BROWSE HOST (Should it be Optional?)
 

LimeWire has a really cool feature to Browse Hosts to see what files they are sharing.


Users who discover the browse host on right click and try it, are probably curious people, but personally I think you have a bigger chance of downloading a file faster from multiple hosts rather than downloading from just one host, since it might go offline, or it might be sharing or downloading, therefore having less bandwidth to give you.

I'd like to poll this issue, since it touches the feelings of many users, some defend browse host, some would just like to have the option to 'anonymously' share to some extent.

You'd be surprised the no. of people out there who believe that if they can't browse someone then they consider that person is a leecher/Freeloader.

And people like myself like to browse people to see if they have more of what they find in searches. eg: find a song in the search results, then browse to see if they have more songs by that same artist. Or photos of Mt. Everest. Obviously someone who's been there may just have lots of them.

If you don't want people browsing particular files then why share them. There is a certain amount of anonymity in p2p. After all, the person who browses you might be over the opposite side of the world. Just IMHO ;) :D

I also believe that your questionaire poll is rather silly the way it's been set up with limited options. Another mod may come along & adjust it. It is designed for only a highly biased outcome ... . 2 options is not enough! What about the people who totally disagree with your point of view or wording or are mixed somewhere in the middle of the extremes. You make it sound like there are spies out there. And why shouldn't people be allowed to know if someone is sharing "0".

Re: BROWSE HOST (Should it be Optional?)
 

Here is my thoughts on the subject, after a lengthy discussion at LW where I was clearly in the minority...

Gnutella is a commons. Everyone who uses it shares resources, and consumes shared resources. No one node should be able to place its "desire to consume resources for itself" above the needs of the network as a whole to continue functioning, and provide public resources for consumption.

Based upon this principle, the LW team has decided, for example, to not allow automated re-queries.

It is with this in mind, that various LW team members propose "The desire of any LW user to not participate in the Browse Host feature (by disabling response to this feature on your node) should not supercede the network-wide benefits of having this feature always work".

Also, it is claimed by some here that "since it would still be possible to see (query) results from someone who has this (hypothetical) feature enabled, that it is really useless" or that "it would merely confuse users who mistakenly thought that the option stoped SHARING files."

Now, I can understand the reasoning behind all of these arguments. However, I don't think 1 & 2 are correct, and I am doubtful about 3.

1) The former principle is more about "what resources we allow a node to consume for themselves without damaging other nodes", not about "what additional features should a node provide that could improve the experiences of others".

Basically, it is the "resource consumption" side that should generally be limited, and not so much that "resource contribution" should be mandated.

There is a reason why LW doesn't require that ALL of a user's upstream BW be at all times used for sharing, right? Because that is the domain for choice on the part of the user, not the client software.

I propose that "query hits sent" fall into the same category as "upstream BW". Basically, that "the desire of a user to be able to browse host an average node shouldn't take precedence over my desire to not allow this to happen to my node".

2) Security is a series of compromises between the useability and the protection of resources.

If I am seeking 'X level' of security, then disregarding a possible solution to this because it doesn't provide 'absolute protection' is incorrect.

If I don't want to allow an average person to type my IP address, and get a list of my shared files, then telling me that "I cannot disable this feature because it is still possible to query for a shared keyword and see the file" doesn't hold up, because i wasn't TRYING to prevent that.

3) At a competitor to LW, this option was available for a LONG time, and I never ONCE saw a user complain that they were fooled in to thinking that "Disable other nodes from Browseing my host" meant "Don't let anybody download my files". It may have happened, but if it did, it didn't happen often or cause problems in general.


Now, on to the principle of the matter.

I am treating my computer similar to how I treat my house. There are some things in my house which I am willing to share, some things I would selectively share, and some things I wouldn't reveal to an average person.

Having a network policy like "User's cannot disable Browse Host because it doesn't fully protect you from all conceivable attempts to see your files" is like the Government telling me that "You are not allowed to close your door because it doesn't stop a determined burgler from entering your house, and it is too useful to allow anyone who wants to to walk through your apartment and look around."

I find that to be a repulsive argument against this feature. Why shouldn't I have say over who goes through my stuff? I couldn't care less about whether the average strangers "experience is diminished" by not being able to wander in through my (mandated) fully open door.

