Slashdot Mirror


Gnutella2 Specifications

An anonymous reader writes "After lots of heated debate regarding Gnutella2, (first story and more recent story), the specifications have finally been released. There is a mirror here. Let the debates begin."

254 comments

  1. Gnutella2 by ak_hepcat · · Score: 1

    Great, just in time to start spreading ISO's of Mandrake 9.1!

    --
    Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
    1. Re:Gnutella2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's a good idea. I would like to download Mandrake 9.1 and I every server/mirror is crawling.

      Anyone have magnets? :)

    2. Re:Gnutella2 by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Just so everyone knows, and does not get this confused with a new version of the original Gnutella protocol: This is not the next version of Gnutella. Gnutella2 is a rogue project brought to fruition by a man who got kicked off the original Gnutella dev team. Its amazing how big a propaganda machine slashdot can be. And its amazing the possible damages that can be amassed by slashdot editors not looking into what they post.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
  2. Pr0n by schnarff · · Score: 1

    Now if only we can find a way to share more than bad pr0n and cheezy MP3s, this will be perfect.

    1. Re:Pr0n by SuDZ · · Score: 1

      There is other files worth spreading? ;)

      SuDZ

    2. Re:Pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There's no such thing as 'bad' pr0n!

      Only good pr0n and great pr0n.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom for 20 minutes.

    3. Re:Pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Virii (virusus?)! You haven't been on a p2p network lately, have you? ;)

    4. Re:Pr0n by critter_hunter · · Score: 1

      Non-porn movies. Old Kung fu flicks. Anime. Especially anime. Good anime undefiled by american voice acting, month before they're released here. Oooooh, nifty!

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    5. Re:Pr0n by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Month? You mean months to years. The rate ADV is releasing stuff at, you could see digital fansubs a week after they're on TV in Japan and 3-4 years before it hits the US.

      Ah, the joys of being an otaku in the digital age-- it's a lot easier than it was for the first generation.

    6. Re:Pr0n by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Bah, there's plenty of bad pr0n. Pr0n with pimply ugly woman is bad!!!!

    7. Re:Pr0n by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      mr goatse and his girlfriend, ms tubgirl, would disagree with you.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  3. A post on specs?!? by FortKnox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Are specs slashdot worthy?
    1.0 releases? Sure!
    Betas? I suppose.
    Alphas? Maaaybe.
    Specs and design? Only if they incorporate groundbreaking design ideas.
    This does not.

    Slow news day, eh?

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:A post on specs?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the specs? I suspect not. And specs are much more important the a "beta". Other developers can now implement a client using these specs. What do you think the developer section of Slashdot is for?

    2. Re:A post on specs?!? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 1

      There is a lot in gnutella2 that wasn't in gnutella. I mean, the document is *huge*...it MUST be groundbreaking, since if it were small folks would actually find somethign to cut and paste and make fun of it to get +5 insightful. [/joking]

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
  4. what happened to giFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    i'm surprised nobody mentions giFT anymore. the later cvs's work pretty well now, with less corruption.

    1. Re:what happened to giFT by protomala · · Score: 1

      I think giFT is great, but I belive while it's in this hard-devel-stage it's not for everbody, you know while it's not stabilized it won't have windows clientes so it won't spread much besides unix people that love to cvs/compile.

    2. Re:what happened to giFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like us gentoo people...

    3. Re:what happened to giFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the later cvs's work pretty well now, with less corruption.

      Too bad we can't say the same thing about the current administration.

    4. Re:what happened to giFT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Gentoo's CVS ebuild support allows you to simply type

      emerge giFT

      and have it installed.

      And note, I think Gentoo is messy (as in not really as consistent as BSD), but until BSDs become as modular as Gentoo, portage wins.

    5. Re:what happened to giFT by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a linux only p2p program of some sort would be a good idea.

      Then you have linux users sharing files, so while there's less files available you're with like-minded people.

      A win-win if there is another cross platform p2p network as well.

  5. Great! by Linux-based-robots · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can use this to share all my Linux warez with impunity!! Ha ha GPL take that! I'm sharing and there's nothing you can do about it!! NOTHING!

  6. yes... by arcite · · Score: 1

    pr0n wants to be free.

  7. GENIUS by JanusFury · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot the specs so nobody can develop clients! That's absolute genius. I wonder how much Hilary Rosen is paying Taco for this? ;)

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
    1. Re:GENIUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot this.

    2. Re:GENIUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like MAGNET links don't work on Slashdot...

    3. Re:GENIUS by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 4, Funny

      And with the dupes we can keep it down for weeks! :)

    4. Re:GENIUS by FyRE666 · · Score: 1

      I can't see this conspiracy theory working; riaa.org has been down since forever (and might I just say what a shame that is ;-) so they can't have exchanged any emails...

      BTW, the uptime graphs for riaa.org never cease to amuse me. Hardly helps Microsoft's case in their "Extinct Hackers" advertising campaign!

    5. Re:GENIUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It amazes me what a fucking idiot you are. Your posts are never funny. Stop it.

    6. Re:GENIUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fool! It's:

      package Slashdot;
      $troll->post();

      Geez...

  8. The "About" information by Berylium · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of you who don't want to pop over to the site. Or if it get's slashdotted (which would be odd).

    What is Gnutella2?
    Gnutella2 is a modern and efficient peer-to-peer network standard and architecture designed to provide a solid foundation for distributed global services such as person to person communication, data location and transfer and other future services.

    Why is it needed?
    Peer to peer technologies have become mainstream over recent years, and there are already a significant number of P2P networks in various stages of development and operation.

    How does yet another network help?
    Gnutella2 is unique amongst the currently operating peer to peer networks in several important ways:
    * Many of the most successful networks are "closed", owned by a single entity with restrictions or fees constituting a barrier to participation. This is not a viable model for an open, general purpose network. Gnutella2 is an open architecture where anyone is welcome to participate and contribute. The network has been designed to allow such diversity without the need for messy hacks or compromises in integrity.
    * The majority of networks are devoted to a single purpose, often the sharing of files. This is certainly a popular application for peer to peer technology, but it is by no means the only application. Gnutella2 is designed as a general purpose network which can be used as a solid foundation for any number of different peer to peer applications - vanilla file sharing, communications tools or other ideas which are yet to be conceived.
    * Some peer to peer networks have been developed with similar general purpose goals, however they have been unable to compete in the most popular application of the day, which is file sharing. For a general purpose network to succeed, it must be able to compete with purpose-specific networks in the most popular purpose. Gnutella2 is not only able to compete with the current popular file sharing specific networks, it outperforms them.

