Sorry,

but some people here (including me) are not very good friends from Vinnie, so they are "slightly" agressive in their view!

Did you ever visited bearshare.net? If not visit it and you will see what is really agressive!!!

But we respect your view and what you said - I do!!!

I want that Gnutella will stay Gnutella but I can´t accept what Vinnie is doing... some people can´t close their eyes (I wish I could)! This open source.net is not right but better than doing nothing!!!

Morgwen

Oh now I see Mrgone's point, he is another Bearshare maniac, good to know.

Kutulus: ("download mesh" and "swarming")... this way we can have an advantage over limewire
mrgone4662: I think we already have plenty of those :-)
Kutulus: well we need more bragging rights, so those zeropaid bitches can go shut their mouths

From http://www.bearshare.net/forum/showt...=&postid=70133

Feature creep
 

Feature creep is one of the main problems with commercial clients in a highly competitive field such as gnutella, where we have dozens of clients.



Each commercial vendor want to be able to say 'we have x and y and z' and also 'we were first with w!'.



Better to have well thought out features that have definite, measurable benefits.



Nos

better to not reinvent/rewrite code for each client too
would be nice to see more features and UI interface improvements than protocol enhancements
we need 30 clients with 30 different base codes for interfacing to the network, real stupid and a total (collective) waste of time

Morgwen, could you make this thread sticky please? The number of posts and visits shows it's an important topic for Gnutella's future.

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.

Next version:

THE BLASTER !

It BlAsTs it's way onto VinnieNet, connects to as many central BearShareBlackHole nodes as it can and then BlAsTs packets to the incoming sockets till that node goes down!

It BlAsTs over and over relentlessly until the BlackHole has EXPLODED!

Normal Gnutella operation resumes shortly after BS nodes are scattered all over, trying to re-form the BlackHole.

Rinse, repeat on a daily basis.

Buy it today at gnutella-blaster-ops.com only $89.95

Blow that black hole away! Order today!

You think you're the establishment, don't you? Did you realize you do not have the "best client", more programmers are outside the GDF, do not like your agressive politics, do not like your spyware, do not like your clustering, do not like your propaganda? You are not "working together", you are working against Gnutella idea and not even trying to change your high society behaviour. Shaking each other hands in the noble GDF and not listening to anyone else won't make yourself more atractive. Sorry, GDF was and is slow and closed minded. It is a demotiovating example how comercial vendors dominate a group of developers, inefficient and without remarkable steps forward into cool technology. Continue and you will lose more developers and users.

And which one would you consider better, according to objective criteria?

Who are those developers outside the GDF?

What is the "Gnutella idea"???

As I see it, it's not easy to change the protocol of a running network. And I don't know which remarkable step you are referring to, which is not (at least in some form) being implemented.

I don't like you. Why do you dis the LimeWire people. I mean everyone is free (as in beer) to create a fork of LimeWire and implement the features he likes.

I'm quite impressed with the work of the LimeWire developers, they managed to create a Java-application that even seems to outperform native applications like Bearshare on some systems. And they succeeded in making Gnutella the fastest growing (although mainly due to the fate of Morpheus) p2p-network, while keeping it as p2p as possible.

If you read the posts of the developers on the GDF (ok, Vinnie Falco is Vinnie Falco, and I don't like his style sometimes either) and you will see, that the posts (especially of the LimeWire staff) are very constructive. Even if I'd prefer if some people on the GDF did less talking more developing, the GDF is very resourceful for anyone participating.

If some developers won't participate, it's their decision, but personally I think that those people should simply build their own network instead of flooding gnutella with malformed requests and queries, spoiling the copyright-infringement-fun of all other users in the network.

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 !

Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!
Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!

Next thing unregistered will do is sing:
"We shall overcome!"

I want something of whatever he's smoking!

Hope that reply wasn't politically and profit motivated
 

AFisk,

I sure hope you didn't make that nice reply out of political motivations for PR reasons! ;)

Nos

You should read this thread and the others a little more.
LimeWire is using us as support, we are running Gnucleus or another profit free, open source client.
LimeWire is using my CPU cycles and I didn't choose to let you profit off of my file sharing efforts.
It takes time and money for me to share my files. I pay for a ISP, I pay for electricity, I spend time deleting spam from my files, I buy large hard drives, I mantain my system, etc...
I don't want that effort going towards your personal gain. You have no right to use my CPU & resources to profit without re-embursing me.
If you ran your own private LimeWire network then you would have to pay for that out of your own pocket.
When I share, I don't expect a third party (LimeWire corp) to make a profit from my efforts.
This is why we are blocking for profit clients.
The blocking is happening on Gnutella at the users choice, and on OpenSource P2P it's the "standard" to block them.
The more you spam/adware/spyware/cluster and a lot of other nasty things, the more people will block you on Gnutella. So you better watch how greedy you get.
Any developer making a buck like this is scum, the lowest kind. Like I said before, get a real job and quit sucking off of Gnutella.
Gnutella is not a corporate goldmine.

