works correctly anyway).
He doesn't have a excuse to pass spy packets anymore, he connects to his site directly every time BS is started, it can check for new versions at that time.
He doesn't have a excuse to spray connections to open slots of a non-BS clients just to get it sucked into his BlackHole for free support.
So as long as BS still sends spy packets, and creates a BlackHole I say BLOCK IT!
LimeWire isn't as bad, but you never know what company will buy them out and then you are stuck with more greed.
He doesn't have a excuse to pass spy packets anymore, he connects to his site directly every time BS is started, it can check for new versions at that time.
He doesn't have a excuse to spray connections to open slots of a non-BS clients just to get it sucked into his BlackHole for free support.
So as long as BS still sends spy packets, and creates a BlackHole I say BLOCK IT!
LimeWire isn't as bad, but you never know what company will buy them out and then you are stuck with more greed.
Miss Muffet
New member
You're uninformed on the subject. BearShare has removed that ability in their latest release version (2.5).
Wicca 4 life
New member
Oh well, just block block block .
I tend to get bunches of morpheus clients, I am starting to suspect they cluster as well.
Is their source open (I guess it is) - has anyone read it to see what they mod'd?
Nos
I tend to get bunches of morpheus clients, I am starting to suspect they cluster as well.
Is their source open (I guess it is) - has anyone read it to see what they mod'd?
Nos
> Clustering of only Limewire clients is a technical non-issue and
> unfair against any other client.
Please do read over my posts. Nowhere did I say clustering LimeWire clients together is beneficial to the network. I said clustering Ultrapeers (of which, only LimeWire currently implements) will increase the search horizon while at the same time decreasing bandwidth utilisation.
Don't try to tell me it doesn't, because I use LimeWire and have implemented Ultrapeers in an php-gtk based gnutella simulation/test app I wrote (no it's not going to be public).
> unfair against any other client.
Please do read over my posts. Nowhere did I say clustering LimeWire clients together is beneficial to the network. I said clustering Ultrapeers (of which, only LimeWire currently implements) will increase the search horizon while at the same time decreasing bandwidth utilisation.
Don't try to tell me it doesn't, because I use LimeWire and have implemented Ultrapeers in an php-gtk based gnutella simulation/test app I wrote (no it's not going to be public).
B
BriarKat
Guest
Morgwen could you summarize the points of view (both sides) from the other forums you are on and add them to this debate? Anything that hasn't been covered here would be good, & links?