bearshare : proprietary download ?
 

is it impossible to download on a bearshare client ?

for example on a NORMAL gnutella client, the url are http://<machine>:<port>/get/<index>/mymp3.mp3


on a BEARSHARE, it is
http://<machine>:<port>/get/<index>/mymp3.mp3?auth=121fd45

the auth permits to Bearshare not to SHARE
with the gnutella community !

BAN BEARSHARE !

bearshare sucks !!
 

if you are right,

bearshare sucks !!

Well,
 

Considering I'm uploading to 3 Gnucleus hosts, 1 Limewire host, and Zero Bearshare hosts ATM, and you're probably downloading from Bearshare hosts ATM, I'm sorry to say, but you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

I dont understand you !
 

could you precise your response ?
I dont really understand...

Who? Me?
 

I'm saying anyone can download from Bearshare, because I'm running Bearshare, and I upload files to non-Bearshare client, more than I upload to Bearshare clients, so I don't know what you're talking about. There's not even a setting in Bearshare to block other clients. Some people want it, with recent events that have been happening with Qtrax2 and Morpheus, but so far, Vinnie hasn't given in and let it happen, and I don't think he ever will.

Bearshare sux, but I think he's talking about downloading via a web browser.
Bearshare has a user selection to turn off sharing to web browsers, you can see the file list, but can't download from a browser, but if you also run bearshare or gnucleus client that allows drag and drop, you can drag the selected file from your browser and drop it on to gnucleus and it will be put into download.
It is misleading when someone brings up a menu of files but then can't download them. There should be a big, BIG warning when the user has his browser access off.

This is true, you can't download with a web browser from bearshare and this is why in 3.0.0 even with the web deal turned on it doesn't show any files since it would be useless, just a web page that you can change and whatever.

web browser...not only ?
 

in the RFC to download a file you don't need a auth parameter in the URL. I am trying to understand why Bearshare put such a thing. My own understand is that they don't want other free clients download on the Bearshare network without pay them a license. Do you agree with me ?

ok I know why now
 

yes, I didn't read that thread http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=4638

Bearshare, Limewire ans Swapnut really sux !

This URL is generated from the "Browse Host" feature by BearShare. This way, you can still use a regular browser to download the file. Without it, all browser are blocked (that is, browser like MSIE, Opera, etc.). This was done in response to public "Gnutella Portals" which allowed everyone to leech, but not return anything for it (thus causing a big imbalance, especially if the Gnutella client serving the browser has limited upload slots).

Regular Gnutella -> Gnutella download requests work fine for BearShare. Download Bearshare on your own PC, connect to it with another vendor's client and try to download something. You'll see it'll work.

Or,
 

Just pay attention to the files that you're downloading with your own client. I guaranf'ing-t you that alot of these downloads are coming from Bearshare clients. Why are you complaining again?

thanks cultiv8r
 

In fact, I am a developper. At the moment, I am making some test with the differents clients. I didn't know that the special bearshare URL was generated for the browsers only. I will continue my test with programming instead of browser..

many thanx

Isn't it silly for vinnie to block browsers since bearshare has such a very, very small market share now?
I think Gnucleus allows browser downloading, and so does Morpheus (the largest market share).
What about XoloX?

maybe...
 

Perhaps it prevents from being sux with software like teleport pro,etc. which are mass downloaders.
It could be a good feature...

--Goo

It also prevents companies from getting lists of your shared files, or makes it more difficult anyway.

Isn't it silly for vinnie to block browsers since bearshare has such a very, very small market share now?

What doesn't market share matter? BearShare lets me choose to let browsers download from me or not. I personally hate leechers, so I turn off browser downloading in BearShare.

Do we really need a browse host feature? I think not...

Morgwen

Well
 

I don't have a problem against leechers.

The problem is when there is such a massive volume of leechers that regular people can't get files.

Such was the situation when BearShare was first release. BearShare was the first Gnutella servent to show the User-Agent in uploads.

All of a sudden, people were asking "Hey, what's this Mozilla, is it another Gnutella servent?".