    What About "Old Gnutella"?
    The original "Gnutella" was created several years ago as a very simple, single vendor file-sharing specific network. Its simplicity made it a popular platform for file sharing application developers; however this simplicity also critically limited its effectiveness. As a result, competing file-sharing specific networks slowly but surely took over as the tools of choice as Gnutella users became frustrated with poor performance and turned elsewhere.
    The original Gnutella[1] network was designed for a very limited purpose and, despite many changes over the years, remains limited today. Efforts to make it a better file sharing network continue with mixed success.
    Gnutella2 shares the "Gnutella" name, striving to create the network that Gnutella should have been from the beginning. It shares the adopted ideals of openness and cooperation, but offers a fresh start that was sorely needed. The crippling limitations of the old network have been left behind and replaced with an entirely new network architecture ready to grow and develop through the creative efforts of many.

    What is the Scope of Gnutella2?
    The single name "Gnutella2" really refers to two separate components: Gnutella2 the Standard and Gnutella2 the Network.
    The Gnutella2 Network is perhaps the most easily recognised component. It is a new high-performance peer to peer network architecture upon which a variety of distributed applications can be built, such as file sharing applications, communication tools, etc.
    The Gnutella2 Standard is a set of requirements for building applications which operate on the Gnutella2 network in different capacities. It specifies the minimum compliance level required to be recognised as a Gnutella2-compatible application. Compliance with a Gnutella2 Standard ensures participating applications provide a minimum acceptable level of service to other network participants.

    1. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you are so so lame. I would mod you down if I could. Why do karma wh0res always think it will be so great to just paste the article? Dude don't do this again.

    2. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should just shut the fuck up. You sound like the real karma whore here, there is a difference in helping and exploiting. Or is that hard to see for you?

    3. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, *you* are so lame... do you have to post in "code" mode so that all your typing is a fixed width font? How lame is that?!

    4. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey he is a 1337 h4x0r... he talks in code. Just cause your font isn't that beautiful, cool fixed width, you can't complain to him. I would write in code but ok i though i would write in this bloat HTML mode. you are a bum he writes how he pleases you fascist pig.

    5. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off idiot

    6. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, copying the article really is helping and not exploiting. In case people couldn't just click the article. Yeah...

      According to the /. FAQ, a good comment is one that you are better off reading than you were before you had read it. This comment did not meet that case. The only reason to do this is to go karma whoring. Is your brain dumb or something? You are pitiful. EXTRANS!

    7. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sheesh... it seems like every single article on /. has some troll come along and post the full text of the article... we have enough trolls wasting my screen space as it is. please post original comments or stay home (digitally, that is)!!!

    8. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 5, Informative
      Gnutella2, or "Mike's Protocol," has some interesting properties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Gnutella, however. It's a separate protocol that is bootstrapping off of the Gnutella name to do things like get on Slashdot, and everyone here is falling for it.

      Characterizations of Gnutella as a simple, old protocol reflect a woeful ignorance of the many innovations that have emerged from Gnutella. In fact, much of Mike's Protocol calls "Gnutella 2" are innovations developed on Gnutella itself. These aren't simply close copies -- the protocols he cites are, in fact, Gnutella protocols. There are many more innovations happening on Gnutella as we speak, and the highjacking of the Gnutella name by Mike has weakened the fabric of an otherwise strong and open development community.

      We should all support open networks by supporting Gnutella. Gnutella2 offers interesting alternatives, but is no better than the work currently occurring on Gnutella. What's more, few if any Gnutella developers will ever support Gnutella2 because of the divisive way that it was introduced, permanently fracturing the Gnutella community, with almost all of the Gnutella community still working on Gnutella because they were never told of the so-called Gnutella2 until it was slashdotted, much as we're seeing today.

      If you support open protocols, support the original Gnutella. Gnutella2 does not solve any problems not currently solved by the original Gnutella clients. It simply creates division.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    9. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In fact, much of Mike's Protocol calls "Gnutella 2" are innovations developed on Gnutella itself.

      You mean things like Remote Queuing and query keys? These are ideas now being used by other clients that Mike developed himself. I don't think hubs and leaves are specific to Gnutella. Most of the features of Gnutella are in most other P2P protocols. What was he suppose to do, not use features of practically every other P2P app?

    10. Re:The "About" information by ziplux · · Score: 1

      Does a slashdotting mean anything to you? The server is probably in a puddle on the floor by now and no one can RTFA (read the fucking article).

    11. Re:The "About" information by afree87 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Linux, or "Linus' Operating System", has some interesting properties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Minix, however. It's a separate protocol that is bootstrapping off of the Minix name to do things like get on Slashdot, and everyone here is falling for it.

      Characterizations of Minix a simple, old operating system reflect a woeful ignorance of the many innovations that have emerged from Gnutella. In fact, much of what Linus' Operating System calls "Linux" are innovations developed on Minix itself. These aren't simply close copies -- the protocols he cites are, in fact, Minix protocols. There are many more innovations happening on Minix as we speak, and the highjacking of the Minix name by Linus has weakened the fabric of an otherwise strong and open development community.

      We should all support open operating systems by supporting Minix. Linux offers interesting alternatives, but is no better than the work currently occurring on Minix. What's more, few if any Minix developers will ever support Linux because of the divisive way that it was introduced, permanently fracturing the Minix community, with almost all of the Minix community still working on Minix because they were never told of the so-called Linux until the first release came out, much as we're seeing today.

      If you support open protocols, support the original Minix. Linux does not solve any problems not currently solved by the original Minix operating system. It simply creates division.

    12. Re:The "About" information by havaloc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a person who purchased the Limewire Pro version twice, I have to disagree with Adam Fisk's FUD. As a longtime user of Limewire (indeed, even the recent versions), I'm saddened by this FUD. I'm now a happy Shareaza user.

      Why would Shareaza want to bootstrap off the Gnutella name? To me, Gnutella certainly embodies a spirit of openess, but it also reminds me of the worse performing P2P app there is (with certain exceptions).

