OpenSource P2P Debate, it's about choice

[mandexlufc]

I did! Why do you think I have so much time to sit here and do all this?

[brb23]

good point!

[Blackend Blood 90 :)]

If you note the title of this thread, the topic is OpenSource P2P. If you want a BearShare debate maybe you should start another thread.

[Fawnish]

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:

[lovepinkkx17]

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)

[cindy-lu-who]

Sorry,

but some people here (including me) are not very good friends from Vinnie, so they are "slightly" agressive in their view!

Did you ever visited bearshare.net? If not visit it and you will see what is really agressive!!!

But we respect your view and what you said - I do!!!

I want that Gnutella will stay Gnutella but I can

[Ngo Liverpool]

How? Prove your words!

Seperating is now taking away the freedom?

You should tell Vinnie that he takes away our freedom too!

Vinnie made the rules other follow the rules its simple!

Morgwen

[wildhorse i]

There have been a lot of accusations and crap leveled at me for dropping 0.4 connection support but the simple fact is that the 0.6 handshake method is a MUCH more robust system for implementing "temp hosts".

In other words, when a 0.4 host connects to you and you are "full" (i.e. you have no free host slots) you have no choice but to send them 10 (or so) pongs and then disconnect.

During this time, the other host is free to send you queries and pings and pongs and what not, and you have no choice but to accept them (since shutting down the receiver would cause a TCP RESET and prevent the pongs from being delivered).

Using the 0.6 handshake, it is possible to inform the remote end that the servent is full, still deliver alternate IP addresses (via X-Try) and gracefully close the connection.

And its even possible to avoid a TIME_WAIT state, by simply waiting for the remote end to shut down (if you were the one who accepted the connection).

Clearly, this is WAY more efficient than supporting the old 0.4 connections. Personally, I *like* clean code, and it was very therapeutic to lop off the old 0.4 code since what was left is much cleaner, less buggy, and easier to work on.

It also performs much better, and allows us to leave the user with NO time wait states.

But there are certain people (called Trolls) who are just pissed off for one reason or another (admittedly I might have rubbed a few people the wrong way in the past), and see fit to criticize both BearShare and Vinnie (that's me) for dropping 0.4 connection support.

[gatorgirl]

IANAL, but from the GPL:







If it's compiled into the gnucleus source code, and distributed together I believe you must also release the source code to these modifications. At least that's how I understand it. I still hope you're trolling (the gpl and this privacy crap? haha), or have a good explaination of how you interpret the gpl differently from me.

[bmqsnowboarder]

Before this I had no choice.
For example: it seems that when I connect to one BearShare node, then others connect back till I have nothing but BearShare nodes connected. (I am using Gnucleus)
I search and most of the results come from BearShare nodes.
I don't know about you, but BearShare people don't seem to know what good music is. I have my own tastes you know.
So now I can selectivly block BearShare or Morpheus, or even Gnucleus and move around the network to find my music or any other rare files.
It's so nice to have that choice!
If I hear something on the forums here about a client getting greedy, or spying on it's users, I have the choice to block that client and not support it by letting it use my computer network resources.
When I hear that that client has removed the spyware, I can simply change a few settings and that client is not on my bad list anymore.
Power to the people!
If I hear that a old client is creating a problem for the network, I can simply add it to my list to help the network without waiting for a developer group to decide what to do.
What could be so wrong with giving the users a choice?