@Visitor: Yes, it is ineffective, for the moment. but you must understand that the original gnutella protocol was not designed for anything like ultrapeers. this system adds ultrapeer functionality to the network and still is 100% backwards compatible, that is amazing. it will definitely become more effective as more servents implement ultrapeers. old servents were not designed for it and of course they don't support it. extending open protocols is not easy and it always needs time.

There is a thread now for Ultrapeer posts. Ultrapeers are not a big problem, greed is.
Adam has already hinted that he can't touch the subject of greed because of his employer and that is understandable.
Greed restricts him too. We won't be debating that issue with him and that is why you all think no one is listening to each other.
Gnucleus has ultrapeer code in it if you get the latest CVS version, it works pretty good and seems to be compatible with the LimeWire system, more testing needs to be done.
BearShare 2.5 shoves ads in your face on the search list screen. It still spies on you, spy packets everywhere. Block it!

and a new block string to add: MorpheusPE MRPH

Gnutella without SPAM!

Unregistered, you don't really expect me to answer to a thread like that, do you? Yes, Ultrapeers are a very good thing to the network, and it seems even you understood that by now. Yet you are either not willing or not capable of changing your arrogant and ignorant behaviour.

as i understand your point of view, gnutella is fun. it is a network built by anarchists for anarchists and noone should use it to gain profit from it. therefore, the only clients allowed on this network should be open source ones.

i very much appreciate your marxist ideals, but you have to understand that you live in a capitalist world and nothing can change that. gnutella is an open network and that means open for everyone. If you want to improve opensource clients like gnucleus, do it, it's a good thing. but honestly, the most proposals for protocol extensions were created by corporations. For example, MetaData, Ultrapeer, QRP and Ping/Pong were all introduced by LimeWire LLC. These folks are working on Gnutella as a full time job, while opensource programmers do it in their spare time. we live in a capitalist world, therefore everyone must take money for his work. so either they earn the money by working on gnutella, or they work on something else and do gnutella in their spare time. that's reality.

When you call gnutella messages "spam" just because the servent who initially sent them displays ads in order to pay the bills, then you are either very stupid or ideologically blinded. i expect the letter one. adware is bad, but it is the decision of the lime users if they want it or not. it is not your decision to block those users. how many people chose to use the old morpheus? it had much more ads than lime, but it had the better features, so they chose it and that seems to be a good reason.

i tried to explain to you that limewire does in no way hurt the gnutella network. it is simply stupid to block them because your ideology tells you that noone should make profit from gnutella. if there are ads in Limewire, that is only of importance for the limewire developers and the limewire users. it doesn't effect the network at all. if you want to block every capitalist influence off your world, than you should first go and create a private noncapitalist internet, fo more than half of TCP/IP is used for commercial purposes.

it is you who hurts gnutella, not corporations.

PS: once again, this post is in no way about the politics of Bearshare. i cannot recommend to use Bear, for this program does cluster by vendor and not by feature, and as its encrypted packages are suspicious to me too.

So you basicly agree with Moak and [edit name-calling]. Only that they shoot against Limewire is something you disagree?

The high activity in this thread shows Gnutella has a true problem with greed. I do agree about Bearshare, but also Limewire has one foot on the greedy ground, they cooperate and call each other best friends; together with scumware and clustering (hostcaches and unnecesarry in a strange superpeer realisation) that is scarry.

you got me wrong. i used to agree with moak in the past, but i think he has gone too far. concerning greed, it is not a problem as long as the network is not hurt.

i can't see anyone hurting the network. i didn't believe the rumours that Phex/XoloX hurt the network with their automated queries, and i don't believe that LimeWire hurts the network with their clustering either.

however, i do agree with you were bearshare is concerned. i am convinced that clustering clients based on features is a good thing. i am however not convinced that clustering based on vendors is a good thing. but that is exactly what you are doing: by blocking specific vendors, you are in effect clustering specific vendors, and that is exactly what vinnie does. that is why Mr. Gone called you a Hypocrite.

further, i dislike how Bearshare completely stopped supporting 0.4 connections (hurting the network), because that is not "preferencing by feature", that is "blocking by feature". and i won't tolerate these spy packets (as they are a security issue). noone really knows what they are, and i don't believe vinnie that they contain only version numbers. it would be much easier to call home to bearshare.com.

but i don't advocate all the community to go and block bearshare. even if all bears were clustered together, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it hurts the network. if you disagree than please explain me why. think of the gnutella network as a large sphere and the bearshares as a small sphere inside the big one: that's what bearshare does. it could make it hard for non-bearshares to connect because Bearshare will not attempt their connection requests. that's the only issue i see with it.

Adam: is there a reason to completely stop support for 0.4 clients? how much of the network still uses 0.4, do you have any accurate statistics? i can't believe that this step was necessary, why didn't limewire use its good relationship to vinnie and tried to convince him to go on with 0.4 support?

No. The high activity in this thread shows that the Gnutella Community is very concerned about an unnecessary network split.

oh not again. please no "we know everything and you dont" attitude. You can not speak for everyone here, please make it a poll about greed.

why do you give Limewire a green card? They regular shake hands with bearshare, never critcize them and imitate step by step. You did not convince me Limewire's clustering is for feature. First, they created their own need for ultrapeer clustering with a complicate ultrapeer idea. Second, they cluster exactly like Vinnie (which you don't like), also Limewire hostcaches group own clients together.