Afisk,
I tried to tolerate your junior companies politics for month, after all I see there is no way for me to cooperate with Limewire or Bearshare anymore. Very disappointed I have to say cooperation with you is inefficient and unethical in my honorable opinion. I will go a different way, not with GDF and maybe not even Gnutella (well let's see what about those rumours that Xolox comes back and if there is a possibility to participate and give Gnutella a push forward). I don't think I'm forking development, I think that is something you, Limewire and Vinnie can write on your card.
What happened to Limewire, you have been a positive example in many aspects?! Everything regret-worth started with spyware, lies, closer cooperation with Vinnie and finally clustering... come on Adam, don't think free developers will look at this and say "yes we help them with our knowledge and ideas". I'm sorry you didn' found any business concept, perhaps you should have spend some time on conversation and listening too others in the past, but the position you maneuvered now makes yourself very unattractive and you don't even move a little step.
About GDF and developers outside (maybe you GDF members should have look outside your own hood), there are/was Pasman (Xolox), Raphael (gtk-gnutella), GodxBlue (Peeranha), Etzi (Qtella) and Max (mutella) and more I had mail contact or meeting on IRC or here on Gnutellaforum. Some made it to the "high society" GDF, some not... those who are not saticfied with things done inside the so called GDF I would like to advice to participate here on Gnutellaforum - or build up a new Gnutella Development Community. I did set up an alternative mailinglist for interested developers, it's running for some weeks... visit IRCnet channel #gnutelladev or contact Morgwen.

Greets, Moak

PS: Morgwen/Cyclo, why not making this thread sticky?

Thx for reply.
About lies from Limewire, really again? I refered to the old spyware story when users (including me and Morgwen) detect some so called Adware and that some spyware was installed always without asking the user... we were all gently told telling conspiracy theories. The spyware story could be found in the General Gnutella forum, more old posts should be still in the Limewire forum. Perhaps someone would like to search them and post the links again, I'm too tired to roll it up again, after all it was confirmed and is well documented.

About Superpeers, I'm glad that after over 6 months speaking for it, it's on the way into Gnutella. It's a little bit dissapointing it's now called Ultrapeers, came so late but with so much propaganda... without having it for general Gnutella. Ultrapeer hype reminds me to the second propaganda of Gnutella these days, swarming. There is no "swarming" in Gnutella, mostly not even an upload of unfinished files. For a developer it's a unaccapteble to see vendors throwing with empty words, while Gnutella technology in reality is still months/years behind (e.g. eDonkey, FastTrack).
Thx for the rumour that superpeer need clustering... that's one of the _best_ rumour I heared the last weeks. What makes you think a reliable supeerpeer concept does not work together with every client, please don't hesitate with technical details. May I help with one argument: when every peer is a superpeer, we don't need them anymore. A superpeer concept mainly balance load and reduce traffic between non superpeer capable clients (e.g. modem users), there is statistically no need to cluster away from non-superpeer peers in that amount and current network situation. Actually you try to advantage you own clients a little bit (how unfair), clustering because of Superpeer concept is technical nonsense and no need to do. Since you don't see yourself as one Gnutella client anymore, you see yourself as "LimeWire". Sorry, this is against (my) idea of Gnutella and an open protocol.

About the "stealing cycles" issue - that's Kazaa not Limewire.

Moak-

Thanks for getting back to me. The lying thing is, honestly, ridiculous. I've been here the whole time. I build the installers that bundle all of the spyware. So, if any lies were told, they would have been told by me, and there's nothing I've lied about.

Since we started bundling other programs, LimeWire has always bundled Cydoor without asking the user. We never lied about it. We just did it. It's an ad engine, and LimeWire serves ads.

As you know, we also install TopMoxie without allowing the user to opt out. We don't lie about this either. We tell you in the first screen in the installer what we're doing.