      Gnutella2, no matter how you feel about the name, simply out performs many of the current P2P programs out there, including the newest version of Limewire. It is also developed at a much faster pace than most clients, and its free. Its also free of ads and spyware.

      To say that Gnutella2 offers nothing better than Gnutella just doesn't seem true to me. I can tell the difference, and I'd imagine a lot of other people can too.

      Limewire was touting GUESS as an enhancement to Gnutella that has been abandoned. It was for this enhancement that I registered for Limewire Pro the second time. Now, I find out that they are just going to make a few changes to the old protocol. That's not what I invested/paid for.

      I also think its silly that the Gnutella community at large refuses to even look at this new protocol because of the way it was introduced. It was introduced because we are all sick of the slow pace of development in the Gnutella community. On the internet, 6 months might as well be 2 years.

      Until I see otherwise, classic Gnutella is all but dead. It's inefficient, with a limited horizon, and traffic intensive.

      I'm also sorry that I registered and supported Limewire.

    13. Re:The "About" information by rabidcow · · Score: 1

      What's more, few if any Gnutella developers will ever support Gnutella2 because of the divisive way that it was introduced, permanently fracturing the Gnutella community, with almost all of the Gnutella community still working on Gnutella because they were never told of the so-called Gnutella2 until it was slashdotted, much as we're seeing today.

      No problem, they just need to come out with Gnutella3, thus grabbing back the spotlight by "superceding" this.

    14. Re:The "About" information by sbwoodside · · Score: 1

      "original Gnutella"

      better to call it the real Gnutella. "Gnutella" 2 isn't.

    15. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD THIS UP

      although he missed one "Gnutella"

    16. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Adam Fisk LimeWire LLC

      Aww yer just jealous because Shareaza has G1 and G2 support, G2 nodes have richer search capabilities and waitlist queueing, and overall can implement new features without going through the glacial gnutella committee. I'm still waiting for any kind of search predicates in G1.

      How's the stealware business doing?

    17. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD THIS UP to 6

      LOL, that was really the best answer I've ever seen on Limewire's hipocracy!

    18. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi Adam,
      I'm waiting for you and your pal Vinnie introducing Gnutella3 and claiming it's 'The Most Sophisticated File-Sharing Protocol' and 'The World's Best Gnutella Protocol'.

      Good that I already have your fine marketing text copied into my sandbox... then I only need G2 with G3 and add some spyware here and there.

    19. Re:The "About" information by afree87 · · Score: 1
      Fark, that's going to go on my permanent record, isn't it? "Made an excellent post to Slashdot, but he made a mistake while editing it..."

      Ah, well, at least I got my point across.

    20. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 minutes abs!

    21. Re:The "About" information by freeweed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why would Shareaza want to bootstrap off the Gnutella name?

      Same reason it's bootstrapping off the Kazaa name? :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    22. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      An interesting parody. The big difference? Linux represented a huge leap forward because it was open source. Gnutella 2 is not a leap forward. It does things like arbitrarily create a new, completely unstandardized messaging system. As any Gnutella developer knows, the problems facing Gnutella, as with most p2p systems, have little to do with the underlying messages. They have to do with topology and the intelligence of the algorithms. Changing every Gnutella message does nothing to address these issues.

      Linux also didn't hijack the Unix name (don't try to make the case that "Linux" is a varient of "Minix"). Everyone was using the Unix name for all sorts of Unix variants. Gnutella 2 is a marketting stunt, and you are furthering that stunt right now. Honestly, if you knew more about what you were doing, I think you'd be embarrassed about your above comment.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    23. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 1
      What hypocrisy could you possibly be referring to?

      --

      Adam Fisk

    24. Re:The "About" information by judd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um.

      First you say "It has nothing whatsoever to do with Gnutella, however. It's a separate protocol that is bootstrapping off of the Gnutella name."

      Then you say "[Mike's Gnutella2 improvements] are innovations developed on Gnutella itself. These aren't simply close copies -- the protocols he cites are, in fact, Gnutella protocols"

      These statements appear to be contradictory.

    25. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I am sorry to hear that you have been disappointed with your experiences with LimeWire. We are working hard to create the best technology possible, and we have a road map that we feel will soon make LimeWire the best performing p2p application available.

      You are clearly an informed user, so I will go into the details of LimeWire/Gnutella development as well as more detailed reasons for my above comments. I and Susheel Daswani wrote the original GUESS protocol, and we very openly shared our ideas regarding GUESS with Mike in particular, having no idea that there would be consequences for our openness. GUESS is fully implemented in LimeWire and has been for some time. We have not released that implementation for reasons that are vital to this conversion, including:

      1) After extensive *collaboration* with the rest of the Gnutella community, we came to the realization that any UDP-based protocol would almost surely require a custom flow control layer to be written on top at some point down the road. Without this layer, congestion will simply starve all TCP connections of any available bandwidth, as TCP will continually backoff as UDP indiscriminately consumes the released bandwidth. This is bad for the use. Developing a flow control layer is a significant burden to the developer. Mike's Protocol does not do this, and it will cause congestion on the Internet as a result. It will also be one of the primary reasons that few developers will code for it.

      2) We came to the realization that we could achieve the same efficiency gains with a far safer TCP implementation. This implementation relys on selective querying (dynamically adjusting the reach of a query based on the popularity of the content being searched for), as well as the exchanging of file indexes between Ultrapeers to limit traffic. This implementation is also significantly simpler than UDP-based architectures, and does not pose the same security concerns. We may at some point use GUESS for specific purposes, but we will likely not make GUESS the primary search architecture because we are able to achieve the same efficiency gains by better and more responsible means.

      In short, we did not rush our client out the door using GUESS because our open collaboration with other developers led us to realize that better solutions were available and that a raw UDP solution was, in fact, dangerous in terms of network congestion, and even irresposible to network administrator everywhere attempting to cope with bursts of UDP traffic. Becuase Mike did not develop his protocol openly, he was unable to do this.

      Mike's Protocol is able to use this architecture in large part because it's network is so small. It's possible that it scales better than I think it does, but I doubt it. The search architecture story tells much about why open protocols make sense -- because everyone collaborates to develop the best protocol possible.

