Don't ignore reality
 

This thread is going into a blatant Limewire commercial.

The technical things become mixed up, at the end it looks like Limewire never had or never lied about Spyware/Scumware, clustering of Limewire-only-clients is needed because of a over-complex less-efficient Superpeer concept (which Ultrapeers are IMHO), the commercial vendors do have a friendly politics and do not disadvantage other. Best rumours I heard this week. Gnutellaforums become as controlled as GDF is, I'm sorry that technical skilled developers do not speak up. Even if the pro speaker flood with more posts....

...you can't ignore Gnutella development is snail slow, inefficient and you can't ignore users and developers are unpleased about Bearshare/Limewire, which causing a spilt in Gnutella.

This thread reminds me so much to Microsoft. First every new competitor will be ignored, when it grows it will be badmouthed, then tryed to be blocked and finally flooded with wrong information and propaganda. Making windows non-modular so the MS midware is a must have, is like creating an unnecesary strange superpeer concept so you need to cluster your own clients (even old clip2 reflector showed you don't). Well, with a big enough market share you can try to dominate with such politics, but this is not the Gnutella idea. I learned from MS/Unix, fighting against comercial propaganda makes less sense... instead we have to show it can be done better, more efficient and with more technical inovations.

Join a open source project and fight the greed.
Do not cooperate with Bearshare and Limewire, make Gnutella a fair place.

Have fun, Moak
--
"As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy." (Abraham Lincoln)
"Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." (Aurelius Augustinus)

New thread to talk about Ultrapeers at
http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...threadid=10357
Morgwen, thanks but it's easy to just start a new thread.
Moak & Nosferatu, keep up the good work, thanks.
Adam, "They are constantly pushing us to add things like user registration, and we have repeatedly refused."
But you and the others may not always be there, and then corporate greed types will jump on the chance and we all get screwed.
I hope you can find a new, real job soon.

Moak, you've stated on IRC in no uncertain terms that you will not cooperate with anyone who disagrees with you. You've shown your unwillingness to even tolerate others speech by accusing Adam of flooding when he was just responding to your attempts to demonize Limewire.

You have a lot to learn about what it means to be part of a community. If you ever plan on participating in a group you're going to find very few people who agree with you on everything, and the few you're left with will be a rather boring group at that.

If you can't learn to accept diversity then you're better off starting your own proprietary network where you get to call all the shots.

It's been made clear by you and others that opensourcep2p isn't about freedom for people on the network. It is about the attempts of an ethically challenged few to splinter gnutella. You say it's about freedom of choice when what you mean is freedom for YOU to make the choices for other people. I heard a wonderful analogy on the #gnutelladev IRC channel about this idea of freedom of choice, "you can choose any color you want, as long as that color is blue."

No
 

Please explain further the analogy you are trying to make. It eludes me. Are you talking about developers' choice? Users' choice? What choice are we trying to make, and for whom?

Are you saying we are trying to force people not to use BearShare? Did you know BearShare 2.5.0 does not support connections to/from 0.4 level clients? Would you like me to list the 0.4 clients available and in use?

Do you want to know the reason I am even here?

I was happily using gnut for about 3 months. Then I stopped getting searches and downloads with gnut.

Now I know why. LimeWire it seems is not a lot better (than BearShare) - they still allow 0.4 clients to connect - up to 4 of them to an ultranode, with UltraNodes making up 1 in 80 LimeWire clients .. so in fact you get <I>up to</I> <B>one 0.4 connection to every 20 LimeWire clients on the network</B> .. and that is if they can't fill up their slots with other LimeWire clients. (In fact, this goes for 0.6 clients as well, anything which doesn't yet have Ultrapeer support).

Why even design the 0.6 handshake to be backwards compatible? They could have saved the time and just launched a completely new network and let us get on with it. Instead my gnut client spends all its time hammering at the door of LimeWire and BearShare clients which won't let it connect.

Sorry, but we are forced into this position, not us forcing 'the users' to do something. I am a user. I don't think any of you 'developers' had heard of this guy who launched the opensourcep2p idea before had you? Because he is a user.

We just got the sh*ts with the existing 'developer "community"' and the way it is 'growing' the 'gnutella' network. Growing on the gnutella network is more like it.

Nos

Nice try of mobbing, show me your IRC logs please.
I have helped the Gnutella community as long as it was fun & fair. What have you done?