The only other thing I can imagine that you're referring to is the ClickTillUWin scandle. We really did think that the ClickTillUWin executable was just installing a desktop icon because that's what the resellers told us, just as they told BearShare, Kazaa, Grokster, etc. All of us removed it as soon as we realized that it was not doing what we had been told it would do.

That's it, man. Really. That last one's pretty bad. If we had been installing other crap on user's systems, I would honestly tell you.

Anyway, I'll try not to get so defensive. It's just that I haven't lied about anything and don't like people thinking that I have.

As far as UltraPeers, I assure you that LimeWire did not generate any of the propaganda that came with their arrival. We do not control what gets written on ZeroPaid, gnutella.com, etc.

On the UltraPeer issue in general, UltraPees do work seamlessly with every client, and every UltraPeer holds connections to older clients. The UltraPeers do, however, preference other UltraPeers simply because their trying to create the best network possible. If UltraPeers did not cluster, their impact would be reduced, and users would simply not get the increase in scalability that UltraPeers were meant to bring. The reason for preferencing them is basically just that in hitting one UltraPeer with a query, you're in fact hitting up to as many as 80 (and in the future up to perhaps 500) nodes on the network (the leaves of the UltaPeer), as opposed to just hitting one node with a normal connection. It's just a much better network model that improves Gnutella for everyone, and we're clustering them because otherwise you don't get nearly as much improvement.

God, I'm writing a lot today, huh? What's up with that? =) Take care.

Adam,
I don't doubt your a friendly and sympathic person. Unfortunatly, the decisions of your company do not implify telling the truth and technical needed decisions. Limewire definitely did not tell the full truth about spyware, and somebody from your company called me "spreading X-cases" to make me silent. It wasn't easy to discover the truth about your Spyware - and it's still bundled (not everything is opt-out) and will infect hundreds of newbie users.

About clustering again, that sounds like an excuse. The clustering is not originated at your "Ultrapeer" only, it also comes from your hostcaches too. For both I see no technical reason, perhaps your superpeer model is not very reliable and shold be improved. Let's go into detail:

> The reason for preferencing them is basically just that in hitting
> one UltraPeer with a query, you're in fact hitting up to as many
> as 80 (and in the future up to perhaps 500) nodes on the network

First, my horizon is much bigger than 80 or 500 peers now. Second, how will you improve your total accumulated horizon on that 6x size, without the other non-limewire clients involved? Your basic estimation must be wrong or will abuse other disadvantaged clients. It still sounds like a two class community for me.

> It's just a much better network model that improves Gnutella
> for everyone, and we're clustering them because otherwise you
> don't get nearly as much improvement.

You described that a superpeer model is better, yes I highly agree that dynamic network structures are what we dream from today. But you did not describe how clustering will improve that superpeer model. As I told before we do not need a 100% staturation of superpeer in a horizon, of course a small percentage is far enough. Don't forget normal peers users act as links in networks too and many can be grouped/shielded behind superpeers. We have a decentral Gnutella network, if you want a centralized system full depending on clustered superpeers, I which you good luck against RIAA. Yeah, the outdated centralized eDonkey superpeer concept works much faster currently (it has even more features as your "Ultrapeer" concept AFAIK), unfortunatly a network structure based on central servers or client monoculture can be easily shut down or attacked.

Don't forget that clustering is not fair and will create a two class Gnutella. Don't create selfish advantages for yourself. This reminds me so much to Vinnie's politics, do you think your client will win the run (especially with that market share you have today)? What happens if Xolox comes back again, with more astonishing technoloy as last time? Or disadvantaged devlopers will not tolerate that unfair behaviour in future and hold back their own improvements.... what you do is causing as split of Gnutella.

Greets, Moak

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.

Oh, for anyone else reading this, in most cases UltraPeers have more connections than is shown in the diagram (the nodes with a lot of other computers connected to them are the UltraPeers). They're also ideally connected to each other with far fewer cycles.

Good luck.

I see you deny the lies of the past and don't move a bit. As I described in my post on the first page, there's no possibility of cooperation with that politics, for me. I share my knowledge at some fair places. So long, Moak

PS: thx for some superpeer basics for our readers, but you didn't really explain why clustering improves a supperpeer concept, clustering is only a selfish action.

??? I deny the lies of the past because I didn't lie about anything. It's like me accusing you of lying about something right now. What would you do??

