Slashdot Mirror


The Gnutella War: Free vs. Commercial

Anenga writes "Slyck has an interesting interview with Mike of Shareaza regarding Gnutella2 (see older stories), where he expresses his opinions on how Gnutella2 has been recieved within both the user and developer community. The reaction from the top commercial clients, Limewire and BearShare, on Gnutella2 (as seen in the GDF and elsewhere) is that they will not support it because of how it was presented, however, Gnucleus (free, open source) plans to support it and feels the GDF is not seeing the bigger picture. John Marshall of Gnucleus says 'Now it's more like "Free vs Commercial" clients, which [the latter] would rather develop their own next generation protocol (which would probably never happen).' The article in short: Shareaza will keep Gnutella2 open/free, it's already been very successful with a 80-100k growing userbase, Gnutella2 was *not* based on Limewire's GUESS proposal and is in fact very different from it and Shareaza will continue to both support the original Gnutella ('G1') and of course G2."

2 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. The ral problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The problem ... probably is power, money, image, ...

    Do you know certainly that both servents ... BearShare and LimeWire ... are not completely free ... both are full of ad/spyware (in free version).
    Probably is not good for BS e LW that a young programmer .... has created so a great, new, advanced, ecc... in so little time.
    And the last thing ... this new protocol ... G2... has been the TOP!

  2. Re:Some clarification by imr · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    about 4, he took it from the article:
    In terms of the network size, the highest Gnutella2 node capacity I've seen so far is about 200,000 nodes and growing. Node capacity is a bit different to the number of unique users, as the network has a high level of built-in redundancy. That would equate to somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 actual unique users online.
    that's Shareaza talking here, so that would be Mike Stokes, isnt it?
    The article isnt very clear as it is, anyway.