The answer is, NO! It was browsers, and they were taking up 98 PERCENT OF ALL UPLOAD SLOTS!

It was the primary cause for busy signals in Gnutella.

MusicCity is pretty stupid for allowing browsers, now we will see those web sites that leech Gnutella and show banners spring back up like weeds, and pretty soon you will never be able to get files from Morpheus users.

Again, I don't mind freeloaders (BearShare has no anti-freeloader features), as long as the network can support both the freeloaders and the people who share.

Unfortunately, a network which allows browsers can never support everyone.

Re: Well
 

Yes so the best network improvement would be to stop the browers or not?

Btw you say Morpheus allows other websites to download from them... I remember a time I think a year ago, I read something similar about bearshare...

Morgwen

Shareaza also supports the banning of Browsers (and any client). In fact, it comes with Mozilla already entered...

I don't see what the problem is and why any heat on Vinnie for providing something that any intelligent user would want as default.

Vinnie explained it very well - regular users you can call them "sharer" have problem to get their files...

Many user left Gnutella because of the current situation, many uploads but only a few downloads...

I agree you can´t ban freeloaders but you shouldn´t allow them to access via a browser - Gnutella lives through sharing without sharing you kill the net!

Morgwen

Re: Re: Well
 

At the current time, Gnutella servents absolutely must not allow browser downloads. We hope to change this situation (with forced sharing, when anonymity is implemented) but presently, web site operators who profit off Gnutella based search engines will kill the network.

BearShare has an "Auth" token that allows browser downloads.

This was part of a feature where you could browse a user's files using a web browser, and then download the files directly. The user had to turn the option on, though.

The idea behind this, is that in exchange for allowing a browser download, the downloader has to look at that users home page, which may include advertising, or any other message or content they want to provide.

So its not really leeching - the guy sharing the file gets something (he gets traffic to his web page) and the downloader gets a file.

We scrapped this feature, because it wasn't particularly useful.

Re: Re: Re: Well
 

Yes Vinnie, you should be the only one who profits off of our Gnutella network, how dare anyone else !
And your type of greed won't hurt Gnutella at all, but if other people do it, it's a big problem.
You have been saying block browsers from the start but at this point there are enough nodes to allow this.
You said this back when there were only 10,000 nodes, so now what's the problem?A really cool video producer I know dropped your client because he couldn't DISTRIBUTE his very funny and original comedy video files anymore with it.
The concept with distribution is to let people get your content as many ways as you can.
Since he's not a big technical type, as most of these people are not, he hasn't put his files back on line since.
THANKS VINNIE!!!!!
As usual, a dumb **** short sighted, no vision move.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
 

Okay you got me. We dropped the feature temporarily because the upload logic was completely re-written, and it was going to take at least a week to re-implement the web page feature. There are some other improvements that I wanted to make to it (like a Web Publishing Wizard type script component) so that was going to drag it on for more days.

I agree, it was a useful feature for those wanting to self-publish.

I think you misunderstand - the browser download feature that was enabled through the "user web page" is OK, because it was opt-in, and the person who was allowing the browser downloads got something in return. This, we should allow, for the reasons you mentioned above.

But allow *direct* browser downloads, from a link off any web page, without going through the user web site "door page" is most certainly a bad idea.

Well, at least for the Gnutella type downloads. If you really want to serve a file to anybody with BearShare, all you need to do is drop the file in your Html directory and use a URL like this:

http://{ip_address}:6346/{filename.ext}

That always worked, but people don't usually put their shared files in the Html directory.

I liked the browse user feature. Actually, I was using Gnotella then, but you could also see Bearshare users as well.

Ivan
"In the dark we make a brighter light"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
 

One of the ways you can get people to download your not so known content is to post a link in a forum with a message and curious people might try your file.
Making this a user option is good (empowering the user) because you never know what people will do with this, and it makes Gnutella look better because it's not just for pirating music.
Gnutella developers should always provide features to publishers of original content since it ****** off the RIAA that they can't get $$ for it.