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
How did we not tell the truth about spyware? I'm telling you that I built all of the installers. I included all of the spyware that we've ever added to the program. The only thing that was ever not explicitly mentioned in the installer with it's own panel was Cydoor (although it was mentioned in the license agreement). Users knew pretty quickly that something like Cydoor was installed when they ran the program and saw the ads.
Now, we install TopMoxie and Cydoor, and niether are opt-out. There's no lying involved anywhere along the line, no matter how you cut it.
On the clustering issue, I really don't think we should even get into the host caches. LimeWire spent a lot of money to maintain these servers, both for hardware and bandwidth, and they were publicly available for over a year. We did not have to do this. We spent a lot of $$ to allow anyone experimenting with a Gnutella servant to easily connect to the network.
The clustering issue has nothing to do with the UltraPeer model. It simply has to do with the fact that, at any given TTL, if you're connected to mostly UltraPeers on a given path, you will reach 50-500 times as many other computers as you would otherwise reach, simply because each UltraPeer has, in theory, 50-500 leaves (currently up to 80, more in the future). Here's an UltraPeer diagram for anyone unfamiliar with the concept:
On the horizon issue, I wasn't saying that a given horizon was 50-500 nodes, I was saying that the horizon with UltraPeers is 50-500 times greater than without UltraPeers. The horizon is in the thousands with either model. So, preferencing UltraPeers is just a means of trying to offer a better network to the users of the network, specifically about 50-500 "better".
In our view, this isn't a matter of fair. It's a matter of creating technology that works well. Anyone who implements UltraPeers will also be preferences in UltraPeer connections (although please note that other connections are still allowed). It's also not a matter of who "wins." None of the other major client developers has expressed any concern with our preferencing. Why? Because they know that all they have to do is implement the feature, and then they too will become a part of a network that works 50-500 times better. If we didn't preference UltraPeers, we'd be talking about a network that works maybe 10-50 times better. That's a big difference. I really just don't get it. All of the UltraPeer specifications are published in detail with the hope and intention that others will implement it, because it makes the network better if they do. That's it. Selfish advantage? These things are not at all an issue of "we win, you lose" type thinking. That's really the beauty of an open network. If you introduce features that improve it, EVERYBODY WINS! Xolox, Bearshare, Swapper, Toadnod, everybody. Talk about "holding back features" is just ridiculous. That's like LimeWire holding back UltraPeers out of some sort of protest until we get our way on some random issue. It just doesn't make sense.
Now, we install TopMoxie and Cydoor, and niether are opt-out. There's no lying involved anywhere along the line, no matter how you cut it.
On the clustering issue, I really don't think we should even get into the host caches. LimeWire spent a lot of money to maintain these servers, both for hardware and bandwidth, and they were publicly available for over a year. We did not have to do this. We spent a lot of $$ to allow anyone experimenting with a Gnutella servant to easily connect to the network.
The clustering issue has nothing to do with the UltraPeer model. It simply has to do with the fact that, at any given TTL, if you're connected to mostly UltraPeers on a given path, you will reach 50-500 times as many other computers as you would otherwise reach, simply because each UltraPeer has, in theory, 50-500 leaves (currently up to 80, more in the future). Here's an UltraPeer diagram for anyone unfamiliar with the concept:
On the horizon issue, I wasn't saying that a given horizon was 50-500 nodes, I was saying that the horizon with UltraPeers is 50-500 times greater than without UltraPeers. The horizon is in the thousands with either model. So, preferencing UltraPeers is just a means of trying to offer a better network to the users of the network, specifically about 50-500 "better".