      Best,

      --

      Adam Fisk

    26. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 1
      It's open source. Download the code.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    27. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 1
      I believe the first p2p client to implement remote queueing was something called "Napster."

      When I talk about Mike's Protocol slapping the Gnutella 2 name on protocols people in the Gnutella world came up with (again, without their consent), I'm referring to ideas like partial file sharing, HUGE, Tiger Tree, Ultrapeers, XML queries, etc.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    28. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good point. I was a little worked up when I wrote that message -- I usually get overly worked up when this topic comes up =). Basically, I see Gnutella 2 as an fine protocol that has been proprietary for most of its history. I applaud Mike for getting the specs out there, but I still don't appreciate his decision to coopt the Gnutella name without any consultation with anyone who actually wrote clients for the Gnutella network. I don't like it when I and the volunteer work of thousands of people in the rest of the Gnutella community see their work taken advantage of by an opportunist.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    29. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wasn't trying to make a point, I was trying to make a joke. Most Slashdot readers have heard of the Minix/Linux debate, and by defending your older, "more active" network I thought you resembled the Minix guy in many ways.

      //afree (saving karma by posting anonymously)

    30. Re:The "About" information by Anenga · · Score: 2, Informative
      An interesting parody. The big difference? Linux represented a huge leap forward because it was open source. Gnutella 2 is not a leap forward. It does things like arbitrarily create a new, completely unstandardized messaging system. As any Gnutella developer knows, the problems facing Gnutella, as with most p2p systems, have little to do with the underlying messages. They have to do with topology and the intelligence of the algorithms. Changing every Gnutella message does nothing to address these issues.

      Gnutella1 doesn't work. Gnutella2 does. That seems like a leap forward to me. I could go on to explain why G1 doesn't work and G2 does, but I'd be here all night. Just because Gnutella2 introduces a new packet structure or complex systems such as hub clustering, doesn't move away from the fact that it works better than Gnutella1. The G2 specs isn't just about changing subsystems such as packet structure or changing "Ultrapeers" to "Hubs", it's much more than that. Perhaps you should read them.

      Linux also didn't hijack the Unix name (don't try to make the case that "Linux" is a varient of "Minix"). Everyone was using the Unix name for all sorts of Unix variants. Gnutella 2 is a marketting stunt, and you are furthering that stunt right now. Honestly, if you knew more about what you were doing, I think you'd be embarrassed about your above comment.

      I think you use the word "hijack" too lightly. Hijack means steal something someone else owned. Did you own Gnutella? Legally, Mike didn't do anything wrong. Regarding morally, Mike did first propose G2 to the GDF in hopes of getting the GDF to accept it and move the entire existing gnutella community forward. The GDF pushed G2 out, and thus it became a seperate competing entity. Perhaps Mike could of changed it, but many disagree. Including Swabby of Gnucleus.

      Honestly, if you look at yourself rejecting a superior protocol over your rule of an existing stale one, you'd be embarassed of yourself. You've played with GUESS for God knows how long, that failed. Now it's on to outdegree, something G2 introduced. Lets just step down from our high-horses and enter reality and work towards something which your customers can be prowed of.
    31. Re:The "About" information by Anenga · · Score: 1

      That's just a coincidence. Shareaza is Australian. Many Australians use "aza" in suffices, thus "Shareaza".

    32. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't get me wrong -- it was funny. I just spend all my time working on this stuff, so I have trouble not taking it seriously -- probably too seriously. =)

    33. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Shareaza was the first client to implement Tiger Tree Hashes. So how was he copying from Gnutella?

    34. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is a scary conversation to get into, but here goes. We're probably both a bit overly fanatical in our viewpoints. MP offers interesting ideas, and it does work well. I think that the underlying technology of Gnutella is significantly more sound, as I've outlined in other threads. To say that "MP works and Gnutella doesn't" is clearly ridiculous. I definitely don't own Gnutella, but many people have put a great deal of effort into the Gnutella network, most of their time volunteered. Those people don't deserve to have their work swept under the umbrella of "Gnutella 2" just so Shareaza can get Slashdotted.

      MP was a separate entity from the beginning -- it hasn't changed significantly since it was first introduced, and the Gnutella world did not embrace it because it made no attempt to have anything to do with Gnutella other than taking it's name so we'd all be talking about it right now.

      I went into the details of why we haven't released GUESS on another thread. In a nutshell, we think that TCP approaches are more robust and can achieve the same efficiency and scalability. MP had nothing to do with increasing the outdegree -- that's an idea that has been around Gnutella for years, and the most rigorous discussion I've seen for why high outdegrees are important is the following paper from the Stanford Peers folks at:

      Beverly Yang and Hector Garcia-Molina. Designing a Super-Peer Network

      That link doesn't seem to be working at the moment, but you can reach it from:

      Stanford Peers Page

      All that said, I wish MP the best. I wish it had chosen a different name, but oh well.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    35. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gnutella 2 is not a leap forward.

      How do you know? Isn't that typically Bearwire (Limewire & Bearshare) propaganda?

      > Changing every Gnutella message does nothing to address these issues.

      Another unfounded claim, G2 is not only renaming but extending and creating something new.

      > Gnutella 2 is a marketting stunt

      Oh boy. As every Gnutella developer know, this is common business strategy of Bearwire! Now that you see Mikes is creating something new because the old system is unreliable and the old system is becoming more complicated with your megahyperpeers (another marketing stunt) and non working GUESS extensions, now you are envious. In reality _you_ fear the loss of control and the loss of a bigger userbase and your spyware revenue. You're losing money, that's what's all about. Open source was about improving software, your constant greedy GDF politics is perverting that idea!

      >Honestly, if you knew more about what you were doing, I think you'd be embarrassed about your above comment.

      Frankly, I'm embarrassed about your hipocrisy.

    36. Re:The "About" information by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 2, Informative
      The Tiger Tree specification was worked on and agreed by all of the members of the Gnutella community. The implementation itself is relatively trivial -- agreeing on the spec is the hard part. Even in this case, where there's a very strong, open specification for Tiger Tree exchange in the Tree Hash Exchange (THEX) protocol, Shareaza implements it slightly differently, breaking compatibility with other clients and flying in the face of the specification. You can find THEX at:

      Open Content Network

      THEX is an open specification developed by Gordon Mohr and Justin Chapweske. It's not Gnutella-specific, but it certainly isn't Gnutella 2.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    37. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I wish it had chosen a different name, but oh well.

