It seems to me...
 

There are two kinds of people who like to browse:

A) Those who share a few files and think everyone else has as little as they do. They think unless everyone shares, the network will collapse. News for you: There will always be leeches, and they will download whatever piffling files you have from someone who realizes that sharing does not mean trading.

B) Leeches who browse and download everything you have while still sharing nothing.

Now, there are also two kinds of people who want to disable browse:

A) People who share TONS of stuff and don't want to possibly face legal repercussions from sharing. These people are the lifeblood of the network, and they are also the place those new episodes you love so much come from, alawson. These people know what the word "sharing" means, and don't give a damn what's in your shared folder. This is also why emule has many many times the releasers that Limewire does.

B) Leeches who don't want you to know they're not sharing anything. These are greatly outnumbered by the leeches who LOVE browse though, since disabling browse and not sharing look pretty much the same on the other end, so the leeches don't care.

Basically, making browse host optional in LimeWire would CONTRIBUTE to the health of the network, since it would attract people who would otherwise not run LimeWire, and these people are legion. Even Edonkey, a network with FORCED SHARING, allows you to disable browse.

Eventually, someone will make a fork of LimeWire that has the option. I encourage the LimeWire devs to nip this in the bud before that happens.

One last thing for all you subgeniuses out there:

"I'll share with you if you give me something" - this is not sharing.

"Here, try this. No obligation." - this is sharing.

+1 to that
 

I've always thought the same way as you.

But there's always the argument that even if you disabled browse host, they could run a search on your machine for every letter and number of the alphabet and quasi browse host you... this is true, but how many of the big bulk of users will be able to code something like this...

+1 to making "Disable Browse Hosting" an option on the Tools Dialog.

Plus the poll is closed
 

;)

-1 to restricting browse host.

I like the "Open Information Sharing" idea--keep it open.

Anyway, I browse AND share, so didn't find NodeNomad's arguments relevant.

Since I search and share files auto-named by digital cameras (mostly), browse host is really the only way to find more of a set and share too.

Try searching for "DSCF jpg" and figure out which one of a series comes from which host--virtually impossible without "browse host"

Those very few people who are curious about mine are in the same boat. I allow 10 uploads at a time, so it's really only the browse hosters that get to look at my photos.

C'mon gub: if we had a html way to share our photos (flickr-less), then maybe browse host would be redundant. Until then, keep it open.

So, let me get this straight...
 

Because you're too lazy to rename files from your digital camera, NO ONE should be allowed to disable browse host?

Good thinking, chief.

Edit: Perhaps instead of dictating features in Limewire based on specious reasoning, you could instead Google for one of the thousands of freeware file renaming utilities?

Thanks--glad you liked it maddy.

I'm lazy, or else I would spend the time only looking at professionally prepared photos, not surfing p2p nets.

btw named photos are usually spam, so unnamed photos are usually one of the best ways to find authentic raw amateur images.

Actually,
 

Unnamed photos are a good way of not knowing what the hell you're getting until you get it, I've found.

Furthermore:

1) Nothing is stopping spammers from copying the file names that are used as defaults by digital cameras. In fact, I've seen this several times.

2) Your problems with finding quality porn are offtopic in this thread, I believe.

sigh.

Glad you know me better than I do, and wish you luck with your moderating duties.

Yes, some spammers have done what you say, but they are rare (excepting the autonaming of the ipod ads), but easily ignored.

If you want a controlled network, where access is restricted, filtered and controlled, you have many options elsewhere.

I like the "open" idea of browse host, unlike commercial interests who want to control what I see.

What you call "open"
 

I call strictly regimented. Which is why it makes sense to make Browse Host an option.

If you want to enable browse host, fine. If not, then don't.

Spammers occasionally do it? Try finding an alt.binaries.pictures newsgroup that's not flooded with this technique in practice. Hopefully you realize that Usenet is the source of both new files and cutting edge spammer techniques. I predict it will hit gnutella sooner, rather than later.

My apologies for assuming you meant pr0n. I see now that the word "raw" was probably meant another way; my bad. In any event, your difficulties finding raw images could be solved by either sorting by size or messaging the person sharing the file and asking for more. Although, if a person (such as yourself) is sharing files with vague names, they will probably have already enabled browse, or more likely it will be enabled by default.

