feauture request - freeloaders
 

A great feature is being able to define a freeloader. I use limewire and love that I can set freeloaders as anyone sharing less than 1000 files. :)

Does anyone know gnotella's definition of a freeloader?

Re: feauture request - freeloaders
 

Hallo:

I have read your post, counted my files; the count was 396 files. Ca. a hundred files I kept for they were very common downloads; the rest are mostly rare and uncommon pieces.

Now, for your definition, am I a freeloader? *grin* And do you think, this issue is solved with file counts?

Beside all, please do not forget that even freeloaders 'glue' the network. And, even if I know someone does this, he/she will be invited to download from me, as you are, too. Maybe you got some files from me, maybe I got some from you, so do not bother with freeloaders and keep sharing.

Greetings....

hey how inteligent could that be?
 

So, I who share about 10DivX movies is a freeloader?

Re: feauture request - freeloaders
 

Well, aren't you lucky. And unrealistic. (or are you sharing your entire HD) Sharing means: "divide & parcel out in shares" & as long as you're contributing Something, I think slapping a number on there (especially a sky's-the-limit number), is unfair.

Someone who shares 2 files may still have a file I can't find anywhere else... and to dicourage them from using the network woud just be a loss for me and everyoe else. SOme people jsut simply don't have that many files to share, that doesn't make them a freeloader. Now, someone who is sharing no files is a little different, but still as said earlier, they all glue the network together, so let's keep this all open.

9.1 gigs/993 files = freeloader ;)
 

lol. what a bad-*** freeloader i am. just imagine i dare to share only 993 files making up 9.1 gigs. i had uploads of 6.5 gigs in the last 35 hours. and you block me? man, think about it please. with gnotella i shared only the movies because the prog would otherwise freeze. so that's the 10 files / 7 gigs scenario. still not being a freeloader then i think.

people: use your brain ;)

Pot calling the kettle black
 

I share 60 files, all >200mb, all good quality, am I a freeloader? no.

Yet while I'm sharing, I cannot download from the jerk who set his threshold at 1000, so that in my eyes makes HIM the freeloader, since he CAN access MY files.

I have a better solution, ratios. voluntary ratios, using a PGP public key/private key(gnotella client) and the client keeps the log encrypted. you lose your log, you must start over.

Dont give the option to exclude ANYONE, as that just gives the freeloaders a /tool/ to freeload with, like Mr. 1000 files above.

At least this way, heavy sharing would have verifiable bragging rights.

Another solution, allow customization of the Webpage, then people would have a little incentive to share, knowing that 5000 people will see their "Bill Markus is a cool dude" message.

Also, what I would like to see is a log of the ratio of successfull downloads made from someones client, so that I can see beforehand that I'm about to d/l from someone that aborts 99% of downloads requested from his client. (again this would be voluntary, but if someone has a %100 completed log, you know your d/l will most likely be good)

oh, and by the way, how about advanced search features? I'm talking really advanced, with "> , < , # , $ , * , = , /@" operators like the good ole AmigaDOS. that would let a blind man find a needle in a haystack during a thunderstorm? (we NEED this tool to filter out the "brittany spears sex sex warez.exe" files that turn out to be links to paysites and banner ads. Not to be too critical, but in the year 2001, you'd thing a cutting edge piece of software would have better search capabilities than a 20-year old DOS from an extinct Amiga with 512k of ram.

How about COMMENTS so that users would stop sharing files named "really_cool_screensaver_get_me_now.zip", and leave the filenames intact? this could be implemented optionally if a user, say, creates a {filename}.GNT text file with the description THERE instead of in the original filename. Granted, this feature would only work with other clients who have this, but it would still be compatible with other clients anyway. This file could also optionally be used to keep track of how many times it's been downloaded, if the user so wishes.

FEEDBACK, how about a quazi-mail server, so people can send me messages in text, that get stored as text files in a specified directory? This would prevent me from having to share my email address with every loser on the net just so I can recieve messages about corrupt/worthless/misdescribed files I may inadvertantly be sharing. I should be able to limit the size/quantity of these messages if I prefer for security/spam reasons.

The option to make the above messages optionally PUBLIC so that people can see I'm not a freeloader by looking at my "thankyou" messages.

Scripting, something usefull like a semi-featured conditional scripting launguage so I can download something IF it shows up somewhere without me being here to do it.

messaging, and the forming of SIG's for people of like minds with similar files.

The possibilities are endless, and it seems progress is stagnant, hell, noone has even bothered to fix the *OLD* "error closing socket" nonsence under windows 2000 yet, sigh.