      Your pal Vinnie owns Gnutella3.

      It seams you both believe in numbers not in quality, if Gnutella2 is worse than Gnutella1 nobody will care. But you just search for reasons to bitch against Mike, sad.

    38. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well..it's good that Mike didn't call it gnutella. Otherwise it would been mixed up with gnutella. G1 and G2(MP) are different! However with Shareaza's P2P application, it merges the original gnutella network with a new network called g2, hopefully allowing this is a good way to augment the existing gnutella network while hopefully allowing for scaleability for the new network. Smart migration plan I would say. Mike at least had the smarts augment gnutella instead of just starting another Kazza or Blubster which doesn't help file sharing!

    39. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shareaza implements it slightly differently, breaking compatibility with other clients

      Like that client named, hummm... er... no. Wait.

      Yeah. That... hummm... how do... hummm....

      What other Gnutella client implements TTH?

      Even Bitzi (from you know who) got it wrong.

    40. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like that client named, hummm... er... no. Wait.

      I'd wish you didn't tell Adam. now he simply switches over to the next better "explanation" why he hates Mike's work so much.

    41. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like it when I and the volunteer work of thousands of people in the rest of the Gnutella community see their work taken advantage of by an opportunist.
      LOL, "thousands of people". I doubt that your pal Vinnie would tolerate such an influence to the GDF. You both have already a hard work to keep control over Raphael and Mike... and to scare new developers away with greed and civil wars among developers.

      the Gnutella name without any consultation with anyone who actually wrote clients for the Gnutella network
      A blatant lie, this topic was long discussed in the GDF. Didn't you and your dear pal Vinnie named it 'Mikes's protocol', mainly to shortcircuit any further cooperation within Gnutella community? I think you did all to seperate G2 from G1, while Mike is doing the opposit.

      has been proprietary for most of its history
      Wow, that was low! Beside the fact that Mike did never plan anything but a free and open G2 protocol, he did also search cooperation for it and did release the draft months ago. Btw, the original Gnutella (for you "Justin Protocol") started proprietary, are you ignoring your roots?

      taken advantage of by an opportunist
      Oh lala, bitching is low! Mike has made a tremendous contribution to the Gnutella community and he still does with G2. You simply don't like the fact that someone takes "your" name Gnutella. You don't own it, everybody is alowed to envolve Gnutella to something better. I remember that Limewire and Bearshare were not very democratic when introducing new features into Gnutella. And your good old pal Vinnie did how often plan to split Gnutella? I can't count anymore! On the other side Mike is improving G2 and even bridges traffic into old G1.

      Frankly, your repeted hipocrisy is a shame! Please stop splitting and bitching Gnutella devlopers, Adam. You stand in the middle of the road to the future trying to stop everyone... please step aside.

    42. Re:The "About" information by Arnold_Crenshaw · · Score: 1

      Gnutella was a "proprietary" solution to begin with, so to speak. And G2's "history" isn't that long. So get over it.

    43. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard for you to just accept that most people who try Shareaza like it much better than any Gnutella client, especially Limewire, which I have nothing good to say about? It's obvious this isn't about naming issues. Hell, RMS freaks out about people referring to GNU/Linux as just Linux and you're freaking out over the exact opposite! Some would say you're lucky he's even giving Gnutella any mention and that he didn't just call it Mike's Protocol leaving Gnutella to be forgotten forever. The whole point is that his is working better than yours, and is cheaper/less intrusive at the same time! Oh, NOW I see your protests for what they really are, poorly veiled attacks resulting from your fear of losing what confused/misinformed customers you actually have!

    44. Re:The "About" information by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      I hope you realize that you really come off badly when you present yourself as you've done in this thread.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    45. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I still don't appreciate his decision to coopt the Gnutella name ... I don't like it when I and the volunteer work of thousands of people in the rest of the Gnutella community see their work taken advantage of by an opportunist.


      Yea, it'd be nice if there was some sort of legal framework to stop opportunists from hijacking a trade name that you had built up through hard work over the years. We could call it a 'trade mark'. :)

    46. Re:The "About" information by donely · · Score: 1

      ahh c'mon..you obviously haven't tried LimeWire recently. It's a solid program that crossplatform, which counts way up for me. It doesn't crash and finds things just fine (as does Shareaza). And LimeWire is open source (just look at FreeWirep2p.com to see someone take advantage of it). still, I do use Shareaza from time to time, because I like the interface (kazaa-like).

      --
      I will blog about your incompetence @ http://www.barelyadraft.com
    47. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The implementation itself is relatively trivial -- agreeing on the spec is the hard part.
      In one sentence I think you've summed up the biggest problem with the GDF. It's devolved into little more than a debating society where the most important thing is to impress fellow developers by showing how you can discuss minutiae long enough that everyone involved has largely lost interest. Actually implementing the ideas discussed is far too trivial for most of the developers to waste their time with.
    48. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gnutella2, or "Mike's Protocol," has some interesting properties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Gnutella, however. ...

      In fact, much of Mike's Protocol calls "Gnutella 2" are innovations developed on Gnutella itself. These aren't simply close copies -- the protocols he cites are, in fact, Gnutella protocols.

      So, in other words, it has nothing to do with the thing that it's a copy of? Interesting...

      If you support open protocols, support the original Gnutella.

      I support open protocols, and the right of anyone to do whatever the fuck they want with them, because they're open. Even if that means pissing off a bunch of guys giving out spyware-ridden clients. You make it sound as if you invented the damned thing.

      I'm sorry that your company hasn't been able to figure out how to make money with selling an open source product designed for piracy, but all this bitching about how someone 'stole' your open protocol isn't going to solve any problems. It just creates division.

    49. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would have been even better if it had been "GNU" instead of "Minix", but good job nonetheless.

    50. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't like it when I and the volunteer work of thousands of people in the rest of the Gnutella community see their work taken advantage of by an opportunist.
      This is nonsense. Any time you discuss ideas in an open forum you're subject to having someone else take your idea and run with it. In a large way, that's the point of publicly discussing these things.

