View Single Post
  #56 (permalink)  
Old April 8th, 2002
Abaris's Avatar
Abaris Abaris is offline
Ringwraith
 
Join Date: May 13th, 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 86
Abaris is flying high
Default

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.
Reply With Quote