Just like the average homeowner wouldn't like me to mandate how their (private) home is to be open to the general public, I don't want some arbitrary body to decide for me that "the desire of the public to walk through my house at whim" superceeds my desire to "keep my house accessable only through channels of my choosing, in general."

If I want to close (but not lock) my front door, that is completely my choice. The fact that 'someone could still break down the door' is NOT a convincing argument as to why I should be prevented from closing it in the first place.

I hope you all agree with me, if not, please post WHY!
(And, please post how your experience of 'never closing your front door to your house' has enriched your life. Lol)

Cheers!

-dave-

[Editors note: Gee Dave what did you edit?]

Actually, the poll is quite correct, since the subject being considered is "does LW allow X or not allow X".

The phrasing of it may seem biased, but the limitation of options to just 2 isn't.

The question this poll addresses is simply, "should a user be able to disable the channel of 'Browse Host' as a means by which query hits are sent." Plain & simple. =-)

Note that the option for "I'll get those shared file lists anyway" doesn't really address the actual 'Not allow X' issue, which (to use the poll submitters style fo phrasing) "It doesn't prevent you from seeing my files if you try hard enough, therefore I shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from seeing them based only upon knowledge of my IP address"

-dave-

Sorry for reposting but apparently someone didn't read what I said. That post is now gone. I was so tired I stopped posting after ...until I saw the intimidatory remarks. Thank you. Sorry for my mistake ... useless comments & useless to put any form of any type of argument of any form as was pointed out to me. Logic goes out the window when you're tired. I don't pretend to be a programmer b/c I'm not. lol :D (My comments are not refering to you gubatron but someone here on pretense)

I like the browse host button. I am generally looking for old music that I used to enjoy. I began by putting in titles to search and DL those, but then the people who UL from me, must have some of the same taste in music that I do, so I like to browse them. If I see something I like (and forgot to search myself!) when the DL takes too long, I just search for it by titile and then more hosts jump on the same download.

I do feel "cheated" when I can't browse I host because maybe they have things that I "forgot" to search for.

Anyway, just an opinion rather than a yes or no on a poll!

I have enjoyed my LW experience!:D

All threads I can remember on this board referring to Browse Host functionality were also related to anonymity, security, and especially **AA. Average user have unfortunately a very freaky imagination how the Internet works and I fear a such option may cause more harm than good in the long term (support, publicity). Under these circumstances I'd chose the 2nd option or maybe a 3rd option: "Don't care, in the end I'll find out what you are sharing".

Anyway, to pick up gubatron's sample with the 5000 files. Have you ever tried to browse host a node with 5000 files and found something useful in a reasonable time? I've pushed this even further and experimented with a Database driven FileManager. IIRC browse host worked with up to 90.000 files (it took ages and the browsing host was technically dead and spit OOMEs) and on the server side I was able to share 600.000 files (the DB was larger than all files together :cool: ).

What I'm trying to say is that Browse Host is a poor design (for me a "don't care" feature) and in the long term it will anyway disappear and will be replaced with something more advanced. Just my 0.02

I depend on browse host for others to find my files.

Like others sharing their digital pics, I've been too lazy to rename all my pictures. Instead I rely on others knowing "dscf .jpg" will find my server, and then they can browse and download to their heart's content. So, in practical daily terms, I make major use of "browse host" to find and distribute content.

I do NOT want to leave my door open. There's a porch they are welcome to visit though ;)

Re security, I appreciate the warning that it's obvious from the get-go that others are aware of what I am sharing. It taught me to beware of a FALSE sense of security, which may be worse.

I would MUCH rather prefer anonymous file-sharing, but that has a long way to go (unless something like BShare's protection is almost available). Until reasonably anonymous file-sharing is a realistic for the majority of file-sharers, I prefer the warning of "browse host" to the false sense of security fostered by hiding the sources in the GUI.

good discussion btw--glad this thread exists. Sure beats the flames at slyk ;)

I would like to see a Private shared folder though: something only invited guests can browse.

May I ask why, exactly, you felt the need to ban me?

"Intimidate a mod & he will get what he deserves."