Sorry guys, some of you are leaving the path of seriousity. I need to do some coding, that's more fun, yeah. You find a lot of infomation in this thread, I tried my best to show you an alternative sight about the raising commercial Bearwire-Gnutella-propaganda and how bad things run in Gnutella development.

I can't waste my time with fighting, there is no love, fun or improvement in it. Take some time (and your favourite cafeein) and judge on your own. Oh and do something (alter-na-tives), don't get paralyzed from all the greed, create something better and improve things! Btw Xolox will come back soon... *g*

Stay informed and happy sharing. Moak

[update] PS: Join our mailinglist or meet independend developers on IRCnet #gnutelladev [/update]

This is not true mrgone! He said he don´t want to spent his time in a project he don´t like!!!

I think its Ok when he search for a GOOD project to support, its his free choice to find a project that fits him!

Morgwen

Re: No
 

You have to understand that this is the sanest thing to do for an Ultrapeer-enabled client. By aggregating to Ultrapeer-capable hosts, you not only get to see files from 1 but to 50, or 100, or even 200 hosts: the ultrapeer's own files plus all its leaves.

What does it mean? It means clients not supporting ultrapeers will become marginal. So just implement ultrapeers.

I don't believe LW is segregating. It will allow 4 slots for other ultrapeers and 2 to "legacy" clients. This allows to bridge the older clients, but does not leave much room for older clients to connect.

Yes, it's a shame. Do you have a better strategy to offer?

i agree with Raphael that noone seems to listen to anyone else. there are so many misunderstandings in this thread that you will hardly ever come to a conclusion. the best thing a moderator could do was to close this thread. but mr. unregistered would take that as just another proove of how corporate greed ignores freedom of speech. so perhaps some of these misunderstandings can be made clear.

First of, all there ARE misunderstandings on the Ultrapeer concept (from now on, i will use the term "old client" for a client that does not implement the ultrapeer/QRP proposal), which is in part due to LimeWire's terminology. I will try to explain some basics, i hope that Adam will correct me if i am wrong about something.

1) from the ultrapeer point of view, an "old client" is an ultrapeer node without leaves. it is NOT a leaf node without an ultrapeer. Indeed, an old client can never ever become a leaf node because leaf nodes have to use the QRP (Query Routing Proposal). QRP reduces bandwidth usage to ~10%. that means, if leaf nodes use QRP, ultrapeers can handle 10 times as many leaves, which indeed scales the visible horizon by a factor of 10. it would be ineffective as hell if "old clients" would be accepted as leaf connections. at the moment, Lime is the only servent that implements Ultrapeer/QRP proposal, that means that only Limes can become leaf nodes and only Limes can become Ultrapeers.

2) An Ultrapeer, however, can maintain as much connections to old clients as it wants, because an old client is, once again, nothing but an ultrapeer without leaves. about statistics, in a perfectly structured network, the whole network would consist of ultrapeers only, and every ultrapeer would shield up to 500 leaves, thereby multiplying the visible horizon by 500 (yes, that means that the users get 500 times more search results!). but gnutella will never be perfectly structured, as there are a lot of old 0.4/0.6 clients out there and as these clients cannot become leaves, they reduce the effect of ultrapeer scaling just as an ultrapeer would if it didn't accept leaves.

3) the critical issue about ultrapeer clustering is therefore the following: How many ultrapeer connections should go to other ultrapeers, and how many ultrapeer connections should go to old clients? in other words, what should be the ratio of Ultrapeer vs. Old connections? Adam has pointed out that a Lime Ultrapeer will maintain at least two connections to old clients no matter what. An Ultrapeer generally has about 6 Ultrapeer connections and, at the moment, 80 Leave connections. so at least one third of a Lime Ultrapeer's connections go to older clients. And at this point, i do agree with moak: One Third seems to be a bit low for that ratio. IMHO the ratio should be One Half. A clustering ratio of One Half would give an old client and a new client exactly the same possibility of connecting to an ultrapeer.