      You said somewhere above the current thought is to have ultrapeers fully index the content of their leaf nodes and to adapt the horizon of a query according to the number of results already returned. (I'm paraphrasing.) I suggested this exact idea months ago in the gdf. Should I start complaining that you're taking advantage of my work? Okay, so I got the indexing idea from Kazaa, but the adaptive query thing was original, even if obvious.

      Stop crying about how you've been taken advantage of. Nobody cares. Come out with a better product and Shareaza will end up as a bit of detritus in the dustbin of file sharing history. Continue spending a lot of time complaining about how you've been unfairly treated and Limewire will be in the dustbin along with the rest of the gnutella "classic" clients.
    51. Re:The "About" information by darkov · · Score: 1

      Gnutella1 doesn't work

      Wow, what a propaganda machine. I use Gnutella all the time and get anything I want from it with few problems.

      I could go on to explain why G1 doesn't work and G2 does, but I'd be here all night.

      If it were true you could explain it in a couple of paragraphs. After all, this is Slashdot. It's not like were all a bunch of idiots. But obviously there are some who don't have the benefit of critical thinking and support your transparent, cynical actions.

    52. Re:The "About" information by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      After all, this is Slashdot. It's not like were all a bunch of idiots

      No, it really is.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    53. Re:The "About" information by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Well, the way I see it its biggest innovations are hashes and UDP. These could be added to the existing gnutella protocol.

    54. Re:The "About" information by julesh · · Score: 1

      Gnutella2, or "Mike's Protocol," has some interesting properties. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Gnutella, however. It's a separate protocol that is bootstrapping off of the Gnutella name to do things like get on Slashdot, and everyone here is falling for it.

      Something a lot of people seem to have missed is that there is a close bond between gnutella and G2 (or whatever you want to call it).

      * They handshake using the same method and then the protocol is 'upgraded' to G2 when both sides have determined that the other side supports G2.

      * The same protocol is used for transferring the files that are shared

      * The networks support similar operations in terms of searching for files to share

      * Some of the data structures used (eg query routing tables) have the same structure between the protocols

      These points mean that:

      1. It is easier (and takes less resources) for a servent to support both of these protocols than it is for one to support two unrelated protocols (eg gnutella and ed2k)

      2. A hub that implements both protocols can accept leaves of either kind and pass back the
      query results from both kinds of leaf to the
      query originator, regardless of which protocol it uses

      3. Bridges between the networks can be built

      4. Nodes from each network will be referenced in either network's "alternate locations" mesh.

      I'm sure there are more reasons than I've just mentioned, but these are the ones that spring to mind. Like it or not, these two networks are closely tied to each other, whether you call the new one Gnutella2 or whatever.

      Also, a key point is that the ideological thinking behind each network was the same: to create a highly distributed peer-to-peer network using the most relevant current technology that is extensible and open.

    55. Re:The "About" information by ProfKyne · · Score: 1

      Oh, this is a great reason!

      Why is it needed?
      Peer to peer technologies have become mainstream over recent years, and there are already a significant number of P2P networks in various stages of development and operation.

      Translation: because it's inevitable.

      --
      "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
    56. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The document 2002-13 ("Designing a Super-Peer Network") you requested is registered on the publication server but currently is not publicly available.

    57. Re:The "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.shareaza.com/forum/viewthread.aspx?ID=6 068

      (Mike responding to post at Sharaza.com) :So... to put it short - These were the question which rose into my mind: :1. WHY was TTH changed in Shareaza? :2. WHO decided it had to be changed? :3. WHAT was to order of Bitzi/Shareaza the TTH changes were made?

      The original tiger-tree algorithm was changed by both Shareaza and Bitzi in response to the discovery of a minor security / collision problem. The need for such a change was unfortunate, however all parties agreed that it was a necessary cost. There is absolutely nothing underhanded about this at all -- Bitzi and Shareaza were simply early adopters of the system, and had to correct a teething problem. All subsequent tiger-tree implementors will be able to take the easy route and use the new, fixed algorithm. Bitzi and Shareaza are compatible, and future implementors will also be compatible.

      However I think what Adam might be referring to is not the actual tiger-tree algorithm, but the tiger-tree exchange protocol used to share trees between peers. Here a standard called "THEX" was proposed in the GDF long ago, however when Shareaza 1.7 was released I developed a simpler system that did roughly the same job with less overhead. This could be the "slightly different and incompatible" thing.

      However, when other P2P applications started to catch up to Shareaza in recent months, discussion over tree exchange protocols was reopened and it was decided that a new revision of THEX offered some useful features. I committed to migrating Shareaza to THEX, and FreePeers indicated it would use THEX in BearShare.

      So, a few points of rebuttal:
      - Shareaza did deploy a simpler exchange system, however there were not actually any other P2P apps to be incompatible with at the time!
      - Even so, I provided full details of the Shareaza exchange system for discussion or adoption if anyone was interested
      - Once other developers started adding tiger-tree to their software, everyone including myself contributed to discussion of the optimal solution
      - When a revised THEX was decided upon, I committed to migrating Shareaza to use the agreed system
      - The current version of Shareaza (1.8.2) supports the THEX exchange standard!

      So really, I don't know what his beef was there. :)

      Shareaza isn't doing anything wrong -- it's just implementing features a long time before anyone else. That isn't something (for me to be) to be ashamed of.

    58. Re:The "About" information by obi · · Score: 1

      Okay, this guy declared his protocol to be Gnutella2 without any agreement from the other players. Why don't the other players just name their next generation protocol Gnutella3, and be done with it.

      It would drive the point home that you shouldn't hijack an existing protocol's name. Maybe that way everyone will play nice in future. Or we get a protocol version number arms race (...Gnutella16, no, Gnutella17, ...) - but then everyone will see how lame the people involved are.

    59. Re:The "About" information by KewlPC · · Score: 1

      No, no, no, if you really want to hijack the name, call it Gnutella2.1 or something.

      Basically, because it gives the unwary the impression that it's just an updated version of the same protocol, even though in reality it isn't.

  9. Magnet Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    For current Gnutella2 users you can download the specs through the network here.

  10. rise of gnutella? by deadsaijinx* · · Score: 1

    I used to use gnutella all the time. But not enough people used it, so it was difficult to get the files I needed. Maybe Gnutella 2 will usher in a wave of new users. Then we can finally stop using Kazaa.