Abused Gnutella clients? I still just don't get it. Stop playing the victim. It's an open protocol with open proposols that get approved by a standards body and implemented by those involved. If we were abusing other Gnutella clients, don't you think they'd mention it? We talk with them every day, and all we discuss on this issue is how to make UltraPeers work better ant the details of how they can implement them. Abuse? Not a peep. If there were abuse, we would have worked it out in the process of creating the UltraPeer protocols in the first place, because no one would have tolerated it.

Honestly, I just think you like the idea of having a little rebel network, and I think that's fine. Just don't go trying to bring down people who really don't deserve it. Just create an alternative network and leave whatever bitterness behind. Making interesting technology is the fun part, and I really thiink that's somehow gotten lost in all of this. I would honestly be really excited and impressed if you made a network that had really cool, innovative ideas in it that have not been implemented before because, again, that's the fun part.

Take care.

I didn't explain why clustering helps?

Again, it makes such a network scale about 5 to 20 times more because you're hitting all UltraPeers at every hop along a search path. That's 5 to 20 times more files you can find. That's a huge difference. Clustering makes a better network, which is what we're all trying to do. Maybe you should implement the open UltraPeer protocol in your own client?

Maybe you should recall the spyware past into your memory... spreading serious scumware like Cydoor, Aureate, Ezula, and Gator and denying or not informing users.

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...&threadid=5022

Good luck with clustering away from your user base...

No you didn't.

If one of your superpeer can shield up to 80 or more so called leaves... why do you not allow them to be non-Limewire clients, instead cluster non-Limewire clients away. Where is the network improvement?

Damn it Adam, go read the thread and this one too
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...?threadid=9434

We are using Gnucleus.
You are sucking CPU cycles and using our network resources to make a buck.
Again, we are not running LimeWire but yet you still use us to make a buck, get it?

You come to Gnutella hoping to make it rich.

Gnutella is not the place to make a buck. If we let this continue every company that has a programmer will come over here and SPAM us hoping to make a buck.
We don't want to provide corporations with a FREE backbone and network support for their profit motives!
What don't you understand about this? Is it sinking in yet? Are you just playing dumb because your company revolves around sucking off Gnutella?

UltraPeers is not your "gift" to Gnutella. It just happens to fit your model of how you want to cluster nodes together for your XML crap. The idea came from other people, not LimeWire.
At meetings at LimeWire corporate headquarters you plan and scheme ways to make LimeWire do things other client's can't to give you a $$$ edge over others.
You know open source clients won't do XML because it takes a team of programmers to get it to work, and another team of support people to keep it working.
So you do XML even though everyone else says it sucks. You jumped on it because it gives YOU a advantage. Why? GREED!
This is greed, this is profit motive and doesn't belong on Gnutella.
Now your client needs to cluster or you will look stupid for offering XML queries. And you flood the network with your long, lame query packets, using our network resources to pass them (again, we are not running LimeWire) so you look good and keep your profit "advantage".
You need your own private LimeWire network, so does BearShare, you need to support it with your own backbone that you pay for out of your pocket, not ours!
We don't need you, but you need us, otherwise you would have your own little network already.
Kazza got taken off of downloads.com because they were going to suck resources off of other people's computers, you should be banned from Gnutella for the same reasons.
Greed sucks! Your motivation to keep working there and keep on sucking off Gnutella sucks!
Corporations on Gnutella suck!
Greed steers you in ways you wouldn't normally go, and always towards profit at any cost.
Kazaa is a good example, and BearShare too. Just because your company isn't as bad as them now doesn't mean if we let this continue you won't do it later.
Gnucleus has Superpeers now, for free. We don't want yours if the price is supporting more greed.
Again, this is not just a "project" it's reality, people are blocking LimeWire, BearShare and Morpheus with the modified Gnucleus and other open source clients on Gnutella Net.
See http://opensourcep2p.sourceforge.net/
People have the power, and the software to do it.
That's another feature you would never add, because it may hurt your profit motives!
You are also the last weak point in the network for RIAA style attacks, they take you down and your users have to scramble to find a new client.
They can force you through your profit motives to add things like copyright filtering and who knows what else.

Block'em all!

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?

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!

Okay, before this is getting more a GDF praise singing... *yawn* I'll say good luck with your valuable partner Bearshare. At least you lost me and I'll spend my time in more interesting projects, I described my point and dissapointment about current Gnutella development.

So long, Moak

Don't go away mad.. just go away!!

and take the rest of that stupid open p2p spam with you.

I don't come to web fori often and I hate them, so I won't bother you too much.