Also... "restricted, filtered and controlled"?

How about restricting limewire usage to those who don't mind lamers grabbing every file they're sharing simultaneously, while filtering out anyone who desires control over what they share?

if its optional then people wont share anything then becomes slow and evently people will start leaving limewire

my vote
 

i say leave browse the way it is:
if you don't like it get off L W, or find a constructive way of changing it for the betterment of ALL. i don't see how optionally shutting it off helps anyone. when i'm on, "browse" is on.
if you don't want to share your files, get off L W, you don't belong! i may not like "freeloaders", but since there is no REAL way of knowing which are i haven't banned anyone.
if you don't want "break-ins", disconnect your computer.

i share around 3,000 files in L W, i have loads more. i reasonably expect that the rest are free from browsing. however because of jack***es that only want to do harm, you can only expect so much. i'm not computer savvy.
if you want that much security (or privacy) on a computer you need to turn it off.

share: #2 to receive, use, etc. IN COMMON WITH OTHERS --
give: #1 to make a gift of
take:#31 (slang) to cheat ; trick

p.s. givers beware; takers, may you D L the only file i haven't previewed that has a virus! (i would never knowingly share such a thing)
i welcome all sharers and browsers.

responses:
 

to jay173: those who don't want to share can easily not share now. you will browse them, find they're not sharing anything, and probably disconnect them. how is this different than if they had disabled browse?

to me d: "when i'm on, browse is on" how silly of you to act as though this is a choice you made, when in fact it is forced on you, at this time. wouldn't it be more meaningful if you chose to allow others to browse? hehehe...

"if you don't like it get off L W" i don't use limewire, except to facilitate local sharing on my LAN. i might allow it to connect to the 'net at large if it didn't require me to bend over and spread 'em. i do use other gnutella clients, such as gnucleus and shareaza, since they allow their users the freedom to disable browsing. incidentally, i decide to share quite a lot, but i'm not getting in a ****-measuring contest with you.

Other than the major shortcoming of forcing you to allow browse, Limewire is the best gnutella client, in my opinion. I began posting here as an attempt to address this shortcoming, and will continue to do so.

how silly of me?
 

idiot, i did make a choice! i chose Limewire, i chose to be on line, i chose my browse option to be on, as i understand it. i even chose to participate in this thread.

what about silly you? if i let you browse me and you find i have no files, you can block me. how would you know i don't have files if you can't browse.

i'm quite sure no one here wants to put you out by asking you to bend over. but if you feel so inclined...

freeloaders suck, but ****-stirrers that don't even use the program are worse.

I do use the program...
 

But because it is not well behaved, I do not allow it to connect to outside addresses. May I point out your selective perception, as this is the second time I've mentioned this?

You did not choose to enable browse host, it is enabled and cannot be disabled. "Choose" implies that you have an option, and this thread is about giving people that option.

I share files. I do not trade or otherwise restrict access to the files I share. This is in fact the meaning of share, and whatever you are doing is not sharing. Please refrain from tarnishing the reputation of those of us who do share in the future, me d.

Judging by the responses in this thread, browse host is used far more often by ******retentive folks as a means to "ban freeloaders" (we were all "freeloaders" once, by the way) than it is to find files that can't be found through searching (in fact, I have yet to find anything by browsing that can't be found by searching.)

Freeloaders not wanted
 

With all this talk about the browse option I am inclined to put my two cents worth in. I also browse other hosts when I find a file and am looking for more of the same. I share many files because that is was LW is all about...file sharing. If you aren't sharing I wish there was a sure way of blocking you from getting my files.

I guess a suggestion from me for LW is to refine the browse option on next versions. LOTR, I agree with you totally.

Happy Sharing!!;) :D

This just occurred to me...
 

Virtually everyone who has responded "No, do not make browse host optional" has acted as if the question was "Should browse host be removed?" This is not the question, of course, but there seems to be an assumption than anyone who could turn it off, would.

This is a very strong argument for making it optional.

And please try to respond to the actual question, not the strawman, folks. We all agree that LimeWire should support browse host. This topic is about giving the user the freedom to disable it, if they choose to do so...

