Such as ftp or some other protocol thats' more efficient. I could be wrong but it's my understanding http is not the most efficient protocol for quick file transfers. FTP is better and there may be others better than that I don't know. I'm just curious why htey choose this protocol...

Any technical details how you come to that conclusion?

HTTP transfares data as good as FTP does, both use TCP/IP and fill frames with same efficiency. HTTP handshaking is easier, FTP brings no advantage at all. Hope it helps, Moak

1.) That's just the way it was created (by Tom and Justin of Nullsoft... the people that make Winamp)

2.) It's well documented

3.) It's extensible

4.) Easy to learn

Can the gnutella protocol be tweaked? Certainly!

I didn't someone told me that. It also seemed to be true from personal expiriencing downloading from a website as compared to an ftp but I assume there are many factors that could cause that.

Sorry! I fear I was unpolite (after reading someone else comment). Didn't want to be rude, hope I could explain a little bit.

no it's ok

Technically, the transfer of files isn't part of the Gnutella protocol (except the format of the GET message). So if anyone chooses FTP, that's fine. But the issue is whether other clients will support FTP - all of them support HTTP so that would be an obvious choice. I guess that gradually, developers can introduce different transfer protocols. For instance, I thought having the file e-mailed might not be such a bad idea

-- Mike

PS: Yay, got my account back!