In our view, this isn't a matter of fair. It's a matter of creating technology that works well. Anyone who implements UltraPeers will also be preferences in UltraPeer connections (although please note that other connections are still allowed). It's also not a matter of who "wins." None of the other major client developers has expressed any concern with our preferencing. Why? Because they know that all they have to do is implement the feature, and then they too will become a part of a network that works 50-500 times better. If we didn't preference UltraPeers, we'd be talking about a network that works maybe 10-50 times better. That's a big difference. I really just don't get it. All of the UltraPeer specifications are published in detail with the hope and intention that others will implement it, because it makes the network better if they do. That's it. Selfish advantage? These things are not at all an issue of "we win, you lose" type thinking. That's really the beauty of an open network. If you introduce features that improve it, EVERYBODY WINS! Xolox, Bearshare, Swapper, Toadnod, everybody. Talk about "holding back features" is just ridiculous. That's like LimeWire holding back UltraPeers out of some sort of protest until we get our way on some random issue. It just doesn't make sense.
LimeWire passes queries through Gnucleus (and other clients), and others can pass queries through LimeWire hosts. Noone is using the other part. Its just the Gnutella works.
LW users can download files from other users, but it works just the same in the opposite direction.
LW hosts clustering does not change your horizon, it just makes to percentage of LW hosts in your horizon smaller. Is that a problem?
LW users can download files from other users, but it works just the same in the opposite direction.
LW hosts clustering does not change your horizon, it just makes to percentage of LW hosts in your horizon smaller. Is that a problem?
love story girl
New member
OK Adam, you have to be playing with me, your IQ is way too high to not get this.
Sleep on it, go party (must be nice to have big bucks to party with) come back and read the threads again, and think seriously about how your packets travel through non LimeWire clients, how they provide LimeWire users with files, and how that improves your user's experience so they keep using your product and keep viewing your SPAM (ads, shopping site, whatever pay for clients will offer).
Adam, a lot of developers didn't agree with XML, mostly the "small" ones you love to ignore. A lot of them threw their hands up and gave up. You just did what ever your corporate attitude wanted to do, and what was in the corporations best interest. You and Vinnie lost a lot of support by ignoring the small developers, making sure they couldn't keep up.
You unfairly use the network to make $$$ that allows you to advance far beyond developers who are doing this for free. You need your own network.
This is the problem with greed, and it needs to get off Gnutella.
We all know you and BearShare will eventually create your own network, as soon as you use all the resources on Gnutella to build a decent user base.
With the new software you won't be able to do that, we now have a way to fight against you using our resources for your corporate profit.
Now your only choice is to try to make your own private network and hope you don't go bankrupt doing it. It's pretty hard to make a profit without us, isn't it?
Moak, Gnucleus has superpeers now, we don't need LimeWire or superpeers to "scale", never really did, Morpheus jumping on proved that. The code is there, it's open source so anyone can apply it to their client. It's free, and you don't need big inve$tors and a lot of fluff staff members to get it working. Plus it doesn't "cluster" and even if it did, at least you know the clustering isn't to make a third party a buck.
RAM, thanks for all your hard work on a truly free and open source client. You have a good "political" position there.
I see the writing on the wall if we let these corporations keep sucking our resources and had to do something about it before it got worse, Vinnie was just the last straw. Gtk-gnutella has already been modified for this so you don't have to worry about it.
We could always swing the other way, everyone start making pay for clients, with adware, popups and spam so there is no other choice but to put up with the corporate garbage, and a few of us will get rich!
That is the corporate plan after all, isn't it?
Block'em all!
Sleep on it, go party (must be nice to have big bucks to party with) come back and read the threads again, and think seriously about how your packets travel through non LimeWire clients, how they provide LimeWire users with files, and how that improves your user's experience so they keep using your product and keep viewing your SPAM (ads, shopping site, whatever pay for clients will offer).
Adam, a lot of developers didn't agree with XML, mostly the "small" ones you love to ignore. A lot of them threw their hands up and gave up. You just did what ever your corporate attitude wanted to do, and what was in the corporations best interest. You and Vinnie lost a lot of support by ignoring the small developers, making sure they couldn't keep up.
You unfairly use the network to make $$$ that allows you to advance far beyond developers who are doing this for free. You need your own network.
This is the problem with greed, and it needs to get off Gnutella.