4) about how clustering might be selfish and how clustering might be beneficial: a clustering ratio of one half treats newer and older clients equally and seems to be a fair strategy to me.
a lower ratio would mean that newer clients can profit much more from ultrapeers than older clients can, as they are preferred over the others. for the end user, this means that Lime users get more search results than other users (others would also if they implemented Ultrapeers).
however, older clients would never get less results than they would without ultrapeers, it is just that a ratio below 0.5 helps the users of newer clients more than it helps the users of older clients. this is what Lime is doing, as their ratio is 0.33. Our marxist friend, Mr. Unregistered, calls that selfish, greedy and unethical. I disagree. Limewire put a lot of work (marxist key word) into developing and implementing ultrapeers, and now their users are the first to profit from it. as soon as other clients implement it, they are going to profit just as much as Lime does. This sounds fair to me. Furthermore, older client's searches ARE improved by ultrapeers, as the ratio is far from zero. it is just that newer one's searches are improved two times as much (0.66 vs. 0.33).

5) Last, i'd like to mention that Gnucleus does not have an ultrapeer system at the moment. Swabby announced that Gnucleus 1.7 will have one, but 1.7 has not been released, not even a beta version. So Lime is actually the only ultrapeer-supporting client for the time being.

Adam, I count on you correcting me if i got anything wrong, it has been some time since i read the ultrapeer and qrp proposals. note also that all this applies to LimeWire only and in no way to the clustering of Bearshare, which is a totally different story.

Swapper supports Ultrapeers, by the way.

-- Mike

PS: Where is this topic going? I can't make heads or tails!

it was deperatly needed. good luck with a surprising inefficient ultrapeer network. Gnutella wants to be the slowest filesharing system the next 12 months again, advantage RIAA will find better targets.

@Visitor: Yes, it is ineffective, for the moment. but you must understand that the original gnutella protocol was not designed for anything like ultrapeers. this system adds ultrapeer functionality to the network and still is 100% backwards compatible, that is amazing. it will definitely become more effective as more servents implement ultrapeers. old servents were not designed for it and of course they don't support it. extending open protocols is not easy and it always needs time.

There is a thread now for Ultrapeer posts. Ultrapeers are not a big problem, greed is.
Adam has already hinted that he can't touch the subject of greed because of his employer and that is understandable.
Greed restricts him too. We won't be debating that issue with him and that is why you all think no one is listening to each other.
Gnucleus has ultrapeer code in it if you get the latest CVS version, it works pretty good and seems to be compatible with the LimeWire system, more testing needs to be done.
BearShare 2.5 shoves ads in your face on the search list screen. It still spies on you, spy packets everywhere. Block it!

and a new block string to add: MorpheusPE MRPH

Gnutella without SPAM!

Unregistered, you don't really expect me to answer to a thread like that, do you? Yes, Ultrapeers are a very good thing to the network, and it seems even you understood that by now. Yet you are either not willing or not capable of changing your arrogant and ignorant behaviour.

as i understand your point of view, gnutella is fun. it is a network built by anarchists for anarchists and noone should use it to gain profit from it. therefore, the only clients allowed on this network should be open source ones.

i very much appreciate your marxist ideals, but you have to understand that you live in a capitalist world and nothing can change that. gnutella is an open network and that means open for everyone. If you want to improve opensource clients like gnucleus, do it, it's a good thing. but honestly, the most proposals for protocol extensions were created by corporations. For example, MetaData, Ultrapeer, QRP and Ping/Pong were all introduced by LimeWire LLC. These folks are working on Gnutella as a full time job, while opensource programmers do it in their spare time. we live in a capitalist world, therefore everyone must take money for his work. so either they earn the money by working on gnutella, or they work on something else and do gnutella in their spare time. that's reality.

When you call gnutella messages "spam" just because the servent who initially sent them displays ads in order to pay the bills, then you are either very stupid or ideologically blinded. i expect the letter one. adware is bad, but it is the decision of the lime users if they want it or not. it is not your decision to block those users. how many people chose to use the old morpheus? it had much more ads than lime, but it had the better features, so they chose it and that seems to be a good reason.

i tried to explain to you that limewire does in no way hurt the gnutella network. it is simply stupid to block them because your ideology tells you that noone should make profit from gnutella. if there are ads in Limewire, that is only of importance for the limewire developers and the limewire users. it doesn't effect the network at all. if you want to block every capitalist influence off your world, than you should first go and create a private noncapitalist internet, fo more than half of TCP/IP is used for commercial purposes.

it is you who hurts gnutella, not corporations.

PS: once again, this post is in no way about the politics of Bearshare. i cannot recommend to use Bear, for this program does cluster by vendor and not by feature, and as its encrypted packages are suspicious to me too.