What are you TALKING about? Certainly not my posts above? I've never spoken to you outside this thread, I believe.

You should cool down, and don't let those moderator powers go to your head!

-dave-

Sounds to me like...
 

sounds like I proposed Browse Host to be removed, from what I read on the latter posts...

I opened the thread to debate wheter it should be OPTIONAL or not, not if it had to be removed, god no!, it's one hell of a cool feature to sneek through that hole in the wall and see what things people keep in their computer and willing to share.

Sometimes you get "Could not browse host" and it's probably cause of network problems, but if you don't know think that might be the cause, you might think that there's an option in the program to disable Browse Host... and then you have support emails asking "How do I turn off Browse Host?"

I say it should be optional, why not? let me have a little privacy, I want to help, but I don't want to show how I'm helping, I'm helping anyways right? it's worse if then people stop sharing to not be browsed...

LOTR--wtf!? the banning MUST be a mistake! PM me--PLEASE!

gub--I dislike the optional idea--a FALSE sense of security is really the most dangerous option.

Agreed 100%.

The net cumulative effect of people who _start_ sharing once they don't _have_ to be listable by IP address, could well improve transfer rates a bit.

At the least, for every file that becomes shared to QUERIES (but not to BHs) that otherwise would have been UNSHARED is one more source for that file, which would relieve the burden on a BH-able node who DOES have that file. Therefore, the BH-able host would be able to satisfy the TRANSFER DEMAND placed upon it for that file better, by having some of that demand now offloaded onto the node which begins sharing. This appears to be a net benefit to the people who LIKE to find files by BH-ing people, as those nodes will be under less demand. Everyone wins.

;-)


He told one of our development staff that I was "not constructive" (paraphrased, I have the details at work).

I think he intended it, I just don't know why?!?

As far as Optional browsing - Keep in mind that I am not saying "i want to be completely anonymous", merely that "i don't want my IP address to be the only lookup key required to see my shared content."

If someone wants something from me, I (personally) want them to know WHAT they are looking for, before they can find out whether I am satisfying this desire or not.

As a coder, it isn't a huge issue for me (I can simply disable it locally) - merely the principle. But I know i'm not the only one who wants to be able to turn this off locally. At BS it was an option, and people used it often.

As far as "false security", locally not supporting this feature isn't meant to be a fix-all for security. Nor is it meant to make me anonymous. Therefore, any argument that "it doesn't make you secure" or "it doesn't make you anonymous" is more-or-less a strawman.

As I said in my above posts, why shouldn't I be able to close my (p2p) door without locking it, should I so desire? Just because closing it doesn't lock it (aka completely protect) doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to close it.

The biggest problem I forsee was mentioned inhouse by another developer, and that would be the "confusion factor" whereby non-technical users may think that "not browseable" == "not sharing". However, this is addressable in other ways, which don't invalidate the original desire.

For example, the first thing off my head to address that would be a popup box once the "disable BH" option were enabled which simply informed the user of what, exactly, the option did, and notifying them that they were STILL sharing the file to anyone who looked for it,

If that weren't acceptable, there are any number of other ways to address this sub-issue.

Per Schneier, a leading security expert, security measures are a series of compromises between actual security & usability.

Allowing a user to not have files listed based SOLELY upon knowledge of that user's IP address (even if there are other methods to find the shared files) is a _compromise_ designed to address one single channel for information leakage.

Does anyone have a good reason why I shouldn't be able to disable this feature for MY node, _regardless_ of whether YOU YOURSELF would want it disabled on your node?

My (continued) $0.02.....

-dave-

Thanks for the info Dave. I'll give the strawman argument more careful thought. I still can't decide the line between "More" security and False" security Well, that's like the "forced share" argument. It's upfront in Bittorrent, so that's OK. Of course you should not HAVE to share in gnutella---that's been a given for gnutella. Instead, leeches pay at least a social price. I agree that you have the right (and power) to make BH optional.

But, if BH was to be optional, I would like to see some reciprocal option: I want the option to only connect and upload to hosts that allow BH.

Sound fair?

