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?]