nonsense!

v0.4 clients are connected through non-Bearshare clients to the Gnutella network, Bearshare is blocking them! without some fair other clients Xolox wouldn't be able to find and download files from Bearshare. also Bearshare does advantage Bearshare clients. the protocol doesn't say that, your screenshot doesn't show it, but Vinnie did it and you know that too.

it is obviously true, that Bearshare alone would block some clients and does disadvantage all other clients. it's fact that other clients grant access and being fair, but Bearshare is a selfish pain for Gnutella. with a click of a button you are becoming a freeloader too, wtf, where does Bearshare misbehaviour ends....??

so please, save your hipocrisy and stop flooding with wrong information. don't you have some homeworks to do?

Xolox 1.12 users can download from BearShare without any problem. Bearshare is only blocking any incoming connection attempts for gnutella connections not for file transfer connections.

Read post above: without other clients, Xolox 1.12 users can not download from Bearshare.

Q: How do you download from a client if you can't search for files and can't see search results (Queryhits)?
A: You can't! Other clients grant access to the Bearshare network, Bearshare alone would 100% block it! Understand how Gnutella works and you understand you can't download without connecting to other clients and without the possibility to search for files.

Conclusion: Bearshare is not fair, blocks and disadvantages clients, is splitting the network.

this is obviously not true!

If you can't find a non-bearshare client (by accident) which itself is connected to a Bearshare client (by accident again), you can not download any file from Bearshare clients! While bearshare clients cluster together, it is hard to find such a relayed connection to a Bearshare client. When running statistics, you'll see Bearshare does play a minor role and will advantage itself.

Please stop flooding with wrong information.

I'v already been connected to BearShare nodes with GTK-Gnutella & LimeWire.

yes, Bearshare does not block those two... disadvantaging them only.

don't confuse gnutella 0.6 connections (host connection, blocked) with HTTP 200 connections (get file, not blocked) just because you can't query a Bear, doesn't mean you cant query a bear by proxy. through morph, gnucleus, or any 0.6 client that doesn't block 0.4 connections

right now running xolox 1.12 i'm downloading from
BearShare 2.6.0 Server at 205.150.35.xxx Port 6346
so give it a rest.

Of course Bearshare and Limewire lovers don't see problems. Sorry that some users and developers do complain and turn their back to gnutella.

PS: how did you find out that you are downloading from Bearshare? xolox 1.12 doesnt show IPs or vendor IDs, even netstat doesnt show you vendor IDs. *wondering*

I put the IP I was DLing from into IE address window. I have a firewall "status window" that shows all connections in real time. but netstat would work too.

pretty smart, I have to say.

The only thing i can answer...
 

The only thing i can answer to all the troll posts on the forum is: goodbye gnutella, i'll come back when the situation has changed (too sad that it'll not change until Bearshare&Limewire are completely separated and don't pretend using the gnutella network)

That's ok, hope they split all the way off !
Block'em back

Hey people
 

There is a new p2p client on the horizon if people want to check it out...its called Seeker, and they released their Alpha sometime this week i'm not sure...I think Seeker's main concern is tackling the scalibility concerns that Gnutella has

http://www.skyris.com/alpha.html

looks pretty solid but not many users yet i think

seeker has spyware
 

no more word to it. it showed me banners, it is - crap. it found 16 users, no files for 10 searches, the design is crappy. I don't know if it has a future, but it has to change for 180 degrees.

Quit the Bearshare and Limewire bashing!!!!!! Before these clients, gnutella was useless. Both of these clients have implemented features to help improve d/l success rate, scalabity, and bandwidth usage. These companies have also infested thousands of dollars so everyone can have access to a better network. The talk about Limewire and Bearshare creating their own networks is bullsh*t!!!! It makes sense to make sure Bearshare clients connect to each other since they all have similiar features such as file hashing. Bearshare still connects with other clients and trades files with them, and at the same time, provides a large percentage of the available content on the gnutella network. 0.4 clients were blocked because it was an old protocol on old clients that were bad for the health of ALL the network. Limewire's creation of Ultrapeers is a great step in solving bandwidth and scalability issues, and im glad they got it out as soon as they did. Bearshare is testing ultrapeers in their alpha releases right now, and Bearshare works with Limewire clients and will work with other clients once they implent Ultrapeers. I haven't yet seen one person bashing Bearshare and Limewire create a client close to their quality.

Now they want their thousands of dollars invested back, and they want you use YOU to get it back, plus a hefty profit.
All the while the open source people were working on the same things, for free, and have surpassed the pay for clients now. Where was all the support for them?
Because the pay for clients invested $$, they were ahead for a while and everyone supported them, but if the greedy *******s would have picked some other place to make their fortunes, the open source clients would have gotten more support and would be way further along.
You also missed out on some really cool features because the commercial interests won't program in things that don't jive with their ad revenue stream.