We all know you and BearShare will eventually create your own network, as soon as you use all the resources on Gnutella to build a decent user base.
With the new software you won't be able to do that, we now have a way to fight against you using our resources for your corporate profit.
Now your only choice is to try to make your own private network and hope you don't go bankrupt doing it. It's pretty hard to make a profit without us, isn't it?
Moak, Gnucleus has superpeers now, we don't need LimeWire or superpeers to "scale", never really did, Morpheus jumping on proved that. The code is there, it's open source so anyone can apply it to their client. It's free, and you don't need big inve$tors and a lot of fluff staff members to get it working. Plus it doesn't "cluster" and even if it did, at least you know the clustering isn't to make a third party a buck.
RAM, thanks for all your hard work on a truly free and open source client. You have a good "political" position there.
I see the writing on the wall if we let these corporations keep sucking our resources and had to do something about it before it got worse, Vinnie was just the last straw. Gtk-gnutella has already been modified for this so you don't have to worry about it.
We could always swing the other way, everyone start making pay for clients, with adware, popups and spam so there is no other choice but to put up with the corporate garbage, and a few of us will get rich!
That is the corporate plan after all, isn't it?
Block'em all!
Weeble Wobble
New member
Ummmmmm.... NO!
You DO realize that anything based on Gnucleus source must also be open source. Please read the GNU Public License (GPL.txt included with the Gnucleus source that you're modifying). Hence, if I interpret the GPL correctly, you can't charge anything for your servent if it's based on Gnucleus code. Oh, and that means I can also ask you for your source code... for free of course.
Besides, I can already get Gnucleus for free. I don't have to pay you for another Gnucleus clone with a few small features added. And even if it looks and works like Bearshare, I can get Bearshare for free too... I don't need to install any of the spyware so that doesn't end up to be a problem.
You DO realize that anything based on Gnucleus source must also be open source. Please read the GNU Public License (GPL.txt included with the Gnucleus source that you're modifying). Hence, if I interpret the GPL correctly, you can't charge anything for your servent if it's based on Gnucleus code. Oh, and that means I can also ask you for your source code... for free of course.
Besides, I can already get Gnucleus for free. I don't have to pay you for another Gnucleus clone with a few small features added. And even if it looks and works like Bearshare, I can get Bearshare for free too... I don't need to install any of the spyware so that doesn't end up to be a problem.
whoaaitsbecky
New member
ad-aware and bearshare are like two peas in a pod. Get rid of the ads and continue on reaping files. Why use a inferior free client when you can get a commercial one for free?
sweetshygirl27
New member
No. The high activity in this thread shows that the Gnutella Community is very concerned about an unnecessary network split.
You can already automatically block/drop people who don't have enough "friends" in Gnucleus and some other clients, meaning nodes with a limited horizon. That is picking on those poor people who don't have a lot of bandwidth, IE modem users or people in another country.
Those internal private college LANs won't let you in from the outside, they block you too. They also block anyone on the internal LAN that doesn't have the correct LAN name entered.
At 300 plus nodes they don't seem to have a problem sharing at all so it doesn't matter.
Your horizon on Gnutella is limited even now to a few thousand nodes (or less). You are blocked from the rest of the network, how can you move around to other areas?
Blocking is already happening in many ways, this is just the next step in giving the user more choices, and more power over how he shares.
Some people want to create their own semi private network of friends, you can easily do that now and block any "outside" connections.
Those internal private college LANs won't let you in from the outside, they block you too. They also block anyone on the internal LAN that doesn't have the correct LAN name entered.
At 300 plus nodes they don't seem to have a problem sharing at all so it doesn't matter.
Your horizon on Gnutella is limited even now to a few thousand nodes (or less). You are blocked from the rest of the network, how can you move around to other areas?
Blocking is already happening in many ways, this is just the next step in giving the user more choices, and more power over how he shares.
Some people want to create their own semi private network of friends, you can easily do that now and block any "outside" connections.
