Slashdot Mirror

The problem I see is not whether the protocol itself can scale, we are seeing numerous "tweaks" that will allow this ( Clip2's Reflector and Bearshare.net's forthcoming 3.0.0 "Defender" release) What I see as the problem is the splintering and added features being incorporated by the different Gnutella Clients: Gnotella has added "Improved bitrate scanning", BearShare and Limewire's Firewall Detection, as well as other "extraneous" features, that add information to the gnutella packets. How long will it be before these clients cause sufficient incompatibility that seperate, client specific networks arise? What we really need is an agreement between the different developers to pass on these extra packets, or agree on a central "feature set". I am not advocating that we do away with the myriad gnutella clinets, I think there variety and different personalities are great. I just don't want to see the community splinter through incompatibility issues.

-OctaneZ
(What I would really like to see is a native applications similar to Clip2's reflector for both WIN32 and Linux that serves as a "network server" only, that uses low CPU and large numbers of connections for people who believe in the Gnutella idea and are graced with highspeed connections.)

There are some very interesting proposals for the next version listed on the gPulp site.

When I first saw it was ''talk before code'' my heart sank, but some of the proposals are actually very good.

Also, I noticed at the Gnotella page that the author is pointing out that Gnutella has being going downhill - no wonder, I find it much harder to get anything useful from it than with Napster.

It sounds like you need to find a client that limits simultaneous uploads. Gnotella (Win32), for example supports this feature.

If you're using Windows, check out Gnotella it allows you to set total number of uploads, and throttle bandwith. The UI, however, sucks rocks and often becomes unresponsive. It's also not Free.

The original Gnutella client isn't the 'officially recommended' client anymore -- they now ask you to use Gnotella.

With the old client you couldn't restrict bandwidth or number of node connections, so it is a good idea to pick another one if you're connected for more than an hour.

And there is a ton of other clients, some with source.

OTOH, nowadays you just have to shout "Napster" to get 120,000 hits in 12 days. Slashdotted two times, CNET two times, CNBC TV, USA Today front page -- if you have some TCP/IP programming skills and want to be famous, you should work on .. well, perhaps Stitchster for sharing those needlepoint patters?

--

Gnutella IS a non-profit piece of software that does what you say it doesn't. I invite you to go to the Gnutella site, as well as visit the Gnotella site as well. Perhaps your cluon concentration will increase.

--

GnutellaNews, Gnotella, Gnutella(.wego.com), Gnutmeg, AudioGnome, MyNapster, FreeNet, Jungle Monkey, Scour Exchange, Spin Frenzy Exchange, ChartBox 0.91, Gnutella MP3 Search, Gnute, Metallicster, CuteMX, IMesh, Hotline, FileSwap, OpenNap

> It's not about the record companies screwing the little guys... It never has been, and I've definitely had enough of this bloody topic!

Not correct. This is definately about just what you said it isn't: namely, the record companies screwing the "little guys". But not only them--which I assume you mean the consumers--but the artists as well. The only people in the entire marketplace who are happy with the RIAA, MPAA, et. al., are the RIAA, MPAA, et. al. Both the consumer and the artist have bitch gripes with these entities; Napster is the lighting rod for brining these issues to the foreground.

Which issues? Namely that intellectual property in the digital age is a conept that needs major legal readjustments, especially in the face of the following facts:

1) MP3 and similar audio & video compression technologies allow media to be stored in a compact format.

2) The slow but steady increase in the availability of high-bandwidth services allows for distribution of these.

3) The distributed nature of the Net makes it very difficult to prosecute individual users. Centralized services such as Napster are easy targets; Gnutella & FreeNet are next to impossible to control.

The issue is whether or not these factors lead to the conclusion that the record companies are out of date. The primary purpose of a record company is as a distribution mechanism. Once upon a time it was economically beneficial for artists to work with record companies in order to efficiently distribute their works. This is no longer true. An artist can simply set up a web page with their tunes readily available; the record company as distributor has become unnecessary. With technology being at the state it is now, BMG, Sony, and all the rest are simply unneeded middleman. They are hurting, not helping, the market in this respect by impeding the free-flow of goods. (And by free, I mean free.)

The secondary purpose of a record company is marketing. Bill Hicks once said "If you're in marketing or advertising do me a favor and kill yourself. You serve no rational purpose." Definately not-PC, but there is a kernel of truth to this: namely, that marketing is about lies and deception. The desire to buy is inflated by advertisers not because of intrinsic worth, but because of chicks in bikinis, or making it look uncool, or whatever means are available that mostly do not reflect the truth of the situation. Advertising is about emotive responses; advertisers get scared whenever consumers begin to actually use their brains as a reasoning tool.

I can't speak for everyone, but this really annoys me. I do not believe people should lie unless it is absolutely necessary. That's just wrong. I don't have many scruples, but this is one that seems to be pretty workable. Since advertising is mostly based upon lying, I hold advertisers to be worthless turds as a whole. This is admittedly a crass ad hominem attack, but it is one that I find difficult to escape.