So you basicly agree with Moak and [edit name-calling]. Only that they shoot against Limewire is something you disagree?

The high activity in this thread shows Gnutella has a true problem with greed. I do agree about Bearshare, but also Limewire has one foot on the greedy ground, they cooperate and call each other best friends; together with scumware and clustering (hostcaches and unnecesarry in a strange superpeer realisation) that is scarry.

you got me wrong. i used to agree with moak in the past, but i think he has gone too far. concerning greed, it is not a problem as long as the network is not hurt.

i can't see anyone hurting the network. i didn't believe the rumours that Phex/XoloX hurt the network with their automated queries, and i don't believe that LimeWire hurts the network with their clustering either.

however, i do agree with you were bearshare is concerned. i am convinced that clustering clients based on features is a good thing. i am however not convinced that clustering based on vendors is a good thing. but that is exactly what you are doing: by blocking specific vendors, you are in effect clustering specific vendors, and that is exactly what vinnie does. that is why Mr. Gone called you a Hypocrite.

further, i dislike how Bearshare completely stopped supporting 0.4 connections (hurting the network), because that is not "preferencing by feature", that is "blocking by feature". and i won't tolerate these spy packets (as they are a security issue). noone really knows what they are, and i don't believe vinnie that they contain only version numbers. it would be much easier to call home to bearshare.com.

but i don't advocate all the community to go and block bearshare. even if all bears were clustered together, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it hurts the network. if you disagree than please explain me why. think of the gnutella network as a large sphere and the bearshares as a small sphere inside the big one: that's what bearshare does. it could make it hard for non-bearshares to connect because Bearshare will not attempt their connection requests. that's the only issue i see with it.

Adam: is there a reason to completely stop support for 0.4 clients? how much of the network still uses 0.4, do you have any accurate statistics? i can't believe that this step was necessary, why didn't limewire use its good relationship to vinnie and tried to convince him to go on with 0.4 support?

No. The high activity in this thread shows that the Gnutella Community is very concerned about an unnecessary network split.

oh not again. please no "we know everything and you dont" attitude. You can not speak for everyone here, please make it a poll about greed.

why do you give Limewire a green card? They regular shake hands with bearshare, never critcize them and imitate step by step. You did not convince me Limewire's clustering is for feature. First, they created their own need for ultrapeer clustering with a complicate ultrapeer idea. Second, they cluster exactly like Vinnie (which you don't like), also Limewire hostcaches group own clients together.

Some abuse Gnutella today and create their own (proprietary) spheres inside Gnutella, they take the users and files away from other vendors, they hurt them. That's fair? Gnutella was a big network, why do you tolerate clustering in little seperated spheres? Really, I can't understand. You didn't convince me this is what users want.

I like your questions at the end of your post. Most people here are used to tolerate any Bearshare behaviour, especially inside the GDF. Have you seen Limewire once speak against Vinnie or a good word about (Vinnies hated) Xolox? All together makes also Limewire scarry for me. Not as much as Bearshare, but any spyware spreading vendor should not be treated as a saint.

Moak gone too far? Isn't any company distributing spyware an unethical company? Because Limewire is doing some help for the network, you still welcome them. Now they cluster users away from other and you still welcome them. What's next, how far may Limewire go? I agree Limewre is not the big evil, but they gone too far. Sorry afisk.
The tolerance level from Gnutella developers is unbalivable high, as you can see with Vinnie. He can do everything. [ironic start]But there is no greed in Gnutella.... no![ironic end]

I don't want to be a member of GDF. Limewire please stop the greed, stop becoming a second Bearshare and become someone we like again. If not, don't support Limewire/Bearshare.

The greed is destroying the integrity of Gnutella development since months. Open your eyes.

The problem of gnutella (greed) could maybe reduced to one word:

lobbying

The guys from GDF found each other about a year ago, worked together, improved something and are proud of what they did. Now they defend each other also if one or two member are a bit selfish. They tolerate as long as they still can participate somehow. If someone found a improvement, they are telling each other compliments and make it a standard, it works somehow. very human. frustrating for every new developer or every developer that is fallen from the noble table of the GDF. The GDF gained the status of a high society, ignoring what's going on outside. With that perspective in mind I can perfectly understand Limewire, they really believe they are doing a good work, there is no harming greed and Bearshare is a cool business alliance.