    --
    YOU SUCK BALLS!
    1. Re:rise of gnutella? by Phantasmo · · Score: 1

      Gnutella2 is a great and very active network, I find. So far only Shareaza uses it, but considering that it's competing with KaZaA it's doing incredibly well. I gave up KaZaA the day I discovered Shareaza, and now that the G2 specs are out hopefully I'll soon be able to get onto the G2 network from my GNU/Linux box.

      --

      The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  11. Nuttella? 2? 5? by Spiked_nightmare · · Score: 1, Funny

    as long as it has the same sweet chocolatey nutty goodness im not tooo fussed at which version it is

    1. Re:Nuttella? 2? 5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would like to point out that the above poster is making a "sly reference" to a european chocolate and (hazel?)nut spread called Nutella that gnutella stole (in true gnunix fashion)... maybe you don't like his (her?) joke, but don't mod him down....

    2. Re:Nuttella? 2? 5? by chriso11 · · Score: 1

      I bet it's FRENCH! Let's change the name to FREEDOMTELLA!!

      That will show them!

      --
      No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  12. Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Downl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Two questions:

    1. Can this version prevent abuse from folks that try to flood the system with bogus or damaged files?

    2. Will this version enable people to download anonymously?

  13. another mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dtv01jbd/gnutella2_draft.ht m

  14. Just in case one mirror ain't enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Common Gnutella2 Standard (All Applications)

    All applications making use of Gnutella2 technology for any application class MUST IMPLEMENT the following core features:

    * Bidirectional TCP stream connections
    (stream compression OPTIONAL)
    * Bidirectional reliable UDP protocol
    (Gnutella2 reliability layer and stateless compression REQUIRED)
    * HTTP-style link negotiation, exchanging at least the required headers
    * Gnutella2 protocol support, graceful handling of unknown trees
    * Localised, UTF-8 and UNICODE decode REQUIRED, encoding to each optional
    * Operation in LEAF mode, additional node states OPTIONAL
    * Basic link handshaking and maintenance functionality (PI/PO/LNI/KHL)
    * Global node addressing scheme and routing maintenance, addressing children (TO)
    * Reverse (PUSH) connection response (connecting out)
    * HTTP/1.1 client and server for peer to peer transactions

    Gnutella2 Standard for File Sharing

    Applications making use of Gnutella2 technology for file sharing MUST IMPLEMENT the following features:

    * All of the COMMON features listed in the previous section
    * Operation in LEAF mode, additional node states OPTIONAL
    * Some form of bandwidth management scheme to keep network and transfer bandwidth below 95% of the user's link capacity - be it manually configured or some automatic scheme (very important to avoid flooding local connection)
    * SHA1 and TIGER ROOT URNs for all shared objects
    * XML metadata using existing schemas where appropriate (manual entry and peer acquired at minimum, automatic local collection highly recommended, service lookup optional)
    * Universal 1-bit query hash filter, at least 2^20 length, intelligent density management scheme (superset combination required if supporting hub mode)
    * Gnutella2 object search mechanism, all client responsibilities and if supporting hub mode, server responsibilities too
    * Local search processing including simple query language (Boolean operations, quoted search terms, numeric range searches, interest flagging (I), local rule-based metadata searching)
    * Extensible hit format (URN/DN/MD/URL are REQUIRED, all other extensions OPTIONAL)
    * HTTP/1.1 based upload system, URN based requesting, partial content requests, active queuing, partial file uploading, timestamp protected alternate source cache and exchange
    * Tiger Tree volume calculation on shared files, caching on downloads, exchange via DIME. Local corruption detection OPTIONAL but recommended.

  15. What about metasearch? by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 0

    Do the specs support metasearch, like for looking only for pr0n???

    1. Re:What about metasearch? by Anenga · · Score: 1

      Sure does.

      http://www.gnutella2.com/gnutella2_draft.htm#_To c3 6413036

      Within Shareaza, you can fill out a "Type" attribute for video files through it's video schema. You can set the "Type" to "Adult". So if everyone who had pr0n on the network set the metadata to Type: Adult, then you could search using Shareaza for all files with that type. (And get all pr0n) Or, if you wanted to, you could perhaps filter them out somehow (though, that capability really isn't there yet, though you can set security rules in Shareaza to filter out all search results with "certain keywords").

  16. begin? by gid13 · · Score: 1

    continue. let the debates CONTINUE. anyway, i have one major wish for gnutella2: that it will be to rare files what kazaa (lite of course) is to popular ones. fasttrack gives us everything we need for the stuff that lots of people want. what we really need in the p2p world is a more efficient way of transmitting the rare stuff.

    1. Re:begin? by inerte · · Score: 1

      That's one of the goals of Gnutella2. Altought "global search" is not possible on practice (scale problems), Shareaza/Gnutella2 does an AWESOME job, close to it.

      When Shareaza 1.7 was released, the network came close to 80/100k users. And the search was global. You clicked a magnet link and in less than two seconds it would find the source.

  17. Start of a New Beginning by Anenga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This, hopefully, will be the "re-birth" of Gnutella, or at least of a new open free P2P protocol. And the fact that this protocol looks to be, and pretty much is, the most technical, feature rich and advanced protocol currently out is fantastic. I can't wait until someone adds an "Anonymous layer".

    No word yet if any of the classic Gnutella clients (such as BearShare, Limewire etc.) will be adopting Gnutella2 at all (although Gnucleus has vowed to in the future). However, there are some that are open source/GPL'd, such as GTK for *NIX, Aquisition for OSX or Limewire in Java.

    Incase the specs get /.'d, here is a URI (need Shareaza to download it).

    magnet:?xt=urn:bitprint:PMKP57E2TXFI2Z37M3A7CJ2U 3A FICBDU&dn=Gnutella2%20Specs%20Draft.htm

    1. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heres another mirror, linked this time: mirror

    2. Re:Start of a New Beginning by smd4985 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The jury it still out on Gnutella2 - it isn't clear if a brand new protocol is really necessary or if Gnutella can just be extended to incorporate new features (Gnutella is pretty extensible after GGEP, etc.).

      What the jury has already decided on is the bad form that the Gnutella2 developers displayed when they first stole Gnutella's name without the approval of the Gnutella community and then used Gnutella to bootstrap their fledgling network.