If record companies are removed from the equation, then musicians will rise to the top based upon whatever factors currently resonate with the listeners. There will be no corporate executives deciding what the market does or does not want (which happens, I imagine, quite frequently.) More variety will be available, and I cannot help but believe that this will be a Good Thing(tm). In my fantasy world, banal tripe such as Backstreet Sync and Brittney Aguillera will be delegated to Saturday morning "Say No To Drugs" propaganda.

By impeding the way for MP3 distribution channels to function unmolested, the record companies are serving their bottom line only, not artists, not consumers, not the music industry as a whole, not the market as a whole. They are an unneeded barrier towards a smoothly functioning economy. They act as a pseudo-governmental entity, using the power of their attorneys to coerce both listener and artist to do their bidding. Their lobbying of Congress is famous, their rhetoric almost religious in its tone.

The facts being what they are, there are two obvious remedies available:

1) Do not change IP laws. Step up enforcement of existing copyright laws. This will entail more law enforcement officers, perhaps even necessitating a new UN enforcement agency or something under the Department of Justice in the US.

2) Change IP laws. Allow artists control of their works to distribute as they wish. Encourage a "common carrier" interpretation of the laws insofar as Napster-ish companies are concerned. Don't panic! The world will not end EVEN IF 95% of the population downloads their songs, movies, or books of of the internet.

There are only two absolutely necessary components to music: a performer, and an audience. Technology has frequently been a means to streamline business processes. This can lead to short-term losses such as when robots replace factory workers, cow-milking machines replace udder-pullers, or spreadsheet programs make bookkeepers unnecessary. Similary, the recording industry is an antiquated business schema that only serves to hinder the relationships between artists and their afficiandos. Radical changes to IP law are unlikly, considering the fact that so much precedent exists. But changes on the edges can (and should) be made, lest we have rapant wiretapping and further swells in our prison population.

Unless you are already working on a clone, probably not. There are already a heap of clones under development. Take a look here.

There is a gnutella chat forum at gnutella.nerdherd.net/phorum, and there is a section there for making feature requests too. I think the clone developers probably keep an eye on these.

For anything else gnutella based, you can probably find the answer somewhere on gnutella.nerdherd.net. Just browse around the site a bit.

BTW, .56 has been out for three or four days now. You need to speed up that back end processing Slashdot ;)

Unless you are already working on a clone, probably not. There are already a heap of clones under development. Take a look here.

There is a gnutella chat forum at gnutella.nerdherd.net/phorum, and there is a section there for making feature requests too. I think the clone developers probably keep an eye on these.

For anything else gnutella based, you can probably find the answer somewhere on gnutella.nerdherd.net. Just browse around the site a bit.

BTW, .56 has been out for three or four days now. You need to speed up that back end processing Slashdot ;)

According to the FAQ, this program is "a tool for general peer-to-peer file-sharing" that does not need the Wrapster archiver. "It can be used to share spreadsheets, source code, design documents, really any file on your computer," meaning it could provide a distributed system for sharing files, so that mirrors of popular free software projects don't get Slash-DoS'd as easily.

I thought AOL pulled the plug at 0.48, so what's with these new versions? Who is producing them? Are they official? Are more coming?

In the interest of protecting those involved, it can only be said that these versions are being produced by someone with access to the source code. No, of course they're not official in the gnullsoft sense, but let's just say that they're legitimate. I would certainly expect more versions, since we've already seen several materialize.

But only one person has access to the source code.. or has it been released?

Now you're starting to get the picture. No, the source still hasn't been released.

Since it's kinda pointless to use GNUtella without servers.... check This website out... it also has updated versions that were previously unreleased (up to 0.50c now)

-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

gnutella protocol, reverse engineered for your hacking pleasure =)

There are quite a few gnutella clones popping up. Unfortunately, this one was written in pascal of all things. There are a couple extremely promising C based gnutella clones, including this one for which the source hasn't yet (but will be) released. Enjoy! =)

-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

Isn't that what Gnutella is for??

Gnutella homepage

This contains links to server lists, official clients, protocol information, and all the unofficial clients that are currently in development. The only really usable ones are for Windows at the moment, but there is a Linux console version coming on very well.

Now, Napster does what it does (mp3's) very well, but I'm not sure cludging it via Wrapster is that good an idea. Programs like cuteMX, iMesh and Gnutella have been designed for all types of files, so why not use those instead?

** Martin

A post above mine revealed the answer.
The answers can be found here.
The faq sayeth all. :)

The protocol is peer to peer, not server-oriented like Napster. You only need to know the address of one connected host to join the network. Here is one: findshit.geekpalace.com:6346

More details can be found here.

So basically, consider this study completely irrelevent.

I don't know about your school, but mine doesn't let students run web servers in the dorms on their personal computers unless they sign a big paper full of restrictions: No web servers for anything but educational use. No anonymous FTP sites. No *anything* on non-standard ports. No firewalls. No portscan blockers. And on and on. If ya want, you can read about it at the Geek Oppression page under the story on UCLA.