Unfourtunately Gnutella is not GDF only and GDF decisions outside the GDF do not look that bright, so do Bearshare and Limewire look not that bright. How many users and devleopers do need to complain until the GDF is becoming more open and a true gnutella developer community. No, Limewire is not the big evil... nobody told this... but some non-GDF developers do not tolerate their politics (as they don't tolerate bearshare).

It must be a suprise for you, but things have to change - or - Gnutella development will be splitted more and more. Don't close your eyes and talk about unimportant megapeer details, the network is splitting now.

stuff
 

Abaris, you are inconsistent here:

You say "even if all bears were clustered together, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it hurts the network." So how does it hurt the network if we cluster all non-Bears in response? In fact, arguably, we are achieving nothing, since the bears are already clustered 'away' from us, there is no real need for us to cluster 'away' from them.

I think the same argument extends to limewire, but see the sixth paragraph below because I don't think I need to argue the point further.

I can certainly understand people not wanting to take part in opensourcep2p, but all this uproar and fear and worry seems unwarranted. So unregistered is nearly as rude as Vinnie - but do you guys (afisk included) go harrassing Vinnie to change his ways? I wish you would, he is a w@nker.

Another note, Xolox and Phex are not the only ones which were blasting search packets. gtk-gnutella was sending them off (optionally) pretty damn often <I>[Edit note (I think from memory - maybe I'm confused with download retries)]</I>. Is this practise really so harmful to the network? I don't think so. It has been greatly overstated and is no reason to block a whole client.

There is a simple solution to this for any client who does think it's a problem - simply do not propogate a search packet if you just saw the same search from the same client 5 seconds ago. And this should be implemented in any good client anyway, to prevent deliberate abuse of the network. These types of sanity checks are totally standard practise for any sane internet client.

No need to block the Xolox, this was just an excuse by Vinnie to block a client, if you ask me.

So we want to block him back? Is that so unusual? Look at the West Bank - go try to talk them out of their revenge killings back and forth, not us out of a few little data packets we want to drop - there are a lot more lives at stake there. I think your concern is misplaced.

Most users when given the choice to block clients of their own choosing will block nothing, or will block bearshare (at the moment). After all, the more clients a user blocks, the less clients they can search, right? So they will only block the ones they really hate.

Unless a real lot of people choose to block something, you won't even notice the effect above the normal network noise of people logging off, swamped connections, etc etc. So it is only clients who do something really extreme that will ever find themselves 'suffering' from people blocking.

As for whether splitting the network altogether is a bad thing, I have argued this point before. The number of clients on the network is around 30-50 x generally accepted horizon size of 10000 machines. If some of these machines disappear to another network, then your horizon size hasn't changed. OK, Ultrapeers are <I>meant to</I> increase the horizon by 80 - 500 times, but are the users leaving limewire users? If not, limewire won't experience a difference.

And the bigger question - would they stay - would anyone joining opensourcep2p stay - if opensourcep2p wasn't there? People who are this annoyed with BearShare and feel threatened that more BS-like behaviour is going to encompass the gnutella .. many of them are going to leave gnutella anyway, I think. We are just the movement of those people who would like to continue to work on the existing protocol and clients, instead of trying some new protocol - there are plenty out there I'm sure.

You should be happy to have our input.

Nos
<I>[Editted 12.04.02 to add note about gtk hammering possible confusion],/I.

Interesting link
 

Here is an interesting analysis of some things which may be relevent. The correspondence about the bug report starts at the bottom of the page.

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index...67&atid=104467

This doesn't really support anyone's views in particular, but illustrates that some of the technical issues are complex.

Nos

Re: stuff
 

You did not get my point. The Bearshares are clustered together, but the bearshare cluster as a whole is still perfectly connected to the gnutella sphere. that means every XoloX client can connect to a Gnucleus or LimeWire client that is connected to Bearshare. Therefore, search packets of one of them do reach the other, and indeed, Bearshare and XoloX clients CAN download from each other.