Here's innovation, adding "servers" to this "serverless" network transparantly and at my option, remaining compatible with the existing Gnutella framework, Here's how...
I, at my option, decide to dedicate my fat network pipe to the cause, so I set up a repeater/cacher that does a search at a predefined interval for {*.*}.GNT files (described above) that have logged >X (predefined by me) download requests, and my client will download and mirror these heavily requested files. My "server" will also consult other volunteer servers for their list of "high demand" files and share files with them if my supply/their demand or vice versa are in sync.

The clients could even have an option to conduct "banwidth friendly" searches that would ONLY consult these servers lists of pre-cached searches, saving alot of gnutella bandwith. This again would be optional and voluntary, thus keeping gnutella compatible, and able to operate serverless.

The server could optionally be open to public "send me a note if you see this file" requests, saving the user from letting his machine search continously, eating up bandwidth on the 'gnunet.

I've got myself all worked up now, time to fire up VC++ and start a beta version, anyone interested in helping? if so, send me a note at ogg_david@hotmail.com and lets rock. So far, all these clients are simple and could have been put together by a 13 year old with a flexible bedtime and unattentive parents and a warez copy of visual basic. Lets show the world what a difference some creative programming can make. Beer's on me. Time to lead, follow or get out of the damn way, and let the files FLOW!

Freeloaders
 

I thought a Freeloader ban would be a good option until I read the post from this moron. Now I think a better option would be the ability to ban people who set their LimeWare freeloader ban to over 10 files.

ring ring
 

Pick up the clue phone young people. As person who has been online since the beginning of the widely distributed internet in the early 1990s, I can tell you that file sharing among peers is what the web was designed to do. Counting files and denying people access to your stuff is fine -- if you're an *******. However, if you want to consider yourself part of a 'network', you need a better reason to keep people out than these weak economic arguments (that you probably use to justify your greed and lack of compassion for those less fortunate in your life outside the net). You can front like Marie Antionette if you want to... it's your head.

NDNGVR

re: I thought a Freeloader ban would be a good option until I read the post from this moron. Now I think a better option would be the ability to ban people who set their LimeWare freeloader ban to over 10 files.

The only problem is that's difficult to do, after I read that, I tried to see if it's possible. Limewire doesn't broadcast it's limit, only the client itself knows what it's own limit is set to, there's no way I can "request" his client send mine specs about his quota settings. Bearshare, however, broadcasts the fact that it's "freeloading" and can be banned. I still think that the ability of the client to discriminate requests is a bad thing regardless of circumstance. As a matter of fact, if I had set the protocol up, I would have set up NO provision for broadcasting how many files the client is sharing, so clients would then have no basis for any discrimination in the first place based on file count.

I'd like to see Gnutella evolve into what pre-internet BBS's offered, anonymity, privacy, decenralized yet synchronized peer-to-peer sharing with no restrictions from anyone other than /what/ they want to share. The old bbs's didn't know how many files you had, and couldn't/didnt restrict your downloads. (untill the paysites and AOL showed up).

I spent hours since my last post roughing out code for a makeshift client that can connect and search. No GUI yet, at this point it's just shelled out to console. (anyone reccommend a good windowing library for windows that makes skinnable GUI's?)
I've borrowed some GPL'ed code for the search heuristics, right now the searching function is the only useable function so far. Looks like I can't share yet though (because of the GPL license) but when it's done I'll follow through and release it under the GPL.

One minor slight about the Gnutella protocol, it's very WASTEFULL! I noticed around 1/3 of the searches were for mostly the same thing, yet the searches are done over and over relentlessly by everyone, this is highly innefficient, and the reason why 50% of the gnutella network is flooded with "search spamming". we need a search cache provision to cut this wastefull flood of useless redundant searches, so next I'm working on a client side cache for common searches, so instead of relaying a redundant search when requested, I just send my cache of that same search the last time it was done (with a timeout of maybe 1/2 hour before the cache expires). This should increase the Gnutella bandwidth around 10% (assuming EVERYONE used clients that are capable of this) It's a start.


RE: Pick up the clue phone young people. As person who has been online since the beginning of the widely distributed internet in the early 1990s, I can tell you that file sharing among peers is what the web was designed to do. Counting files and denying people access to your stuff is fine -- if you're an *******.

I agree 100%. The attitude of people toward the technology seems to be changing though. Back in the day we /shared/ files, but nowdays people think of their internet connection as an entertainment service not unlike cable TV, one way.

In the dawn of the age, we left our pc's on overnight running underground BBS's (unless we had a dedicated line) just to be a part of the community, providing forums like this one, and a place to share files. Those of you who let your PC's share overnight, not just firing up gnutella clients when you download, are the ones that will make this work. In light of that, I'm trying to think of some incentive to make someone leave this client on all the time, without punishing someone who doesn't, any idea's anyone?