This freedom will be granted eventually, either in an official LimeWire build or not. Disabling features is much easier than adding them, after all.

NodeNomad

You use a pretty broad definition of the word but this forum is about P2P software When you discuss P2P you definition of sharing is incorrect in the since that while you may yourself be contributing to the network there are others who use you definition are not. In th P2P definition of sharing they are Leaches.

So in the P2P world your definition is not correct. Most of the other apps you talk about E Mule, Bittorent, use bandwidth measurement to stop leaching LimeWire does not which is probably why you find a lot of leaches running LimeWire.

I believe Browse host should be mandatory and it needs to be improved upon and made to where it works 100% of the time if it did it could then be used as a useful tool to stop leaches.I myself could care less if you or anybody else browse me. If you ever watch you library while using LW you will see that the vast majority of files are not available unless you browse and click on the link directly due to the fact that my DL & Q slots are always full.

And you forgot definition #3 of people who want it to be optional The people who are paranoid that they are going to be busted for carrying on an illegal activity and are afraid to stand up and fight for their rights as a free society. Those who would rather let the RIAA and other organizations take their rights away rather than fight for them.

Below are quotes from Wikipedia

I don't have a problem with people browsing my files to see what I have. Imo, I think that the people who don't want others to see what files they're sharing are people who have a ton of porn saved in their LimeWire.

more replies
 

Grandpa, I actually use a very narrow definition of the term:

"Giving without expecting anything in return."

This excludes selling and trading. If you know any other definition that applies (to filesharing, not agriculture), let me know. Those who expect files in exchange for offering them are traders, pure and simple. While they are by no means unwelcome on LimeWire (don't take that to mean I speak for the network, haha), it would be foolhardy to optimize LimeWire for their use... especially when DirectConnect is already a network optimized for file trading.

While I agree with the definitions in your post, I don't see how they can be used to define sharing as "expecting something in return".

Cyberstalker, two things:

1) Perhaps you are right. BUT- as far as I know, the only successful filesharing network that didn't have heavy porn traffic was Napster, and it had a monopoly on userbase at the time. In any event, those who download porn usually share and download other things too, and alienating the porn fiends is not a good idea. They compose a larger percentage of the userbase (and shared files!) than you'd think.

2) I hope you're not some puritan who thinks porn has no place on the internet. If so, come out and state it plainly, so I can verify that you're a fool. Otherwise, my apologies for calling you a puritan. ;)

Just interesting reading about the concept of file sharing no point trying to be made.

From Wikipedia

There are several major issues surrounding file sharing. Of these, the two most important are centralization vs decentralization and the privacy and anonymity of users. The latter takes on added importance when the legality of file-sharing is challenged by some copyright owners. A third issue is the collection and sale of data about users, using software referred to by its detractors as "spyware".

In the early days, client software was protocol-specific, so one had "Napster" clients, and one had "Gnutella" clients. There is an everpresent push towards making the GUI-side of things capable of using multiple protocols. It is argued: why should a user have to load up several different applications to do what is, in their mind, the same thing?

In cases where there is perceived value in collecting, some people will have lots to share and will find themselves surrounded by eager people. This can cause problems when the collector cannot keep up with demand. Decentralization is one means to alleviate this problem, especially in cases where it is possible to ensure that multiple copies of a popular item are available from multiple sources (even simultaneously, as with multi-source downloading).

Decentralization has also been pushed as a means of overcoming the threats posed to a centralized network, either by legal disputes or hostile users. A decentralized network has no body to attack; only its individual active members may be targeted, and even if a small portion of them are removed the remaining peers on the network will still be able to function.

Concepts like leeching or hoarding come about where the one centralized person will collect files and later refuse to make those available to others. Trade and ratio systems evolve in order to reduce the impact of leeching. Under these systems, a person shares when he can expect to get something in return. KaZaA, for instance, has a very simple rating system. The client calculates the user's priority and tells the sources what level of downloading priority they should give that user. Shortly afterward, however, hacked clients were released that told the sources that the user had one of the highest priority levels regardless of his actual sharing.