What you are doing is a completely other thing. You do not block Bearshare. If you only did that, i wouldn't have said anything. You guys are creating a totally different network, thereby blocking every gnutella user who is not willing to join your ideological crusade. by blocking one or two clients, like vinnie does, the network as a whole stays perfectly connected. how many clients do you think you are blocking? counting all the discontinued and experimental ones, and every noncommercial client that is not opensource, i guess it will be about ten different clients. for what reason? once again, i can't see anyone abusing the network. i do suspect vinnie of doing so, but i have no final proof for that, and even if he did, he has never gone as far as splitting completely off gnutella.

they create clustered subspheres, right. but they still stay connected. and there is no proof at all that they take files away from other vendors and clients. actually, using gnucleus, i happened to download from bearshare at multiple times.

please, nos, do not tell me what i should be happy for.

Re: Re: stuff
 

OK, apart from those bearshares that are too many hops from the edge of the bearshare cloud. But I take your point.
Well, there are too different things going on in that opensourcep2p gnucleus client.

I haven't seen it, but I understand that one option is to stay on gnutella and just block on an ID basis, eg user can choose just bearshare, or as Anonnn urges on the web page, block all commercial vendors, or whatever they like. I believe the user types in the string.

The other option is use the other 'network' or 'opensource' which should be enough to block any non-configured client, but in practice I don't think this is proven. So in addition the gnucleus client blocks all the known commercial clietns based on vendor id.

I think that option 1 is a side-effect of the lack of certainty about the effectiveness of the strategy of changing the connect string header. And since it needed to be implemented to block fully on the opensource network, the 'extra benefit' is that it can be employed on the gnutella network as well with no extra programming effort. So he let the user decide.

So now you are arguing against the second network - the second network doesn't block anyone from using the original gnutella network. It leaves the original gnutella network intact, save for the loss of users, who maybe would leave anyway. It is arguable.

Well, in one case, the gnutella network, it is up to the user, could be any number. I think probably only BS, MRPH, LW at the most, mainly just BS.

On the new opensourcep2p network, at the moment, probably right. I doubt that there are that many users on that network anyway. [wildly speculative mode]Interestingly the <A HREF="http://www.limewire.com/index.jsp/size">graph at limewire.com</A> does show a drop around the 20th March when Anonnn launched the idea, of around 50k users .. but I think this must be coisncidence - gnutellaforums didn't get 50k readers that day. There is already a decline evident preceding that date, I'd say about 40k users over half a week immediately before his announcement. This is followed by the sharp drop of another ~50k at 20th March, and it has been more or less stable since then.[/wildly speculative mode]

Maybe the decline of 40k users in half a week would have continued had Anonnn not made his interesting announcement? Who can say?
[QUOTE] for what reason?
<snip snip snip>[/QUOTE
Reasons covered earlier in debate and on <A HREF="http://opensourcep2p.sourceforge.net/">website</A>.
Yes, I can download from BS using non-BS clients, it's good. On the other hand, some clients have such little success now (read '0.4') that I don't bother using them. And that was a sudden change. I think perhaps driven as much by limewire as BS the date corresponds more with the introduction of ultrapeers AFAICT. I don't really know.

So I don't know, it seems to me a good many of the older clients are blocked from the gnutella network. I think if the opensourcep2p idea isn't killed quickly that people will alter a lot of the older clients to use that network - after all the older and simpler the client is the easier it would be to change. Maybe more clients will work successfully on the opensource network than work successfully on the gnutella network. :)
:)
OK, I didn't mean you specifically, I meant the gnutella community in general should at least take some comfort from the fact that we want to keep improving the (opensource) gnutella clients and protocol, even though we don't want to connect to the existing commercial clients any more.

Nos

'Nother topic - not flood honest ;)
 

Here is a link to another thread, this one about Black Holes ;)

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...?threadid=9192

Nos

more arguments for an existing GDF lobbying

- GDF was/is long hidden from public, mentioned on no vendor homepage, still not listed in groups listing
- a documentation of protocol was not available long time, still chaotic
- support of new developers does not exist, of course GDF members have a working client already
- dissing against Xolox was unfair or tolerated, communication was not tried/wanted by GDF
- clustering takes users/files away from other (independent) vendors, superpeer clustering is a self created bottleneck
- clustering and blocking was tolerated for GDF member Bearshare, now also for Limewire
- proprietary messages and undocumented extensions from Bearshare are tolerated
- spyware/sumware in Bearshare and Limewire are tolerated
- public statistics from LW's crawler are inacurate, mode changes without notice, no statistics for everyone
- Bearshare and Limewire saying they have the best Gnutella client and being "the establishment"

Afisk, could you give an example please?

We closed already two or three threads... we cannot close all!

