Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!
Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh!

Next thing unregistered will do is sing:
"We shall overcome!"

I want something of whatever he's smoking!

AFisk,

I sure hope you didn't make that nice reply out of political motivations for PR reasons!

Nos

You should read this thread and the others a little more.
LimeWire is using us as support, we are running Gnucleus or another profit free, open source client.
LimeWire is using my CPU cycles and I didn't choose to let you profit off of my file sharing efforts.
It takes time and money for me to share my files. I pay for a ISP, I pay for electricity, I spend time deleting spam from my files, I buy large hard drives, I mantain my system, etc...
I don't want that effort going towards your personal gain. You have no right to use my CPU & resources to profit without re-embursing me.
If you ran your own private LimeWire network then you would have to pay for that out of your own pocket.
When I share, I don't expect a third party (LimeWire corp) to make a profit from my efforts.
This is why we are blocking for profit clients.
The blocking is happening on Gnutella at the users choice, and on OpenSource P2P it's the "standard" to block them.
The more you spam/adware/spyware/cluster and a lot of other nasty things, the more people will block you on Gnutella. So you better watch how greedy you get.
Any developer making a buck like this is scum, the lowest kind. Like I said before, get a real job and quit sucking off of Gnutella.
Gnutella is not a corporate goldmine.

Afisk,
I tried to tolerate your junior companies politics for month, after all I see there is no way for me to cooperate with Limewire or Bearshare anymore. Very disappointed I have to say cooperation with you is inefficient and unethical in my honorable opinion. I will go a different way, not with GDF and maybe not even Gnutella (well let's see what about those rumours that Xolox comes back and if there is a possibility to participate and give Gnutella a push forward). I don't think I'm forking development, I think that is something you, Limewire and Vinnie can write on your card.
What happened to Limewire, you have been a positive example in many aspects?! Everything regret-worth started with spyware, lies, closer cooperation with Vinnie and finally clustering... come on Adam, don't think free developers will look at this and say "yes we help them with our knowledge and ideas". I'm sorry you didn' found any business concept, perhaps you should have spend some time on conversation and listening too others in the past, but the position you maneuvered now makes yourself very unattractive and you don't even move a little step.
About GDF and developers outside (maybe you GDF members should have look outside your own hood), there are/was Pasman (Xolox), Raphael (gtk-gnutella), GodxBlue (Peeranha), Etzi (Qtella) and Max (mutella) and more I had mail contact or meeting on IRC or here on Gnutellaforum. Some made it to the "high society" GDF, some not... those who are not saticfied with things done inside the so called GDF I would like to advice to participate here on Gnutellaforum - or build up a new Gnutella Development Community. I did set up an alternative mailinglist for interested developers, it's running for some weeks... visit IRCnet channel #gnutelladev or contact Morgwen.

Greets, Moak

PS: Morgwen/Cyclo, why not making this thread sticky?

Thx for reply.
About lies from Limewire, really again? I refered to the old spyware story when users (including me and Morgwen) detect some so called Adware and that some spyware was installed always without asking the user... we were all gently told telling conspiracy theories. The spyware story could be found in the General Gnutella forum, more old posts should be still in the Limewire forum. Perhaps someone would like to search them and post the links again, I'm too tired to roll it up again, after all it was confirmed and is well documented.

About Superpeers, I'm glad that after over 6 months speaking for it, it's on the way into Gnutella. It's a little bit dissapointing it's now called Ultrapeers, came so late but with so much propaganda... without having it for general Gnutella. Ultrapeer hype reminds me to the second propaganda of Gnutella these days, swarming. There is no "swarming" in Gnutella, mostly not even an upload of unfinished files. For a developer it's a unaccapteble to see vendors throwing with empty words, while Gnutella technology in reality is still months/years behind (e.g. eDonkey, FastTrack).
Thx for the rumour that superpeer need clustering... that's one of the _best_ rumour I heared the last weeks. What makes you think a reliable supeerpeer concept does not work together with every client, please don't hesitate with technical details. May I help with one argument: when every peer is a superpeer, we don't need them anymore. A superpeer concept mainly balance load and reduce traffic between non superpeer capable clients (e.g. modem users), there is statistically no need to cluster away from non-superpeer peers in that amount and current network situation. Actually you try to advantage you own clients a little bit (how unfair), clustering because of Superpeer concept is technical nonsense and no need to do. Since you don't see yourself as one Gnutella client anymore, you see yourself as "LimeWire". Sorry, this is against (my) idea of Gnutella and an open protocol.