Another client which has a rating system is eMule. The eMule client, which uses MFTP as its protocol, tracks how much downloading and uploading has been done from individual sources and if files are downloaded locally or if other peers download files. Sometimes it seems that this rating system does not have a big impact on the download speed. A reason could be the size of the upload queue and the chunk size. If there is a free upload slot, the client takes the peer on top, transferes 8 MB to it and moves it to the end of the queue. A peer with rating of x2 would have to wait to get an upload slot for only half of the amount of time of a peer with a rating of x1. Furthermore, after the client has received an 8 MB chunk, it should upload an 8 MB chunk to the other peer as soon as possible if there is a download pending for that user. Then the other client would upload one chunk to you and your download speed and the one from the other client will increase.

BitTorrent also has a very good share rating system. The download speed is slow if a client does not upload, but it can easily be the fastest protocol if the size of the swarm is large enough.

Today we are left with a slew of clients with functionality designed around making sharing files more effective, both in the real sense of uploading and downloading (like anti-leeching functions) and in the more ethereal sense of being bulletproof toward legal issues (as with anonymity and decentralization).

Well I find browsing host helps continue downlds if you're downldng from that host. So if a downld goes stale, then browsing can help continue it. The "same" applies for other incomplete files.
But keeping in mind that everybody's bandwidth can become popular ... I've browsed a person & 10 mins later haven't been able to. Or/& the browse showed up zero results of files. But 30 mins later a browse showed they had hundreds or thousands of files. I think I said this before or something similar but thought I'd post as though this was (well ... one of lol) my 1st posts to the topic. But similar to D.C., one minute you browse their files & they have 4 star connection quality. 15 mins later you browse them & their star rating for connection might have dropped. It all seems to fit the same picture somehow.

@Only A Hobo:
 

I agree with your sentiment (that is, get browse to work before providing the option to disable it), but browse host will never be 100% effective... it is the nature of networks that some hosts will be less functional than others.

When you disable browsing in emule, it returns a "directory listing denied" error. This response would be just as effective for troubleshooting Browse Host as a directory listing would be.

This is also a good reason for LimeWire devs to implement the option before it appears in a user mod- the official implementation is likely to be friendlier to the network.

Workaround
 

For those of you who, like myself, do not wish to be browsed, 2.4.4 is the most recent version to lack the Browse Host "feature".

It can be downloaded at xxxxxxx

Please make browse host optional, guys.


(promotion of extemely old versions such as version 2 is not good for the network. LimeWire deliberately makes older versons inaccessible.)

i dont really use p2p that much..i dont share files because of the short amount of time im on. also people snooping i dont want. its my pc which is more important than "ZoMG!11sharing iS CaRinG!1113589!!

i vote no :mad:

If you're not sharing then it doesn't really apply does it. People can only browse the files you're sharing & if you're "not sharing any" then they can't browse anything can they. Duh! :rolleyes:
Well if everybody couldn't share files "because of the short amount of time" they're on then you wouldn't have anything whatsoever to downld except the "Overpeer" virii & fake files. lol :D

So why is everybody paranoid to be browsed. Are you freeloaders/leechers or are you downlding pedophilia.

Turn off upload slots & upld bandwidth & nobody can browse you right! Oh & also disable chat. lol :D Another trick it to not allow incoming thru your firewall. NP. Problem solved. Only one person concerned then. I, me & myself. lol :D

Rather than bother people who have spent many, many hours ripping their material & have especially invested into extra share drives, ... just go out & buy something similar. Don't bother those who are serious about sharing. If you want to downld the quick loads then go for other freeloaders & good luck with your downlds! Else stay away from those who are serious about sharing. IMHO Ask yourself, "why" would those people want to share with "you"? Take your time to think about it! :confused: :rolleyes: :p

BTW if you want to downld without sharing then aim for Kazaa which works off a central server. Good luck! :)

Well Said

I see my post was edited...
 

That's understandable, and I apologize for posting such a scandalous link.

However...

1) Anyone who knows how to use google can find the download.

2) Anyone (such as myself) who does not wish to be browsed will probably use the older version.

3) It is an article of faith here that having everyone use the newest version of LimeWire is best for the g-net.