(and best wishes with whatever you are coding to help make LW more secure, stable and responsive. I've been quite eager to see what you have and will come up with. If I'm not mistaken, your work in the past has greatly helped the security and growth of the network)

cheers

I've just found this thread looking for something quite different. I don't know why, but since I upgraded to 4.8.1 I just can't browse other host anymore.
I do it when I find a song I like that's no usually out there, hoping to find something else as interesting. I'm not trying to bother anyone, or spy or intrude... (sorry about my english, not my first language).
The other things that disappeared are the chat and the player. Don't know why either.
Anyone else with this sort of problems?
I have a G3, OS X 10.3.3.
thanks a lot

gripe

I can browse your host without the regular browse host feature with a set of 26 udp queries. Disabling browse host just disables a LimeWire feature, it does not increase your security in any way.

I'm sure you can
 

People with the interest, time and knowledge can enter your computer and do way more than browse a host.

I'm just thinking of all the REGULAR Joes that probably conform the majority of the network, who ask things like this.

We get this question every day, I think the users want this option for the next LimeWire. It's not a matter of security, but having a feeling of privacy, and also fairness.

See what the guy says, and this is what I feel when I can't browse a host, I know it's probably cause of network issues that you can browse them, but this guy had no clue about it, the first thing you might think of when you see that message on the screen is... "Am I browsable?" "How do I turn it off?" "Wow, how did he turn it off?" "Dear LimeWire, how do I turn off Browse Host?"

it's just a matter of being able to close your door to regular people, burglars will break in to your house If they really want something.

Anybody running LimeWire can be browsed. How is that not fair?

well my firewall just will block anyone from browsing my files i dont no how i did that but its great for security

If your firewall doesn't block uploads altogether, it won't block browse host requests.

I would like the option of having only people who let you browse their shared folders download from me only. I don't like people who don't share or let me browse. I am sure most feel that way.

browse host and sharing
 

I for one want the browse host option. Not to see what they are sharing. I want to know if they are sharing and how much. If I can not browse a host I will kill their upload. If they are not sharing anything then I will kill their upload. Sometimes you can bring a host up on chat and explain what I just said. If the host ignores my queries. I kill their upload. See a pattern developing here? Share with me or I won't share with you.
I am sharing about 5gigs. Not much compared to some. But I do not have a very large hard-drive. Thanks for letting me rant.

This is a very idiotic way to think. Gnutella is a free and open network. If people do not want to share, cannot share etc. that's perfectly fine. They might share in the future or share the files they have downloaded. If you think that someone's a free loader or selfish just because he doesn't share at any given moment, you have a very narrow mind. If people cannot download because of that, they'll consider Gnutella unfriendly and switch to something else. Once someone is familiar with Gnutella and starts to really like it, it's very likely that he starts sharing some content.

Do you think people without a homepage should not be able to browse the web?

mjolnirx
 

So if you if I don't agree with your way of thinking I am immeadiately branded an idiot and called names? Who is the one with the narrow mind? I say again. You don't share with me/ I won't share with you. Call me more names if it improves your self-esteem.

P2P networks--especially the open-standard ones--should rely as much as possible on the network rather than the client to provide fairness and efifciency, because someone will inevitably write a malicious client--in this case, one that doesn't upload its shared files list.

For that matter, the upload preference given to hosts who share at least a certain number of files is also suspicious: a malicious host can lie about the number; and if his shared files list is checked for verification, then he can share lots of useless files; and if file usefulness is a criterion, then he can say he has useful files that he doesn't.

Personally, I would like the option to not upload my shared files list. There's no guarantee that a host's files will be in any way related, and people may not want everyone to know some of the things they're into, if the other host isn't also into it himself (and hence downloading one of the pertinent files). And as far as anyone knows, the rìaa likely checks shared-files lists to decide whom to sue.

I am aware that my proposal would not hide shared files altogether, and of the resulting risk of a false sense of security. But that just means more user education is called for.