You are right though, don't bash them, just BLOCK them.

They're not making all these $$$. The cost of bandwith for operating the limewire hostcahe is a few thousand dollars alone. After factoring in all the costs, i seriously doubt the commercial companies are striking it rich. Blocking them might sound like an idea, but then u would be left with a network full of poorly developed clients and little content.

for a decentralized network, you sure need alot of servers. LOL
what's next? central servers AND host caches? Trying to build a new napster?
keep the gnutella (xotella) network decentralized.

Update
 

After proprietary protocol extensions, freeloading support, spyware, clustering, disadvantaging and client badmouthing.... here is the new innovation of Vinnie's Bearshare: splitting the Gnutella network (called "Secure Channels").

From Bearshare net: "You can choose to receive all query replies, downloads and uploads only from other BearShare clients". As usual Bearshare tries to sell this as a technical necesarry advantage. Good luck developers with your dear GDF fellow Vinnie.

There is only one question left: How long does it take until Limewire implements this feature?

This bad. Receiving QHs, and downloading only from other BS nodes is ok, but blocking other clients from downloadng from BS nodes is really bad. If a large part of the hosts on the network did this, other clients would become unusable.

That would be like if Microfost IIS webservers wouldn't allow Netscape browsers to access them.

Tor,

if you need more infos about vinnies plans:

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=8470

Perhaps you want to write a post about this in the GDF? I never posted there and I am not going to start it now...

Morgwen

Vinnie seems to have developed a kind of private authentication handshake, so it'd be impossible for companies like mediaenforcer or rangerinc to track its user's files.

One of the few ways of granting the users a little security is a proprietary feature.

Most GDF developers do usually not care
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/8144

Yes because they discuss about the features and not about his future plans... they close their eyes and brain!

Morgwen

time for a new GDF?

Umm
 

BearShare does not block any host connections by user agent.

But, it does not support 0.4 connections, and it actively blocks hostile IP addresses.

Note that BearShare is not the only servent dropping support for 0.4 handshakes:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/8129

Again?

What do you think the developers will say?

Morgwen

Re: Umm
 

Vinnie we are not talking about 0.4 connections here, we are talking about your new secure channel...

perhaps you like to explain us the GREAT features...

Morgwen

Re: Umm
 

Um, nice hipocrisy, it blocks all on click of a button.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/article.../06272002g.php

BS/LW and now a new..........
 

Everyone is talking about the good and bad features of Bearshare and LimeWire and how they affect the Gnutella network.

But, right now there is a new threat being posed to the health of Gnutella....... MorpheusOS! It is already affecting downloads from other clients because it quickly replaces other client ultrapeers with its own.

Re: BS/LW and now a new..........
 

Ahh - I can see the confusion.

This is an illusion caused by the large number of Morpheus users that migrated to Gnutella.

They don't "replace" other clients ultrapeers with their own, there's just a lot of them.

Re: Re: BS/LW and now a new..........
 

So far, none or few of the Ultrapeer election/promotion (?) schemes that i've had described to me account for the large number of ultrapeers already on the gnutella network.

Correct me if i'm wrong but, if there were already a large number of (morpheus) ultrapeers on the gnutella network, ... wouldn't that decrease the number of clients that will become ultrapeers? I was under the impression that all clients should prefer being a "leaf", unless they encounter very few Ultrapeers.

hmm
 

I see what you mean.

I think you're right, Morpheus screwed it up for everyone.

It is understanding that the issue with Morpheus resides within the default configuration as it is installed resulting in folks becoming uptrapeers that either do not have the resources or the configuration is improper in some way -- resulting in the net being flooded with these improperly performing Uptrapeers.

CYDOOR
 

I have a couple of computers that my teenagers use and of course both are Gnutella users. Investigating a seriouse performance issue with one of the machines yesterday. ADAWARE tells me that CYDOOR is all over both of these machines. I used ADAWARE to remove this but it returned. The PC runs limewire and I believe from these forums that is where cydoor was picked up.

My question is what Gnutella client can I run on these PCs that will behave in a manner that does not include spy-ware or other unknown-ware on my PC? In the past I swapped from BearShare to LimeWire due to simular actions.

Thanks

Re: CYDOOR
 

BearShare can be installed without additional bundled advertising products (called Adware).

Simply uncheck the boxes at the time of installation - anyone who tells you otherwise is probably named Morgwen.

Re: Re: CYDOOR
 

Vinnie tell the truth... I never said that it isn´t optional, I said its SPYWARE you call it ad-aware, but I think it doesn´t matter what I say you hate me because I SAY WHAT THINK...

Morgwen