I think the best way is to point out where the other is not right and discuss it!!!

@ all

BUT WITHOUT FLOODING PLEASE! :)

Morgwen

Gnaaaaaarrn! Did you at least read my posts about how ultrapeers and clustering work? no, of course not. Ultrapeer is not a fiendish plot to take over the world, and Ultrapeer clustering is completely sensible! You don't present any proof of how clustering takes away users or files from other vendors. That's a very nice conspiration theory, but just repeating the old prejudices, rumours and lies over and over doesn't make them real.

And what has the GDF to do with spyware in Limewire and bearshare? If you don't want it, don't use it! Many people accept spyware if they get better search features - see KaZaA. it is not a matter of the gdf to block them. if the users don't want the spyware, they can use another client!

the GDF is far from perfect. but on this level we cannot discuss about it. we won't achieve anything if the same unproven accusations are posted again and again and again.

afisk, nice PR. abaris you can't even imagine that your clustering, sensible, complicated ultrapeer idea has a selfcreated need for clustering and different concepts would not have to cluster away from other clients (from files!). At the end more of your GDF clients will have to cluster together to create a huge network. At the end you create a two-class Gnutella (GDF cluster vs independent developer); other devloper might decide to use different superpeer concept and cluster away from you too because you did hurt them. Spyware, you like them and tolerate it - have fun with your greedy partners. Inoccent users need more information against your scumare. Vinnie's strange ideas - you make him one of your best friends, enjoy the dislike. Oh and the accusations against Xolox again. Sorry they were never proofen. I doubt even Phex was that unhealthy. I feel the GDF is too much into politics and too less about facts and fairness.

GDF looks like lobbying for me, selfish, self-overrated and sloooow. Bearshare & Limewire are best friends to protect their commercial interests, salted with PR.

Different clients will come (maybe Xolox). We will hear a lot of bitching and inefficient GDF will need another 6 months to make small steps fordward, until they move equal, beautiful tinker. (I'm only sorry about Limewire, they seems to have some nice people, but choosen a greedy aliance with Vinnie)

Let's end wasting time here, Gnutella development needs to be splitted!

GDF lost my interest.

I wonder why nobody from the GDF tried to inform the Xolox developers about this? If this is/was such a big problem send them a mail and tell them what you have discovered! Now they can investigate it too, and change it if necessary!

Also funny is that the only source for this is Vinnie and we all know what he thinks about Xolox! Did you investigate it too? I wonder why no one of the other developers said something about this or did I miss something? In private the developers said its no problem! I am no coder I don´t know what to believe but I know if NOBODY besides Vinnie confirm this, I am not going to belive it!

About the protocol documnetation, I wonder when 5 or more FULL time coders have no time to do it who have it??? But you don´t need to do it alone, there are other solutions hire moderators, like you have done it already with Mike Green, who can do the documentation! If Mike cannot manage the work alone ask one or two more coders - the GDF is FULL of them!

Btw what do you think about a new protocol?

Morgwen

there is no way to fight ignorance. i give up. good luck with your opensource network.

Xolox was developed by a small dutch company named Beerenboot IT founded by four former students. Their emails never show up on any site related to Xolox, however here's how to contact them:

http://www.beerenboot.com/vennoten/midden.htm

At least Arno Steenbekkers and Michel Pasman are Xolox developers. I don't know for sure about the other two.

You might want to contact them, since they are going to release a new version of Xolox in several weeks.

Announcing "Moose" a new Gnutella client!

Moose looks and works just like BearShare! No need to learn anything new! No spyware, no adware. Easy to use, tabbed menus just like BearShare.
It will be priced at $15.95
It's based on Gnucleus code, modified of course.
Coming next month.

Use the Moose!

hahaha, 15.95$! I'll leave it to the other trolls to tell you where you can shove it...

Im not a troll but you can shove it up yer... never mind.... tell us more about Moose :)

Do you even read the GPL?

Sorry, but as long as whoever it is releases the source code he can sell "the Moose". Look at redhat, you pay $50+ for a GPL operating system. Personally i think he's trolling, but anyway.

Ummmmmm.... NO!

You DO realize that anything based on Gnucleus source must also be open source. Please read the GNU Public License (GPL.txt included with the Gnucleus source that you're modifying). Hence, if I interpret the GPL correctly, you can't charge anything for your servent if it's based on Gnucleus code. Oh, and that means I can also ask you for your source code... for free of course.