With all due respect, I've read this whole thread and it is completely stupid: people are throwing arguments over and over and don't listen to each other. Repeating one's arguments, rephrasing etc... is of no use when the other party is not listening.

Now that I got your attention, let me state that I for one do not care the least whether there are for-profit software on Gnutella or not as long as the files those node share are truly shared to anyone that can find them and request them.

I think afisk's point on the Ultrapeer clustering makes sense. They're not really clustering LW clients together, they're clustering Ultrapeers because this is the only way to maximize the horizon with today's Gnutella protocol and limitations. This is so easy to prove that I'll let that as an exercise to Moak.

As far as the Open P2P network goes, I'm not interested for now. If it becomes a major network, I'll make sure my client can become a bridge between OP2P and Gnet so that people find each-other's file and that we don't have two networks stupidely sharing files in their own selfish way. Until then, I wish them good luck, but I think it will die in a few months.

Finally, I think LW and BS deserve some amount of recognition for what they brought to Gnutella. Sure, they made mistakes, but so did I, and so will everyone out there.

Leaving the GDF was the best thing I ever did, because I think what matters is what goes on the network. Instead of discussing forever, I've decided to make my own features or adapt the existing features as I implement them (to fix any broken part and glue back both pieces). However, I communicate to the GDF in a write-only manner so that everyone knows what I'm doing and can cooperate if they wish.

I encourage everyone to do the same, and then natural selection will elect the best features. There will be no pain, and no bad experiences. Even if your own features do not catch up, you'll have learned by doing them and won't repeat the same mistakes.

So long.

Raphael

> This is so easy to prove that I'll let that as an exercise to Moak.

PS: Funny comment.

I thougt superpeers are designed to help also normal clients, e.g. to shield the weakest members (modem users). Thx Raphael, but I let you do your own homeworks and proof your clustering theories together with Vinnie and Limewire.

Actually I wonder about your flappy comment, Raphael. It is such easy to proof that clustering away of superpeers is not something you want to improve the network. Not all clients can act as superpeer (not enough bandwith, CPU or old OS), so not all Limewire users can act as superpeers, so you always get a mix of superpeer and normal clients. What do you wanna cluster, superpeers away from normal client? That makes no sense. As a matter of fact you will always have a mixture of superpeers and normal clients... exactly what was the idea behind superpeers, to balance and reduce load and traffic. So why or whom do you cluster? An exercise to Raphael.

That Limewire superpeer concept needs a clustering away from non Limewire clients to be reliable is one of the best rumours I heard in this propaganda circus, ridiculous. As I told before, maybe the Limewire proposal is not reliable enough and needs to be improved. All so far heared estimation are based on a Limewire _special_ superpeer concept and partly away from reality (e.g. a 500 times higher horizon without involving non-LW clients). The LW's proposal is unecesarry complex and inefficeint, there is no real need of clustering with a different concept (imagine a simple clip2 reflector but with improved eDonkey superpeer features and exchange of file databases). Perhaps in future you will find alternative concepts, without your self created clustering needs and without forcing others to do it like the commercial vendors do. In the past I was willing to work out solutions, but the high society GDF is not even intersted in listening and learning. The "Gnutella development community" was a very disapointing experience with less technical innovations the last months.

So, LW and BS are still valuable partners for you, good to know.

> I see no technical need to do a clustering of superpeers

It's common sense

> I thougt superpeers are designed to help also normal clients
> e.g. to shield the weakest members (modem users).

That is only one benefit of Ultrapeers, but you can do much more with Ultrapeer technology. Not only can you shield modem users from heavy traffic, but by clustering Ultrapeers together, you can increase the search horizon of all Ultrapeers and the clients connected to them.

This will make the end users happier, as they will more likely be able to find the file they want in their larger horizon. Isn't that important to you Moak? That the users of gnutella clients are satisfied with the results the receive?

*Note: Adam Fisk already posted a picture illustrating how Ultrapeer clustering achieves a higher horizon.

it's technical nonsens:
* not all clients can act as superpeers, you will have a mixture.
* give some statistics how high is the percentage of superpeer against nomal clients (leaves).
* you'll have a higher percentage of normal clients, this normal clients can also be any non-Limewire client

Clustering of only Limewire clients brings less or no advantage, is unfair against others.