About the "stealing cycles" issue - that's Kazaa not Limewire.

Moak-

Thanks for getting back to me. The lying thing is, honestly, ridiculous. I've been here the whole time. I build the installers that bundle all of the spyware. So, if any lies were told, they would have been told by me, and there's nothing I've lied about.

Since we started bundling other programs, LimeWire has always bundled Cydoor without asking the user. We never lied about it. We just did it. It's an ad engine, and LimeWire serves ads.

As you know, we also install TopMoxie without allowing the user to opt out. We don't lie about this either. We tell you in the first screen in the installer what we're doing.

The only other thing I can imagine that you're referring to is the ClickTillUWin scandle. We really did think that the ClickTillUWin executable was just installing a desktop icon because that's what the resellers told us, just as they told BearShare, Kazaa, Grokster, etc. All of us removed it as soon as we realized that it was not doing what we had been told it would do.

That's it, man. Really. That last one's pretty bad. If we had been installing other crap on user's systems, I would honestly tell you.

Anyway, I'll try not to get so defensive. It's just that I haven't lied about anything and don't like people thinking that I have.

As far as UltraPeers, I assure you that LimeWire did not generate any of the propaganda that came with their arrival. We do not control what gets written on ZeroPaid, gnutella.com, etc.

On the UltraPeer issue in general, UltraPees do work seamlessly with every client, and every UltraPeer holds connections to older clients. The UltraPeers do, however, preference other UltraPeers simply because their trying to create the best network possible. If UltraPeers did not cluster, their impact would be reduced, and users would simply not get the increase in scalability that UltraPeers were meant to bring. The reason for preferencing them is basically just that in hitting one UltraPeer with a query, you're in fact hitting up to as many as 80 (and in the future up to perhaps 500) nodes on the network (the leaves of the UltaPeer), as opposed to just hitting one node with a normal connection. It's just a much better network model that improves Gnutella for everyone, and we're clustering them because otherwise you don't get nearly as much improvement.

God, I'm writing a lot today, huh? What's up with that? =) Take care.

Adam,
I don't doubt your a friendly and sympathic person. Unfortunatly, the decisions of your company do not implify telling the truth and technical needed decisions. Limewire definitely did not tell the full truth about spyware, and somebody from your company called me "spreading X-cases" to make me silent. It wasn't easy to discover the truth about your Spyware - and it's still bundled (not everything is opt-out) and will infect hundreds of newbie users.

About clustering again, that sounds like an excuse. The clustering is not originated at your "Ultrapeer" only, it also comes from your hostcaches too. For both I see no technical reason, perhaps your superpeer model is not very reliable and shold be improved. Let's go into detail:

> The reason for preferencing them is basically just that in hitting
> one UltraPeer with a query, you're in fact hitting up to as many
> as 80 (and in the future up to perhaps 500) nodes on the network

First, my horizon is much bigger than 80 or 500 peers now. Second, how will you improve your total accumulated horizon on that 6x size, without the other non-limewire clients involved? Your basic estimation must be wrong or will abuse other disadvantaged clients. It still sounds like a two class community for me.

> It's just a much better network model that improves Gnutella
> for everyone, and we're clustering them because otherwise you
> don't get nearly as much improvement.