That is your choice, you're right. I'm merely suggesting that it's the wrong one. What it all boils down to is that by participating in the OpenSource p2p, you are hurting users' ability to share files. That fact is fairly clear, I'm sure.
You didn't answer my first two questions. And again, they "use" you in a very indirect manner.
I wasn't discussing the politics of the license restrictions at all. What I wanted to make perfectly clear is that the OpenSource p2p Network's existence is contrary to the recognized standards of the OpenSource movement. I'm talking about whether or not you can apply a tag like "OpenSource" to a project such as this. For those just tuning in, those definitions can be found at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html.
You didn't answer my first two questions. And again, they "use" you in a very indirect manner.
I wasn't discussing the politics of the license restrictions at all. What I wanted to make perfectly clear is that the OpenSource p2p Network's existence is contrary to the recognized standards of the OpenSource movement. I'm talking about whether or not you can apply a tag like "OpenSource" to a project such as this. For those just tuning in, those definitions can be found at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html.
GangsterBritishPirate
New member
Unless I'm missing something, you have to release the source code to your client, upon which I can simply disable any serial number check... Erm, hello.. your business model is screwed.
Of course you would say that, your $$ pay check comes from all of our combined CPU cycles.
It's not about the_gdf, it's not about who's client is the best, it's not about cooperating developers.
The corporate clients have the "resources" because they have OUR $$$$ !!!!
The point you are missing/avoiding is you are sucking off Gnutella.
You are sucking OUR CPU cycles and network resources for your own personal gain.
You suck ! Shame on you !
Get a real job and make a real product with buttons and knobs and sell it at Radio Shack.
Gnutella is not a profit center. Your whole business plan revolves around sucking our CPU cycles to make YOU a profit.
You can take your corporate business plan and shove it on to it's own private network.
I will continue to block LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus and any other greedy sucking client I find out there. Look at what Kazaa tried to do, those scum sucking greedy #$%#ers. It's only a matter of time till you try the same sort of thing.
Corporations won't stop 'till they suck all the CPU cycles from your machine and shove ads all day long in your face !
This is P2P, not P2yourpocket !
Block'em all !
It's not about the_gdf, it's not about who's client is the best, it's not about cooperating developers.
The corporate clients have the "resources" because they have OUR $$$$ !!!!
The point you are missing/avoiding is you are sucking off Gnutella.
You are sucking OUR CPU cycles and network resources for your own personal gain.
You suck ! Shame on you !
Get a real job and make a real product with buttons and knobs and sell it at Radio Shack.
Gnutella is not a profit center. Your whole business plan revolves around sucking our CPU cycles to make YOU a profit.
You can take your corporate business plan and shove it on to it's own private network.
I will continue to block LimeWire, BearShare, Morpheus and any other greedy sucking client I find out there. Look at what Kazaa tried to do, those scum sucking greedy #$%#ers. It's only a matter of time till you try the same sort of thing.
Corporations won't stop 'till they suck all the CPU cycles from your machine and shove ads all day long in your face !
This is P2P, not P2yourpocket !
Block'em all !
This is what happens to spyware on Debian linux.
Link is to a bug report filed regarding a program which sent the user's email address to login to a server - the patch stops this behaviour and changes login to a free cddb server instead of a commercial one. The free one works perfectly.
That's about as severe as the spyware problem gets on Debian, and that's the only package I could find which has ever had the label spyware applied, among some 4000 odd packages.
No, I tell a lie - here is another - this time an ftp program which sends the real user name while logging into ftp servers.
Note that your milage with 'commercial' linux distributors may vary: Debian is totally non-commercial. I expect FreeBSD, NetBSD, and certainly OpenBSD would have similar anti-spyware attitudes. They are all additionally extremely robust and easily-maintained operating systems. Just follow the directions and ask questions on usenet & irc.
Nos
Link is to a bug report filed regarding a program which sent the user's email address to login to a server - the patch stops this behaviour and changes login to a free cddb server instead of a commercial one. The free one works perfectly.
