Quote:
Originally posted by Paradog
Hi, I myself am a GWC developer. I'm coding Lynn.
I have thought about caching more information like speed, file and library size. But after a short discussion with Hauke (the 'inventor) we both decided to remove it.
GWC should be simple and fast. That's why it was invented.
Also these infos could be faked by some wicked corporations 
G2 is not a Gnutella Protocol. Only Shareaza supports it.
A Pongserver is not an ultrapeer. A pong server only gives other people IPs and info about other gnutella node it can connect to, like a GWC. An ultrapeer brings a good structure into the gnutella net.
Maybe you should read up some info about gnutella (specs)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/files |
Well I am glade to see that the developers a gnutella are smarter than me
I am aware that g2 is only supported by shareza and such groups as limewire and BearShare oppose it. However if you look on
www.zeropaid.com it is the number one files sharing program. (Well it was for like a long time and it will be again in a day or so currently emule is #1) I disagree, I think G2 is a gnutella protocol in the since that it uses GWC and acts very similar. Calling G2 something outer than gnutella would be like calling g1 something other than gnutella form the standpoint of g.6. Of cores g1 may serve the community better than G2 for the argument is that G2 is not scaleable, which it may not be. Regardless of who is right or wrong G2 is showing grater results now if the results continue that is up to debate and only time will tell. However I feel that the developers that don’t agree with shareaza’s G2 are hurting them selves for at the very least they should look at the code and incorporate it with there current projects to improve gnutella and make G3 (out of spite of cores). My only hope is that the users benefit from this quarrel
I was simply tiring to think of a way to organize gnutella, which seems to be gnutellas biggest weakness. The more server based a p2p network gets the faster and more reliable it gets or so it seems. However the centralized a networks is the easer it is to be shutdown by the AA's. So my solution was to create a server that helped a network as much as possible but be indirect. I feel that improving GWC could serve that purpose.
I also feel that gnutella is failed to harness the power of idle speed on highspeed peers and the willingness that highspeed or people with access to highspeed to contribute to gnutella. If that failure is because of the lack of notification to the users about such program as a pong server than that is easily rectified. Such networks as eDonkey, Hotline, and DC are great examples of the willingness to contribute. I know that the developers of gnutella can tackle this problem better than I. But I feel the need to give back in whatever way I can.
I also under stand the malevolence of corporations, I also understand the damage that could result in such a case, and why you ceased the project for that reason. However that should not stop development of a way to organize gnutella for that is its greatest problem.
As far as GWC interrogating each peer that would be absurd, the client would have to do all the work and report the information to GWC. Of cores staying constant with the good will of the gnutella people it would not be mandatory however it should be strongly recommended and the source to do so should be made available.