Note: Yes, he showed a picture about our beloved superpeers (did you see the mixed topolgy of superpeers and normal clients), but the pictures shows not how clustering of Limewire clients will improve anything. My conclusion, I only waste my time fighting against Limewire propaganda. So long, Moak

> Not all clients can act as superpeer (not enough bandwith, CPU
> <snip>

If a client is incapable of acting as an Ultrapeer, it can either continue to operate as a regular peer or connect to an Ultrapeer as a Leaf client.

> so not all Limewire users can act as superpeers

This is why (in LimeWire) you can disable Ultrapeer functionality, and the user will become a shielded leaf node.

> so you get a mix of superpeer and normal clients.

Can you give me technical reasons why this is a bad thing?

> What do you wanna cluster, superpeers away from normal
> client?

I see... Ultrapeers are not completely seperating themselves from regular peers. AIUI, Ultrapeers are fully capable of connecting with regular peers.

> exactly what was the idea behind superpeers, to balance and
> reduce load and traffic.

Ultrapeers shield low bandwidth users from high amounts of traffic. When Ultrapeers are clustered together, the possible search horizon is increased.

I agree with Rapheal Manfredi (sorry if I spelled that wrong) that Moak, and users of both sides are not listening to eachother.

> * not all clients can act as superpeers, you will have a mixture.

Yes, not all clients will be unable to act as Ultrapeers. That's why a user can choose to be a shielded leaf node if they don't have the resources to act as an Ultrapeer.

> * give some statistics how high is the percentage of superpeer
> against nomal clients (leaves).

Honestly, I don't have those statistics. I don't see how those statistics would be beneficial to your arguement anyway.

> * you'll have a higher percentage of normal clients, this normal
> clients can also be any non-Limewire client

IF A CLIENT IS INCAPABLE AS ACTING AS AN ULTRAPEER, THE CLIENT CAN BECOME A SHIELDED LEAF NODE. Shielded leaf nodes connect to Ultrapeers and therefore benefit by having larger search horizons and lower bandwidth utilisation.

> Clustering of only Limewire clients brings less or no advantage,
> is unfair against others.

LimeWire clients are clustered together right now because LimeWire is the only client that supports ultrapeers! Geez, it's not like LimeWire is intentionally blocking other clients or anything.

> but the pictures shows not how clustering of Limewire clients
> will improve anything.

If you can't understand this simple concept, then there is seriously no reason to continue this discussion.

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!

O BTW, Moak, you need to read up on the Ultrapeer proposal. I have a feeling you don't understand that there are 3 modes that clients can run in if they have ultrapeer support.

This is what I've taken out of the LimeWire source code, which is unlike the source of other clients, open for everyone. (I'm not a programmer, so correct me if I'm wrong).

If all LimeWire clients are clustered together, it's easier for the leaf nodes to find new Ultrapeers in case a connection breaks. LimeWire Ultrapeers do not forward all pings to their leaves, but only pings that were marked as coming from an ultrapeer. When the Ultrapeers are grouped, it's logical, that each leaf node will receive many more ultrapeer pings.

In order for LimeWire leaf nodes to stay connected, it is better if the Ultrapeers are grouped, so the leaf nodes won't have to connect to normal hosts which would result in increased traffic for the leaf nodes.

Oh btw Unregistered, the Limewire's superpeer concept is unnecesarry complicated in my eyes (so is the 3 step handshake). Anything else you want to badmouth about my technical background? *yawn*

> Superpeers and normal clients (leaves) will be mixed, so there
> is no need to cluster away clients.

Yes, there is a need. That need is to reduce bandwidth utilisation and increase the search horizon for shielded leaf nodes.

> Please don't flood or badmouth my technical knowledge

O, you don't like criticism? That's just too bad. You obviously lack technical knowledge of Ultrapeers and I have proven that.

did you?

> Oh btw Unregistered, the Limewire's superpeer concept is
> unnecesarry complicated in my eyes (so is the 3 step
> handshake).

Can the Ultrapeer proposal be tweaked or simplified? Certainly!

> Anything else you want to badmouth about my technical
> background? *yawn*

Nope, i've said what i've wanted.

Only for you? highly improbably! Without complains you still would distribute various scumware and call it Adware. You're responsible for what you do.

Of course, Limewire never had or will distribute spyware. I wonder so many websites report about spyware in Bearshare and Limewire. Of course everyone lies and Limewire is totally inocent.

How stupid do you think we are?