Some abuse Gnutella today and create their own (proprietary) spheres inside Gnutella, they take the users and files away from other vendors, they hurt them. That's fair? Gnutella was a big network, why do you tolerate clustering in little seperated spheres? Really, I can't understand. You didn't convince me this is what users want.

I like your questions at the end of your post. Most people here are used to tolerate any Bearshare behaviour, especially inside the GDF. Have you seen Limewire once speak against Vinnie or a good word about (Vinnies hated) Xolox? All together makes also Limewire scarry for me. Not as much as Bearshare, but any spyware spreading vendor should not be treated as a saint.

Moak gone too far? Isn't any company distributing spyware an unethical company? Because Limewire is doing some help for the network, you still welcome them. Now they cluster users away from other and you still welcome them. What's next, how far may Limewire go? I agree Limewre is not the big evil, but they gone too far. Sorry afisk.
The tolerance level from Gnutella developers is unbalivable high, as you can see with Vinnie. He can do everything. [ironic start]But there is no greed in Gnutella.... no![ironic end]

I don't want to be a member of GDF. Limewire please stop the greed, stop becoming a second Bearshare and become someone we like again. If not, don't support Limewire/Bearshare.

The greed is destroying the integrity of Gnutella development since months. Open your eyes.

The problem of gnutella (greed) could maybe reduced to one word:

lobbying

The guys from GDF found each other about a year ago, worked together, improved something and are proud of what they did. Now they defend each other also if one or two member are a bit selfish. They tolerate as long as they still can participate somehow. If someone found a improvement, they are telling each other compliments and make it a standard, it works somehow. very human. frustrating for every new developer or every developer that is fallen from the noble table of the GDF. The GDF gained the status of a high society, ignoring what's going on outside. With that perspective in mind I can perfectly understand Limewire, they really believe they are doing a good work, there is no harming greed and Bearshare is a cool business alliance.

Unfourtunately Gnutella is not GDF only and GDF decisions outside the GDF do not look that bright, so do Bearshare and Limewire look not that bright. How many users and devleopers do need to complain until the GDF is becoming more open and a true gnutella developer community. No, Limewire is not the big evil... nobody told this... but some non-GDF developers do not tolerate their politics (as they don't tolerate bearshare).

It must be a suprise for you, but things have to change - or - Gnutella development will be splitted more and more. Don't close your eyes and talk about unimportant megapeer details, the network is splitting now.

Abaris, you are inconsistent here:

You say "even if all bears were clustered together, that wouldn't necessarily mean that it hurts the network." So how does it hurt the network if we cluster all non-Bears in response? In fact, arguably, we are achieving nothing, since the bears are already clustered 'away' from us, there is no real need for us to cluster 'away' from them.

I think the same argument extends to limewire, but see the sixth paragraph below because I don't think I need to argue the point further.

I can certainly understand people not wanting to take part in opensourcep2p, but all this uproar and fear and worry seems unwarranted. So unregistered is nearly as rude as Vinnie - but do you guys (afisk included) go harrassing Vinnie to change his ways? I wish you would, he is a w@nker.

Another note, Xolox and Phex are not the only ones which were blasting search packets. gtk-gnutella was sending them off (optionally) pretty damn often <I>[Edit note (I think from memory - maybe I'm confused with download retries)]</I>. Is this practise really so harmful to the network? I don't think so. It has been greatly overstated and is no reason to block a whole client.

There is a simple solution to this for any client who does think it's a problem - simply do not propogate a search packet if you just saw the same search from the same client 5 seconds ago. And this should be implemented in any good client anyway, to prevent deliberate abuse of the network. These types of sanity checks are totally standard practise for any sane internet client.

No need to block the Xolox, this was just an excuse by Vinnie to block a client, if you ask me.

So we want to block him back? Is that so unusual? Look at the West Bank - go try to talk them out of their revenge killings back and forth, not us out of a few little data packets we want to drop - there are a lot more lives at stake there. I think your concern is misplaced.

Most users when given the choice to block clients of their own choosing will block nothing, or will block bearshare (at the moment). After all, the more clients a user blocks, the less clients they can search, right? So they will only block the ones they really hate.

Unless a real lot of people choose to block something, you won't even notice the effect above the normal network noise of people logging off, swamped connections, etc etc. So it is only clients who do something really extreme that will ever find themselves 'suffering' from people blocking.

As for whether splitting the network altogether is a bad thing, I have argued this point before. The number of clients on the network is around 30-50 x generally accepted horizon size of 10000 machines. If some of these machines disappear to another network, then your horizon size hasn't changed. OK, Ultrapeers are <I>meant to</I> increase the horizon by 80 - 500 times, but are the users leaving limewire users? If not, limewire won't experience a difference.

And the bigger question - would they stay - would anyone joining opensourcep2p stay - if opensourcep2p wasn't there? People who are this annoyed with BearShare and feel threatened that more BS-like behaviour is going to encompass the gnutella .. many of them are going to leave gnutella anyway, I think. We are just the movement of those people who would like to continue to work on the existing protocol and clients, instead of trying some new protocol - there are plenty out there I'm sure.

You should be happy to have our input.

Nos
<I>[Editted 12.04.02 to add note about gtk hammering possible confusion],/I.