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.

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.

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.

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.)

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!!

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

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa

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.

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).

__________________










A little common sense goes a long way

Later Grandpa