Ridicoulos! You first cluster away non-Limewire leafs, so your Limewire leafs will have a higher horizon? what??? You fallen deep into propaganda and mix up clustering and grouping of superpeers and non superpeers = one superpeer has many leafes (which could be any vendor not only Limewire to get the advantage). Clustering of only Limewire clients is a technical non-issue and unfair against any other client.

Serious answers please.

Vinnie now has a excuse to cluster, he can simply put in superpeer code. It doesn't have to work properly or at all (like BS works correctly anyway).
He doesn't have a excuse to pass spy packets anymore, he connects to his site directly every time BS is started, it can check for new versions at that time.
He doesn't have a excuse to spray connections to open slots of a non-BS clients just to get it sucked into his BlackHole for free support.
So as long as BS still sends spy packets, and creates a BlackHole I say BLOCK IT!
LimeWire isn't as bad, but you never know what company will buy them out and then you are stuck with more greed.

> Clustering of only Limewire clients is a technical non-issue and
> unfair against any other client.

Please do read over my posts. Nowhere did I say clustering LimeWire clients together is beneficial to the network. I said clustering Ultrapeers (of which, only LimeWire currently implements) will increase the search horizon while at the same time decreasing bandwidth utilisation.

Don't try to tell me it doesn't, because I use LimeWire and have implemented Ultrapeers in an php-gtk based gnutella simulation/test app I wrote (no it's not going to be public).

SpamWarez
 

CYDOOR

from

http://www.cydoor.com/Cydoor/Company/CompanyPrivacy.htm

The small print:
<FONT COLOR=MAGENTA><FONT SIZE=-1>"What Cydoor Technologies Does
Cydoor Technologies delivers content to software applications that use Cydoor's advertising technology. In the process of delivering this content, as well as performing online transactions, Cydoor will sometimes query you by means of a registration form for demographic data (gender, age, interests, marital status, salary, area code, country, and education). We will not collect personally identifiable information such as name, address, or telephone number. All of this information is aggregated for the purposes of reporting to advertisers and ad sales organizations the performance of their ad campaigns, and to deliver content targeted to your interests. Because Cydoor Technologies derives its revenue mainly from advertising, providing such aggregated demographic data is essential in keeping our service free to users.

Use of Unique Identifiers
Cydoor no longer assigns a unique user ID.

Use of Cookies
According to the standards of the Internet advertising industry, third-party ad servers associated with our technology make use of cookies. Cookies, by default, are enabled in the browser, and the user can turn them off via the cookies disabling menu.

Third Party Privacy
Please be aware that Cydoor advertisers or Web sites that have links in software on our network may utilize demographic information about you. This privacy statement does not cover the information practices of those Web sites linked from software on the Cydoor Network. From time to time, Cydoor works with third-party ad servers such as Valueclick, Commission Junction, Adventures, Advertising.com, RealMedia and BeFree and others to serve advertising to the Cydoor Network. Please visit these providers individually to learn more about how they handle privacy."</FONT></FONT>

<I>"Please be aware that Cydoor advertisers or Web sites that have links in software on our network may utilize demographic information about you."</I>

What the h@ll does that mean? It says above there is no GUID, and also implies above that only aggregated data is collected .. so WTF is this disclaimer about web sites utilizing demographic information about me? What, they download the aggregated statistics when I visit, to figure out that I'm probably a white male in my teens-20s with a PC? OK, that doesn't sound too bad, but if there's no GUID and also if cookies are served 'according to the standards of the internet advertising industry', HTF do they know I'm a member of the aggregated data?

I'm guessing they get around the fact that cookies served 'according to the standards of the internet' are only sent back to the originating server by having say an ad on their page which is hosted by CyDoor's server somewhere, and also having a private link to CyDoor which tells them when one of their victims accesses the ad.

I call that spyware.

As they say, they have deployed their spamware to over 50 million users .. I wonder how many web sites they work with? Probably quite a significant number, I'd say. Quite a little network.

<FONT COLOR=MAGENTA><FONT SIZE=-1>"Providing Cydoor with your email address will enable us to send Cydoor-specific technology updates, as well as special offers and promotions from our business partners. "</FONT></FONT>

Gee, isn't that nice? 'Darling, look, a new technology update for our spam service has arrived, go tell the kids!'