I am disturbed by stief's particular brand of laziness: think of the time it would take him to rename his files, versus the time and bandwidth that any number of users are spending, only to (say) download DCF-1234.JPG, only to decide it's not what they wanted.

lets hold hands and sing kumbaya
 

Seriously if you don't want to be browsed don't share any folders. Seems simple enough. I like to browse people sometimes just to see what other files they have more out of curiosity than anything. Though I do like the idea of having a private folder to share with invited guests.

pac

Sharing Files/host Browsing
 

First off....I don't have any files that I can legally share. YET. Actually...I completely mis-understood the service when I signed up. So I'm looking around right now. It's not like I find something...and then hide it so nobody else can get it from me...I just don't have anything. Also...Host Browsing? I like it for one good reason. If you find something you want...you can browse the host and find things you never thought of. Doesn't mean you have to drain just one person....but you take a look...find something you like...then do a search.

You because you didn't understand my post at all and probably didn't even try.

That's fine. Just fvck off. We don't people with your attitude in this world at all. I've probably shared and uploaded much more than you ever will, so cut the cr4p.

If I had to compile a list of people who's attitude really made the world a better place, your name probably wouldn't be on it either.

If somebody doesn't want to upload to freeloaders that's fine. It seems a lot less arbitrary than not uploading to Shareaza users because their software sucks... (which I do anyway).

Before the confusion & misunderstanding at the start of the thread, (get my breath back lol :D), there's a lot of people who find browsing a very important tool. Some misunderstand it. The browse tool is not perfect. I've browsed someone i was downlding from but even though the browse search completed with the search tab still up (not stop b/c they were not online or not browsable at that particular moment), there were zero results. This has happened many times. Yet these people are obviously sharing. The same applies to those who are uplding from me. Sometimes you can browse them & sometimes they give zero results (when they have the chat icon visible). But this doesn't necessarily mean they aren't sharing.

I use browse very, very frequently! I may browse someone & then browse the multiple results in the browse b/c I'm looking for particular files or hard to get files. And if these other people have similar then they may share what I'm looking for. If the browse function was taken away or limited even more from what it is then it would take away my abilities to find what i'm looking for & my general techniques for searching for particular material.

I respect some people may want to have some files they wish to keep private for just a certain group of people to share with. Perhaps a group of friends for example. This ability gives some people more confidence with their security with what they share. But at the same time, I believe that for the others who may desire the same files, they are out of the loop & will unnecessarily miss out at no fault of their own. So will that deteriorate the general accessibility of files to the general user. It certainly could.

So how do you balance it?

the browse should be optional, i totally agree but as it is not out yet i have had to resort to the only other option...I no longer share any files through

Hahahahaha! So you take everybody elses files but don't give back. Well that's your choice but that's exactly why people would like to see a fully functional freeloader filter for those who are miserly. Why should someone share 5,000 or more files with someone who doesn't share any? I agree with the freeloader filters & it's a pity they can't practically make them usable. Not that I mind people who are starting out with no shared files downlding from me. Because I don't mind!

* Perhaps we should have 2 Gnutella networks. A: One for those who don't share any files. B: And another for those who share at least 50 files each. lol :D Let's see how successful group A would be. lol :D

SO does Pat6290 want to be a part of Network A or B?????? :confused: :D :D

Give us "ONE" good reason why someone sharing 5,000 or more files should share with someone sharing ZERO files!???

Y do they refer to Gnutella as a community? Not just the different clients.

At least it isn't nearly as much as other networks e.g. WinMX were. However, community spirit is something that can a be very important factor in p2p networks. Social features like the possibility of creating chat-rooms or doing instant-messaging are probably the most effective tool to combat freeloaders.

Posted by: Grandpa on 07-01-2005 at 08:07 PM

"Hahahahaha! So you take everybody elses files but don't give back. Well that's your choice but that's..."

Sorry I accidentally deleted your post during efforts to rid of the futile & pointless comments by a guest.

HELP!!
 

under Lime Wire preferences it says "Chat"...... How do i chat with it??? i'v tryed lotz of things:confused: :confused:

People with Shareaza Neeever upload to me. They have like 1000 people in their queue. Like Edonkey or Emule. Oh, and to chat, right click a download or a host and click chat with user. Some people have chat disabled though because of people that just swear and say dumb things over and over again.

