Slashdot Mirror
Gnutella2 Specs - Part 1
Mr Fodder writes "The first part of the Gnutella2 specs are finally up." Our previous Gnutella2 story has a little more information.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
great.. let me create a fork of another open protocol such as freenet, openft, or even gnutella, and call it gnu3. i can have the first gnutellav3 client done by tommarow. it'll be on slashdot in a week.
there is quite a bit of danger to your reasoning. an official gnutella2 standard should be adopted, instead of one client calling it's new protocol the next gnutella protocol.
OpenOffice recently asked the P2P community to help out in distributing it's massive install file over their networks.
5 PC RWCT7Y.XKR2LGSL2K3DR4CTE5H5PDZGQCZOKN2NJWOOQHQ&dn= OOo_1.0.1_Win32Intel_install.zip
It's now on Gnutella2.
magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:S5Q756FJ7326XXDGA7KZBF2
I get 15 sources in seconds. (G2 required - good luck on G1)
In the United States (at least), everything made since 1923 was, has been, and still are copyrighted, even if they were never registered with the copyright office. So everything you see on a peer-to-peer network is indeed copyrighted.
A more approriate question (as some of the responders have answered) is if anyone has used a peer to peer network for a legitamite purpose. The problem here is that the issues are quite grey. If I have Game X, or Game System version 1.1 can I download copies of the games/BIOS/etc. online for use with emulators/replacements for broken discs/etc.? If an online broadcaster, paying royalty fees, uses ABAcast or Peercast to distribute their works, do I in turn have to pay royalty fees since I am rebroadcasting them?
Unfortunately, there is a major gap between what people think they can do under copyright law and what they actually can do. While I have not extensively researched the above (IANAL), technically, all the above commonly considered legitamite things are *illegal* unless you have worked some deal out to repay the copyright holders.
The problem you really should be asking is if anyone uses P2P networks to delibrately distribute their copyrighted works, either as a primary or secondary channel. A few minor bands likely do. The next question is if you'll ever find them on Slashdot. And I do not know the answer for that.
Note I personally have *never* used Napster, Gnutella, Kazza, or any of the other networks, mainly because being caught doing so may jepordize my ability to be hired in certain areas. I used to be one of those nasty college network administrators trying to keep your P2P usage down because it overloading our bandwidth, and we could not order a significantly bigger pipe because our local phone switch could not handle it. Feel free to flame me for my ignorance as you will.
That's funny, because it seems to work just fine with other clients. At this very minute, I'm connected to 1 Shareaza Hub and 3 Limewire UltraPeers.
I don't blame you for spouting such FUD, as I assumed that Shareaza was trying to hijack Gnutella as well. But by actually using it, I've realized that it's not. Nor is it spyware ladden like KaZaa or LimeWire ("repackaging" aside). It's actually the best gnutella client I've ever used.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
Dont get me wrong its not to help the RIAA or anything. I just would like a peer network where you could exchange only free uncopyrighed stuff. Today such things drown in britney Spears and porno and goes unoticed. A browsable peer network filled with only free stuff would lift it up and give legitimacy to peer networks. Today people trying to distribute free or new music etc. dissapears totally from the surface under a big pile of copyrighted crap. Pirating is actually in essence hurting unsigned and struggling musicians.
Maybe im the only one in the whole world who doesnt like to pirate, i dunno.
HTTP/1.1 400
"I am curious to hear stories of anybody who has at any point used gnutella to do anything but transmit copyrighted material in any substantial way."
I can't help noticing a similarity between copyrighted material on p2p, and porn on home video. Just as porn drove home video technology into becoming an industry and commodity, copyrighted stuff seems to be driving file sharing network technology toward becoming a viable distribution method. Right now, p2p seems to be approaching an adolescent stage of development, as it begins to address scalability issues and alternative applications like efficient radio broadcasts. This technology is becoming more useful, and as it does, I expect it will used to solve more problems than just swapping MP3s.In other words, don't assume just because you see copyright infringement now, that the tech won't be something we all rely on for legal activity in the future.
there is quite a bit of danger to your reasoning
I dunno - if it maintains backward compatibility and doesn't break the network then what's the harm? If it's a better protocol and people migrate to it then we have progress. Design by committee is all well and good except that it's really slow and can get political, especially when commercial interests get involved. Sometimes the best decisions are not made. Survival of the fittest is the best approach
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Image if the same anti-Linux organization posted trojan-containing distributions and started sending them out over ftp or http... all it takes is a few people too lazy to check their hashes and it will become impossible to audit back who released all the exploits into the wild.
Nope. It'd come out that the University of Middle-of-Nowhere's FTP mirror got hacked, so anybody who downloaded from them should check to see what they got. If you decide to download your Linux from an FTP server that's known to be owned by Microsoft, you need professional help. In being able to trace back who you downloaded from in real-identity rather than username form, it gives you a much better trail for reporting untrustworthy servers. Especially if you work in the ad business and instead of having an ftp server you have a p2p client where people can transfer clips etc etc using the existing network. Just, there are so many uses for P2P besides violating copyright.
Nah, FTP is still better for that use. An FTP server isn't that hard to set up, there are plenty of open source packages to pick from. Almost every web browser is capable of downloading over FTP, so your client likely already has the software they need, rather than asking them to download a special (offen spyware-laced... boy is that unprofessional) client.
Moreover, wouldn't this kind of communication be something only your client should see, and not something left out for other people to grab. Sure, you could sit and cancel every other user who tries to grab that file while you wait for the client to take the file, but that means you have to be there the whole time the file is up. As compared to FTP, where you can set it up so only the somebody who knows the right username/pw can get at the file, none of the P2P programs let you do that.
I'm not disputing that there are uses for P2P that don't violate copyright... I'm saying that P2P sucks compared to the mainstream protocols such as FTP, HTTP, SMTP/POP3 e-mail, etc.
Huh?
All of them are different, but let's take a look:
FastTrack -- the protocol is barely an improvement over the original gnutella, and with some additions from the LimeWire people, there are no improvements. It's also closed.
DC -- totally different, and from a technical perspective, much less impressive. Little more than IRC+DCC with a non-idiotic interface.
May we never see th
FastTrack -- the protocol is barely an improvement over the original gnutella, and with some additions from the LimeWire people, there are no improvements. It's also closed.
The FastTrack protocol is vastly superior to Gnutella, especially the original Gnutella. It is, quite simply, one of the best, if not THE best, P2P protocol out there.
DC -- totally different, and from a technical perspective, much less impressive. Little more than IRC+DCC with a non-idiotic interface.
DirectConnect interface non-idiotic?!? DC has the stupidest interface of any P2P app I've ever seen. People keep bitching about how hard eDonkey or WinMX are to use (for example), but if anything, those are WAY simpler than DC. Just point and click your way to downloads. I have yet to download a single file via DC. The thing flies in the face of everything users expect of P2P apps, and even Windows apps in general. It's a disgrace.
Just my opinion though, move on, nothing to see here.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you should have the courage to put your name to your utterances.
It isn't a new searching mechanism at all, it is still using a brain-dead broadcast search. Link compression, partial file sharing, and the other features you mention are just putting lipstick on a pig. Oh really, so you must know how many people are using Freenet? What? Have you ever even used it? I have, and it works fine for me. Utter bullcrap. You have obviously never tried to use Freenet. What spec? I don't run Windows. Sounds like you need to take your own advice.