That's about as severe as the spyware problem gets on Debian, and that's the only package I could find which has ever had the label spyware applied, among some 4000 odd packages.
No, I tell a lie - here is another - this time an ftp program which sends the real user name while logging into ftp servers.
Note that your milage with 'commercial' linux distributors may vary: Debian is totally non-commercial. I expect FreeBSD, NetBSD, and certainly OpenBSD would have similar anti-spyware attitudes. They are all additionally extremely robust and easily-maintained operating systems. Just follow the directions and ask questions on usenet & irc.
Nos
ol_skool63
New member
All the while using OUR resources to improve YOUR users experience so you can serve up more ads and put $$$ in your pocket.
"We spent a lot of $$ to allow anyone experimenting with a Gnutella servant to easily connect to the network"
Another "Gift to Gnutella"? Anyone with a static IP or cable modem could do this for almost nothing. It takes less than 1K to send a few IPs and disconnect. Your web page takes way more, better take it down too.
You only did this out of greed, during your period of inve$tment proposals so you look good. Now that that is over, you take it down. You don't even support your own network, won't spend the $30 a month for a cable modem. Greed sucks!
The one service you could provide to Gnutella, you took away. Greed sucks!
You do point out how network resources do cost you money, and how you are concerned about that, but when it's FREE network resources off of the backs of us file swappers, you don't seem to care about that.
LimeWire clustering is not the big point here, the way BearShare clusters and passes spy packets may be of more concern, but it's the fact that corporations see Gnutella as a profit center and want to spam us to death and use our resources to spam others.
Corporations will not be happy till my computer sits there all day showing ads and figure out a way to make me sit here and watch them all day without providing any services to me. And at no cost to them. Ultimate greed.
The XML stuff was argued on the_gdf and you went ahead anyway because you are the only ones who can support it (and are still the only ones who do in over 6 months now). You knew it would only give you a advantage because everyone said so on the_gdf and you ignored them over $$$.
I noticed you are avoiding the issue of sucking off our CPU cycles, no excuses? It is the central point in your business plan to use us to support your business so I can see why you don't want to comment.
KathW, this is a debate and it may get a little rough, hang in there!
"We spent a lot of $$ to allow anyone experimenting with a Gnutella servant to easily connect to the network"
Another "Gift to Gnutella"? Anyone with a static IP or cable modem could do this for almost nothing. It takes less than 1K to send a few IPs and disconnect. Your web page takes way more, better take it down too.
You only did this out of greed, during your period of inve$tment proposals so you look good. Now that that is over, you take it down. You don't even support your own network, won't spend the $30 a month for a cable modem. Greed sucks!
The one service you could provide to Gnutella, you took away. Greed sucks!
You do point out how network resources do cost you money, and how you are concerned about that, but when it's FREE network resources off of the backs of us file swappers, you don't seem to care about that.
LimeWire clustering is not the big point here, the way BearShare clusters and passes spy packets may be of more concern, but it's the fact that corporations see Gnutella as a profit center and want to spam us to death and use our resources to spam others.
Corporations will not be happy till my computer sits there all day showing ads and figure out a way to make me sit here and watch them all day without providing any services to me. And at no cost to them. Ultimate greed.
The XML stuff was argued on the_gdf and you went ahead anyway because you are the only ones who can support it (and are still the only ones who do in over 6 months now). You knew it would only give you a advantage because everyone said so on the_gdf and you ignored them over $$$.
I noticed you are avoiding the issue of sucking off our CPU cycles, no excuses? It is the central point in your business plan to use us to support your business so I can see why you don't want to comment.
KathW, this is a debate and it may get a little rough, hang in there!
") Anonymous ")
New member
Yes, but under the GPL, they can only charge for the act of making a copy of the program (which means they can charge you if they sell you a CD of it) or they can charge for warranty (which seems to be what the $50 charge is for).
Other than that, you can still get Red Hat for free.
Other than that, you can still get Red Hat for free.