4) Why not encourage users to upgrade by making Browse Host optional? I'm sure there are some users of the old version out there who would install the newest version if this option was added.

Go for it I myself will start blocking addresses using older versions. Just for the hell of it.

good 'un GrandPa :D

Anyway, this thread has been reassuring, even if not much has been said.

I'm glad to see so many wanting to keep LW and their shares as open an possible.

btw--The "unsubscibe from this thread" button only showed "subscribe" just now. Anyone else seen that?

Isn't that just a little silly? I'm using the 4.9.28 version. So does that mean if there were something of yours that I wanted to download you would block my IP address?

Re: Blocking older versions...
 

Why not go all out and block other clients, too?
Then you can change your username to Vinnie.
It astounds me that people care so much about the options provided to other users, all while failing to provide any sound reasons for doing so.
Edit: fixed BBcode italics; replaced the word "users" for "clients" in the last sentence for clarity.

I can honestly say that I don't understand why Grandpa would say something like that. The reason I'm sticking with 4.9.28 is because every time I update to a newer version it uses up a lot of my CPU and I definetly know it's not the computer because everything on it is up to date.

He wasn't being serious. Banning users based on client version would be asinine.
Edit: Nice bit of threadjacking though, Gramps.

The discussion is not about restricting browse host, it's about giving some people the option to keep people from seeing everything they're sharing.

In the end, the files are still available, it's just about people that want to be... anonymous heroes in front of the common users that use only the main 4 functions of limewire

- search
- browse
- download
- share

Will this stop smart and really interested individuals from browse hosting you in other ways? of course not... but I think it stops 90% of the regular users from browsing what you share, while still letting you share... If you have rare content you want to share... well, then allow browse hosting, this won't affect you in anyway....

@Gubatron
 

Good to see you haven't abandoned this thread :).

Also nice to see someone who understands what is actually being discussed here, even if it is the thread's originator.

I'm getting close to posting a request at www.bountycounty.org for someone to add this feature. Fifty bucks should be sufficient, as it's not that difficult.

I'm certain that LimeWire would add the feature once over half the network started using the modified client and nothing bad happened to the G-net.

Edit:Anyone remember when XoloX came out? Several months of every other client complaining about how bad multisource downloads were for gnutella, while they worked on their own implementation. Strangely, once their clients supported multisource, their complaints died down.

bump
 

bump

XoloX, getting off topic a little. These are interesting links: 1. Main site & versions, 2. Gnutella timeline,
3. Gnutella history wiki, 4. XoloX wiki

XoloX was closed source. Last link was interesting. I see it's development closed down as did the XoloX section on these forums.

BTW downlding from Shareaza (RAZA) users (most people know what I mean ... generally 0.1 -> 2 KB/s for large files) is a typical example of why having multi-net clients doesn't work very well. One or more of the nets get sacrificed. If they only connected to one at a time, then fine.

I do like to browse those who seem to have the same interest in files that i have the same interest. i think those who do not let you browse are insecure about what they have to share. i do not share personal photos or personal info just mostly Sothern Gospel Music of which i have over 7800 files but now i am blocked by a QUOTE:" A LEAF NODE SHEILDED BY AN ULTRA PEER HENCE YOU WILL SEE FEW OR NO SEARCHES IN THE MONITOR WINDOW"
END OF QUOTE: what is a "leaf node or ultra peer" and who gives them any governing sanction over me or what i have to share?
GospelDude

Sorry no email addys; Forum Rules (click here)

it's an antichristian conspiracy...
 

Leaf nodes are run by Satanists who are out to silence the Lord's good word, brother.

Seriously, UltraPeers are the core of the network. People with fast internet connections and generous souls allow LimeWire to run in UltraPeer mode so other clients can connect in Leaf mode.

Ultrapeers do much of the heavy duty work of routing searches. Since you are connected as a Leaf node, you don't route searches, and that's you're not liable to see many of them in the search monitor window.

This does not prevent you from sharing anything. It only means you can't see what other people are searching for. If you're curious, here it is:

porn sex
mp3 sex
photoshop keygen sex
animal sex
britney spears sex

There, just read it over and over again and it's just like reading the search monitor.

Thanks for bumping this thread, even though your post was completely off topic.