You described that a superpeer model is better, yes I highly agree that dynamic network structures are what we dream from today. But you did not describe how clustering will improve that superpeer model. As I told before we do not need a 100% staturation of superpeer in a horizon, of course a small percentage is far enough. Don't forget normal peers users act as links in networks too and many can be grouped/shielded behind superpeers. We have a decentral Gnutella network, if you want a centralized system full depending on clustered superpeers, I which you good luck against RIAA. Yeah, the outdated centralized eDonkey superpeer concept works much faster currently (it has even more features as your "Ultrapeer" concept AFAIK), unfortunatly a network structure based on central servers or client monoculture can be easily shut down or attacked.

Don't forget that clustering is not fair and will create a two class Gnutella. Don't create selfish advantages for yourself. This reminds me so much to Vinnie's politics, do you think your client will win the run (especially with that market share you have today)? What happens if Xolox comes back again, with more astonishing technoloy as last time? Or disadvantaged devlopers will not tolerate that unfair behaviour in future and hold back their own improvements.... what you do is causing as split of Gnutella.

Greets, Moak

How did we not tell the truth about spyware? I'm telling you that I built all of the installers. I included all of the spyware that we've ever added to the program. The only thing that was ever not explicitly mentioned in the installer with it's own panel was Cydoor (although it was mentioned in the license agreement). Users knew pretty quickly that something like Cydoor was installed when they ran the program and saw the ads.

Now, we install TopMoxie and Cydoor, and niether are opt-out. There's no lying involved anywhere along the line, no matter how you cut it.

On the clustering issue, I really don't think we should even get into the host caches. LimeWire spent a lot of money to maintain these servers, both for hardware and bandwidth, and they were publicly available for over a year. We did not have to do this. We spent a lot of $$ to allow anyone experimenting with a Gnutella servant to easily connect to the network.

The clustering issue has nothing to do with the UltraPeer model. It simply has to do with the fact that, at any given TTL, if you're connected to mostly UltraPeers on a given path, you will reach 50-500 times as many other computers as you would otherwise reach, simply because each UltraPeer has, in theory, 50-500 leaves (currently up to 80, more in the future). Here's an UltraPeer diagram for anyone unfamiliar with the concept:

On the horizon issue, I wasn't saying that a given horizon was 50-500 nodes, I was saying that the horizon with UltraPeers is 50-500 times greater than without UltraPeers. The horizon is in the thousands with either model. So, preferencing UltraPeers is just a means of trying to offer a better network to the users of the network, specifically about 50-500 "better".

In our view, this isn't a matter of fair. It's a matter of creating technology that works well. Anyone who implements UltraPeers will also be preferences in UltraPeer connections (although please note that other connections are still allowed). It's also not a matter of who "wins." None of the other major client developers has expressed any concern with our preferencing. Why? Because they know that all they have to do is implement the feature, and then they too will become a part of a network that works 50-500 times better. If we didn't preference UltraPeers, we'd be talking about a network that works maybe 10-50 times better. That's a big difference. I really just don't get it. All of the UltraPeer specifications are published in detail with the hope and intention that others will implement it, because it makes the network better if they do. That's it. Selfish advantage? These things are not at all an issue of "we win, you lose" type thinking. That's really the beauty of an open network. If you introduce features that improve it, EVERYBODY WINS! Xolox, Bearshare, Swapper, Toadnod, everybody. Talk about "holding back features" is just ridiculous. That's like LimeWire holding back UltraPeers out of some sort of protest until we get our way on some random issue. It just doesn't make sense.

Attached Images

supernode_diagram.gif (9.0 KB, 132 views)

Oh, for anyone else reading this, in most cases UltraPeers have more connections than is shown in the diagram (the nodes with a lot of other computers connected to them are the UltraPeers). They're also ideally connected to each other with far fewer cycles.

Good luck.

I see you deny the lies of the past and don't move a bit. As I described in my post on the first page, there's no possibility of cooperation with that politics, for me. I share my knowledge at some fair places. So long, Moak

PS: thx for some superpeer basics for our readers, but you didn't really explain why clustering improves a supperpeer concept, clustering is only a selfish action.