Chika-la-la
New member
...and I think Bearshare is the origin of blocking.
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.
This expresses my idea of democracy." (Abraham Lincoln)
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.
This expresses my idea of democracy." (Abraham Lincoln)
roberto-chang
New member
i agree with Raphael that noone seems to listen to anyone else. there are so many misunderstandings in this thread that you will hardly ever come to a conclusion. the best thing a moderator could do was to close this thread. but mr. unregistered would take that as just another proove of how corporate greed ignores freedom of speech. so perhaps some of these misunderstandings can be made clear.
First of, all there ARE misunderstandings on the Ultrapeer concept (from now on, i will use the term "old client" for a client that does not implement the ultrapeer/QRP proposal), which is in part due to LimeWire's terminology. I will try to explain some basics, i hope that Adam will correct me if i am wrong about something.
1) from the ultrapeer point of view, an "old client" is an ultrapeer node without leaves. it is NOT a leaf node without an ultrapeer. Indeed, an old client can never ever become a leaf node because leaf nodes have to use the QRP (Query Routing Proposal). QRP reduces bandwidth usage to ~10%. that means, if leaf nodes use QRP, ultrapeers can handle 10 times as many leaves, which indeed scales the visible horizon by a factor of 10. it would be ineffective as hell if "old clients" would be accepted as leaf connections. at the moment, Lime is the only servent that implements Ultrapeer/QRP proposal, that means that only Limes can become leaf nodes and only Limes can become Ultrapeers.
2) An Ultrapeer, however, can maintain as much connections to old clients as it wants, because an old client is, once again, nothing but an ultrapeer without leaves. about statistics, in a perfectly structured network, the whole network would consist of ultrapeers only, and every ultrapeer would shield up to 500 leaves, thereby multiplying the visible horizon by 500 (yes, that means that the users get 500 times more search results!). but gnutella will never be perfectly structured, as there are a lot of old 0.4/0.6 clients out there and as these clients cannot become leaves, they reduce the effect of ultrapeer scaling just as an ultrapeer would if it didn't accept leaves.
3) the critical issue about ultrapeer clustering is therefore the following: How many ultrapeer connections should go to other ultrapeers, and how many ultrapeer connections should go to old clients? in other words, what should be the ratio of Ultrapeer vs. Old connections? Adam has pointed out that a Lime Ultrapeer will maintain at least two connections to old clients no matter what. An Ultrapeer generally has about 6 Ultrapeer connections and, at the moment, 80 Leave connections. so at least one third of a Lime Ultrapeer's connections go to older clients. And at this point, i do agree with moak: One Third seems to be a bit low for that ratio. IMHO the ratio should be One Half. A clustering ratio of One Half would give an old client and a new client exactly the same possibility of connecting to an ultrapeer.
4) about how clustering might be selfish and how clustering might be beneficial: a clustering ratio of one half treats newer and older clients equally and seems to be a fair strategy to me.
a lower ratio would mean that newer clients can profit much more from ultrapeers than older clients can, as they are preferred over the others. for the end user, this means that Lime users get more search results than other users (others would also if they implemented Ultrapeers).
however, older clients would never get less results than they would without ultrapeers, it is just that a ratio below 0.5 helps the users of newer clients more than it helps the users of older clients. this is what Lime is doing, as their ratio is 0.33. Our marxist friend, Mr. Unregistered, calls that selfish, greedy and unethical. I disagree. Limewire put a lot of work (marxist key word) into developing and implementing ultrapeers, and now their users are the first to profit from it. as soon as other clients implement it, they are going to profit just as much as Lime does. This sounds fair to me. Furthermore, older client's searches ARE improved by ultrapeers, as the ratio is far from zero. it is just that newer one's searches are improved two times as much (0.66 vs. 0.33).
5) Last, i'd like to mention that Gnucleus does not have an ultrapeer system at the moment. Swabby announced that Gnucleus 1.7 will have one, but 1.7 has not been released, not even a beta version. So Lime is actually the only ultrapeer-supporting client for the time being.