Besides, I can already get Gnucleus for free. I don't have to pay you for another Gnucleus clone with a few small features added. And even if it looks and works like Bearshare, I can get Bearshare for free too... I don't need to install any of the spyware so that doesn't end up to be a problem.

Yes, but under the GPL, they can only charge for the act of making a copy of the program (which means they can charge you if they sell you a CD of it) or they can charge for warranty (which seems to be what the $50 charge is for).

Other than that, you can still get Red Hat for free.

The way I read it is that they can charge anything they want for it, but must give away the source code when asked...

Well, here's the section of the GPL that I draw my conclusions from:
(Highlighting added by me of course.)

And, just for the record, here's the section I feel that prevents the makers of Moose from charging a fee of any sort:

I was suggesting they sell their distribution of the binary, under the guise of the cost of support/warrentry. The problem with this plan is they have to release all the source code too.

Limewire gets away with using open source, and still charging for the "pro" version. But equally, there are the people who recomplie limewire sans ads and distribute it as clean limewire without fee.

I think we're agreeing, just not saying it the same way.

I think LimeWire also charges their fee for Pro under the guise of warranty rather than based on the lack of adware.

We are agreeing.... yup. I think it ****** us both off, but it's part and parcel of the gpl, so it has to be accepted.

Would there be any point to an ad-free gpl? ;)

Still, it can be argued that even if the morpheus/gnucleus thing was slightly unexpected (and mildly underhand) it has increased the user-base of gnutella hugely.

Personally I believe we may have problems with the lack of updates for it though. Gnucleus has been updated with ultrapeer support, but I can't use it properly since none of the morpheus/gnucleus 1.6.0.0 clients will become child-nodes to me. Very annoying; I hope they actively contribute to gnucleus rather than forking.

Here's a posting of the GDF on that matter:

From: "Greg Bildson" <gbildson@l...>
Date: Sun Mar 10, 2002 2:37 am
Subject: Gnucleus and the future of Morpheus

One thing that developers should keep in mind is that it appears that Gnucleus is an interim solution for Morpheus. From all the information that I have, it appears that Streamcast will be switching to their own proprietary code base in 3 weeks or likely (much) more. I expect that Streamcast really doesn't want to maintain their client as open-source for the ongoing future. Now, they may have changed their mind but I doubt it. They are likely content for the time being to stick with Gnucleus because it works very well for them given the effort involved in customizing it. I also assume that Gnucleus will continue to have a large user base going forward.

Streamcast claims to be implementing all the basic Gnutella features as well as metadata searches and some other more recent proposals. One slight concern that I have is that they claim to be using slightly different metadata that includes some of their old fields from FastTrack but any improvement in the metadata area is probably worth it. I believe that they will be working on UltraPeers as well. Actually getting all this code right will be tricky for them. It is a big question mark as to how this will all fit into the Gnutella network in the future.

I think it would be very wise for them to release early betas to the GDF so that we can validate their implementation. They can probably get a lot of free work out of some of us.

Thanks
-greg

My problem is with the "appears to be"... They haven't even told the community...

From a post on gnuclues forums:

Swabby, one of gnucleus developers....


Probably? That's what worrys me....

Block 'em all
 

Oh well, just block block block ;) .

I tend to get bunches of morpheus clients, I am starting to suspect they cluster as well.

Is their source open (I guess it is) - has anyone read it to see what they mod'd?

Nos

The Moose is on the loose!

Instead of adware we opted for serial number protection. When you pay to use the program, you get a serial number and can then operate the client.
Testing has been ongoing for the pre alpha version and the serial number code is working great.
We have invested enough to hire 2 full time programmers for the short term and hope the low cost fee will support further improvements.
For those of you who asked, the Moose is almost exactly like BearShare in operation look/feel. We should be able to ad new features and improvements quickly because we have a staff of programmers, rather than only one like BearShare has. Gnucleus 1.7 features were just added.

Use the Moose!

Unless I'm missing something, you have to release the source code to your client, upon which I can simply disable any serial number check... Erm, hello.. your business model is screwed.

Re: Block 'em all
 

They do have the source code somewhere on their website. - As far as I can tell, they did not bother to make a single change to the core (even the lack of comments is the same as before). But Gnucleus source-code is no fun to read, so I might have overlooked some small but important changes.