All you have to do to not be a freeloader is just make a text file write the letter a in it and save , then copy it a whole bunch and put it in a shared folder.

sharing
 

Wow! Talk about your over reaction. Don't even want me in the world, eh? Dude you should cut down on your sugar intake. Not only could you focus better you would be more reasoned in your behavior response. Lighten up a little. Why all the negativity and profane language? Want to be noticed? Not getting enough attention at home? I doubt that you have ever shared more than I have. I have been doing this since the advent of P2P. But if it makes you feel superior go ahead and think it. An additional quip on sharing. If no one shared then P2P's would be useless. Ok. I am bracing for your tiraid. Have a nice day.

Optional vs. Random
 

The thing that interests me about browsing in LimeWire is that it seems to be pretty much random. Sometimes when someone is uploading from me, I right-click and am given the options to kill the upload, chat with the host, or browse the host. Other times, I right-click and am given only the option of killing the upload.

Sometimes when the browse option is offered on right-click, I do so and get back a pop-up error message saying "unable to browse host .....". And sometimes, lo and behold, I actually am able to browse.

Philosophy aside, can anyone enlighten me as to what the technical reason for these various conditions might be?

I'm not sure how exactly LW determines if a host is browsable or not. However, the chat icon is a pretty good indication it "might be".

I think browsing a host is the equivalent of asking for a download slot, because all the same behaviour seems to apply.

If I download three files from a host which allows three per user, I can't browse it. If I download 2 files, then I often can browse.

Stief ...not always the case i think. I download a lot of files from a host who allows one at a time. He displays chat, but it never works, but it is always no problem to browse him. even if I am queued.

Interesting. I've been getting into the habit of browse first from the uploads or results page, so haven't noticed that with LW hosts. I have noticed that some of the newer Bears and Razas will do that.

Sometimes I browse others on the home network, and even then haven't been able to get a clear sense of why it sometimes works and othertimes doesn't :)

I figure browse host is currently low on the dev's priority list, and don't know when it will get a really good integration with all the other changes and developments.

That's interesting. I can sometimes browse people who don't have a chat icon listed. So perhaps it is open slot dependent. But I find browsing a host can sometimes help reactivate downlds. That's one of the big plusses I find with using it. Not to mention the others I mentioned earlier.

Hide and no tell
 

Ok I'm new but I soon learnt that if you want to download off people you need to share which I now do. What does annoy me is the amount of people that now don't share so after looking through the discussions I have atlast figured out how to stop freeloaders, I know its a shame as I understand how hard it was to start off with but I just got soo sick of the amount of people that were uploading of me and not giving anything back where someone that is sharing was having to Q & Q! Also yes it does sicken me when people do hide what their sharing as come on its not as if we know their home town or address so tho I have had a shock or TWO when I have been nosing about - Some sick people out their I don't know them tho some should be reported to the police and maybe put on the Sex Offenders List but I'm sure there's specialists out there that are tracing the people getting hard and aroused of the stuff.
Went a bit off there but hell needed to have that rant.

Anyone disagree or may agree??? :D :eek: :mad:

This thread will alsow interest you:

http://www.gnutellaforums.com/showth...=&pagenumber=1

Cheers
 

Thanks for that, It was one of the things I did so now no more freeloaders.
I was reading the link and there was one that said em I only share my music files cause when people try to upload media files from me it slows my computer down, well boo hoo!
I recently downloaded the new episodes for *************************and these are the ones that tend to be more popular with the uploaders as they are brand new - OH BIG THANKS TO WHO EVER LOADS THESE ONTO LIMEWIRE AS WOW YOU KEEP ME SANE!
My philosophy is you get what you pay for and if these people that only share music files want our media files they should share there media files as thats the whole point of these sites!

:p

I thought it would interest you, but I did also point you too it to show that you can never really tell if someone is a freeloader. I have a reasonable idea though ... I think:)

BTW you are forbidden to discuss the details of files on the forums which are possibly subject to copyright restrictions, This is in the forum rules, so I advise you to edit your post before the Moderators do:)

ANOTHER THANKS
 

Thanks, I never thought silly me, yeah I'm getting the picture very quickly.
It's kinda good to realise there are other people that feel the same about the whole not sharing.

browse host
 

We all joined this program to share files. You have the option of what file you want to share with others. I don't remember all the music titles or artists that I am looking for & if I see someone with the same music interests I would like option of checking their files. If you do not want to allow the host browsing than you are defeating the purpose of this program from the get go.