<FONT COLOR=MAGENTA><FONT SIZE=-1>"Security
This site has security measures in place to protect the loss, misuse and alteration of the information under our control. User demographic information is not kept on Cydoor's computer, but rather on the user's computer. Email addresses provided to us are kept on a secure server. Only authorized employees of Cydoor Technologies will have access to this information."</FONT></FONT>

Gee, that's good security, using the users win98 PC to store their demographic data. How can this be so, if the only data they use is aggregated? Are they saying they store their aggregated data on our PCs? I don't think so. Any idea what the filenames are? I bet there's plenty shared out by those newbie windows users who share out their whole hard drives.

I think the truth has been dealt somewhat economically here...
TOPMOXIE

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=To...l.co.uk&rnum=6

<FONT COLOR=RED>"From: Tumbleweed (spamtumbleweed@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Windows 98 dialling up for unknown reason... AHA!!
Newsgroups: alt.windows98
View: Complete Thread (3 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-04-25 06:14:04 PST

"Tumbleweed" <spamtumbleweed@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9c6fce$ce7$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
>
> "ByTor" <ByTor@snowdog.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.15507712e9feac4e98984a@news.frontiernet.n et...
> > In article <9c6640$gu7$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > spamtumbleweed@tumbleweed.freeserve.co.uk says... while attaching C4
> > explosives to computer and foaming at the mouth!
> >
> > > My Win 98 PC has started trying to dial out (to my ISP) for no apparent
> > > reason. I have a fully up to date virus scanner operative all the time and
> > > don't appear to have viruses. How can I find out why its trying to dial?
> > > CTRL-ALT-DEL tasklist doesnt show anything.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tumbleweed
> > >
> > > Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
> > > newsgroups)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Have you recently installed any programs? Check the settings in new progs
> > to see if they have some kind of auto check in them......If you are
> > familiar with firewalls than ZoneAlarm can show you what it is when it
> > tries to dial out because it will ask for your permission to let it go
> > through.....It's free and won't expire, you can get it here:
> >
> > http://www.zonelabs.com/
> >
> > Very popular and easy to use....
> >
> > Good Luck!
> >
>
> Thanks to you and Starbase. I now have a suspect, Getright (even though I
> have no outstanding files to download but I wonder if its checking for
> updates), but I'm going to try the apps you recommended to check for sure.
>

Seems its not Getright, Zone alarm caught a program called 'javarun.exe'
trying to dialout. Which is associated with something called 'topmoxie'.
Looks like some sort of advertising thing. I shall be having a strict words
with my kids later :-) and topmoxie is now toast.
Thanks

--
Tumbleweed

Remove 'spam' from email replies (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)"</FONT>
AFisk, you're not telling me you actually <I>believe</I> what you're told by spamware salesmen???
Gee, I didn't know how bad this was. When people start saying 'that's it man, really' .. I start thinking like I'm a cop and you're a drug dealer ... 'that's it man, really'. Uh huh ... Joey, get the dogs.
I don't think I need to say anything more. In fact I can't. I'm speechless and dumbfounded. Sh*t.

Nos

why dont you guys just sit down.. write a book to each other and send it via mail.. i think this would be easier :)

Ultrapeers and clustering
 

Ultrapeers grouping together loosely will increase the horizon as AFisk and others are trying to assert.

Ultrapeers grouping together tighly, ie ultrapeers 'preferring' ultrapeers over leaf nodes will have a decreased effect in increasing the horizon, plus will reduce the service that ultrapeers provide to leaf nodes.

This is easy to understand in terms of the physical property surface area - the surface area of a ball is small compared with the volume. Stuff inside the ball is not exposed at all to the outside world.

Ultrapeers should be like a loose mesh - interconnected but loosley.

I don't know how loosely/tightly they are connected in reality. I bet AFisk does.

There will be a mathematical description which will show the best balance of ultrapeers-to-leaf nodes to achieve the optimum horizon in terms of # files shared. It could be quite complex (like requiring supercomputers to solve) if all factors are taken into account, but an illustrative example should be possible.
I would suggest that in addition to this balance of ultrapeers to leaf nodes, there should additionally be a coded reserve of connections which can be used by non-ultrapeers-capable hosts, otherwise you will end up with a closed limewire ball, as it seems moak fears.

Can anyone give us a description of the ratios or algorithms used in selecting the connections? If they're wrong, then limewire should fix them - ultrapeers are only just launched, there is plenty of room for 'tuning' them.

It would be interesting to have information on gnucleus's superpeers too, and how the two interact, if at all.

Personally I think this ultrapeer stuff belongs in it's own thread, this is not the core issue.

Nos

Tell me which posts do you want in this thread and I split it! :)

Morgwen