Adam, I count on you correcting me if i got anything wrong, it has been some time since i read the ultrapeer and qrp proposals. note also that all this applies to LimeWire only and in no way to the clustering of Bearshare, which is a totally different story.
First of, all there ARE misunderstandings on the Ultrapeer concept (from now on, i will use the term "old client" for a client that does not implement the ultrapeer/QRP proposal), which is in part due to LimeWire's terminology. I will try to explain some basics, i hope that Adam will correct me if i am wrong about something.
1) from the ultrapeer point of view, an "old client" is an ultrapeer node without leaves. it is NOT a leaf node without an ultrapeer. Indeed, an old client can never ever become a leaf node because leaf nodes have to use the QRP (Query Routing Proposal). QRP reduces bandwidth usage to ~10%. that means, if leaf nodes use QRP, ultrapeers can handle 10 times as many leaves, which indeed scales the visible horizon by a factor of 10. it would be ineffective as hell if "old clients" would be accepted as leaf connections. at the moment, Lime is the only servent that implements Ultrapeer/QRP proposal, that means that only Limes can become leaf nodes and only Limes can become Ultrapeers.
2) An Ultrapeer, however, can maintain as much connections to old clients as it wants, because an old client is, once again, nothing but an ultrapeer without leaves. about statistics, in a perfectly structured network, the whole network would consist of ultrapeers only, and every ultrapeer would shield up to 500 leaves, thereby multiplying the visible horizon by 500 (yes, that means that the users get 500 times more search results!). but gnutella will never be perfectly structured, as there are a lot of old 0.4/0.6 clients out there and as these clients cannot become leaves, they reduce the effect of ultrapeer scaling just as an ultrapeer would if it didn't accept leaves.
3) the critical issue about ultrapeer clustering is therefore the following: How many ultrapeer connections should go to other ultrapeers, and how many ultrapeer connections should go to old clients? in other words, what should be the ratio of Ultrapeer vs. Old connections? Adam has pointed out that a Lime Ultrapeer will maintain at least two connections to old clients no matter what. An Ultrapeer generally has about 6 Ultrapeer connections and, at the moment, 80 Leave connections. so at least one third of a Lime Ultrapeer's connections go to older clients. And at this point, i do agree with moak: One Third seems to be a bit low for that ratio. IMHO the ratio should be One Half. A clustering ratio of One Half would give an old client and a new client exactly the same possibility of connecting to an ultrapeer.
4) about how clustering might be selfish and how clustering might be beneficial: a clustering ratio of one half treats newer and older clients equally and seems to be a fair strategy to me.
a lower ratio would mean that newer clients can profit much more from ultrapeers than older clients can, as they are preferred over the others. for the end user, this means that Lime users get more search results than other users (others would also if they implemented Ultrapeers).
however, older clients would never get less results than they would without ultrapeers, it is just that a ratio below 0.5 helps the users of newer clients more than it helps the users of older clients. this is what Lime is doing, as their ratio is 0.33. Our marxist friend, Mr. Unregistered, calls that selfish, greedy and unethical. I disagree. Limewire put a lot of work (marxist key word) into developing and implementing ultrapeers, and now their users are the first to profit from it. as soon as other clients implement it, they are going to profit just as much as Lime does. This sounds fair to me. Furthermore, older client's searches ARE improved by ultrapeers, as the ratio is far from zero. it is just that newer one's searches are improved two times as much (0.66 vs. 0.33).
5) Last, i'd like to mention that Gnucleus does not have an ultrapeer system at the moment. Swabby announced that Gnucleus 1.7 will have one, but 1.7 has not been released, not even a beta version. So Lime is actually the only ultrapeer-supporting client for the time being.
Adam, I count on you correcting me if i got anything wrong, it has been some time since i read the ultrapeer and qrp proposals. note also that all this applies to LimeWire only and in no way to the clustering of Bearshare, which is a totally different story.