      --
      smd4985
    3. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err, There's a space in between the SHA1 in my parent post. Here is the correct SHA1:

      PMKP57E2TXFI2Z37M3A7CJ2U3AFICBDU

    4. Re:Start of a New Beginning by antaeogo · · Score: 1

      Change the urn:bitprint: to "urn:sha1" and the link should work correctly with Shareaza - atleast, that's what I had to do so I could download the file (instead of initiate a search).

    5. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Garen · · Score: 1

      I can't wait until someone adds an "Anonymous layer".

      Yeah that would be awesome. We of course need to have our god-given right of anonymous anarchy and illegal mp3/juarez trading preserved.

    6. Re:Start of a New Beginning by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      it isn't clear if a brand new protocol is really necessary

      Gnutella0.6 cannot search all the hosts on the network without using huge ammounts of bandwidth... Changing that would mean changing the protocol. The current method of supernodes and leafs (which improves the situation, but doesn't really solve it) is just begging to be exploited, and I have no doubt it will be evetually.

      What the jury has already decided on is the bad form that the Gnutella2 developers displayed when they first stole Gnutella's name without the approval of the Gnutella community and then used Gnutella to bootstrap their fledgling network.

      I would not say anything was stolen (except maybe the logo from Gnutella.com, IIRC). The name belongs to no-one, and nothing is stopping someone else from naming something else "Gnutella2" as well.

      Additionally, I'm tired of hearing about the "Gnutella Community". It's safe to say that there is no diffinitive gnutella community. Limewire has built their own little group gradually working on improvements, but they have no more right to the title of Gnutella2 than anyone else.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the jury has already decided

      WHO CARES!

    8. Re:Start of a New Beginning by appleprophet · · Score: 1

      Acquisition is a Cocoa front end for Limewire.

    9. Re:Start of a New Beginning by mmol_6453 · · Score: 1

      It shows about the same form as Microsoft naming something "MPEG4"

      --
      What's this Submit thingy do?
    10. Re:Start of a New Beginning by evilviper · · Score: 1
      It shows about the same form as Microsoft naming something "MPEG4"

      That is certainly quite different, because there is an authoritive body that has control of the MPEG name, and uses it.

      I presume, the only reason Microsoft can use it, is because they are among the members of MPEG-LA, which collectively hold all the patents (and set the licensing fees) for MPEG4. I presume Microsoft holds a large number of the important pantents on MPEG4, hence their own independent MPEG4 version which does not require users to pay license fees to MPEG-LA.

      Let's say that I create a new file transfer protocol that doesn't suck... Who would be harmed if I called it "FTP2", or some variation? The name does not force people to use it, and you can still use the exact same (generic) name.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 1
      It's true that LimeWire has no right to the Gnutella name or to "Gnutella 2." We would never dream of taking that name without careful consultation with other people who have invested countless hours of their time in this network.

      At the same time, sure, maybe anyone can name anything Gnutella 2. The technology is the important thing, and it's helpful to have multiple protocols out there to see what works. I'd just prefer to work cooperatively with everyone to make the best technology possible, and that spirit of open collaboration simply isn't what it once was.

      --

      Adam Fisk

    12. Re:Start of a New Beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would never dream of taking that name without careful consultation with other people who have invested countless hours of their time in this network.[...]I'd just prefer to work cooperatively with everyone to make the best technology possible, and that spirit of open collaboration simply isn't what it once was.

      Can you please stop talking like war-anti-war propaganda? Really, there is already enough on TV, thanks.

    13. Re:Start of a New Beginning by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      would not say anything was stolen (except maybe the logo from Gnutella.com, IIRC)

      correction then, the name was EXPLOITED for a commercial gain in a CLOSED environment. At least the other spyware incorporating gnutella folks pretend to share protocol info with each other, shareaza has gone out on a limb with a marketing ploy for the name. Its a decent protocol but quite simply mike is whoring the gnutella name to get market share for shareaza. anybody else marginally disturbed by so much furor by folks trying to *make money* (usually thru ad/spyware) off programs so obviously used for technically illegal purposes?

      disclaimer: i use kazaa lite AND gnucleus, so instead of jerking off in a corner about which network is better, I can search two networks.

      as another side note, avoid overnet, one shouldnt need .Net just to search through a glorified ftp site.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:Start of a New Beginning by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Shareaza had no spyware. Also, since the protocol is now available, I don't think calling it "closed" is even appropriate either.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  18. Wait. There are ... other things? by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    Oh, I see. Like cheezy pr0n and bad MP3s. Okay. I understand now.

  19. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by spudmcduck · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. There is a rating system that can help but not prevent this.

    2. No.

  20. Not at all by golrien · · Score: 1

    Usually, specs aren't newsworther - but these particular specs *have* been subject to a hell of a lot of controversy, and concern a topic most people here are interested in filesharing (free porn/music/movies). The fact that it's taken so long to get these released has pissed off a number of people already.

  21. Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutella2 by Opiuman · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is "Mike's Protocol", as mentioned at the interview linked to from the previous post.

  22. What about the domain name? by asv108 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The specs were only one part of the whole "Gnutella 2" debacle, which is really a misnomer since the GDF never approved the use of the Gnutella name. the registration and use of the Gnutella2 name is the biggest outrage.

    For instance pretend for a second that Linus did not have the copyright for the Linux name and a coder or better yet Michael Robertson registered the domain name Linux3.com and marketed a new kernel as an official version of the Linux kernel by Linus and pushed it as the latest and greatest version of Linux.

    1. Re:What about the domain name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares as long as it is open and it works. Shareaza has already proved it is way better than any Gnutella1 client.

    2. Re:What about the domain name? by asv108 · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't tried the CVS version of Limewire.

    3. Re:What about the domain name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it better than Shareaza? I doubt. Explain to me why do you think it is, or not.

    4. Re:What about the domain name? by asv108 · · Score: 1

      Because Gnutella2 is basically an unauthorized ripoff of many concepts discussed in the GDF, many of which are implemented in the development version of limewire. Download it and try it for yourself.

    5. Re:What about the domain name? by afree87 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and I don't remember Nullsoft giving permission for the GDF to use the name "Gnutella", either.

      Quit whining about the name and fix up your lousy network.

    6. Re:What about the domain name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So to use the "concepts" developed or refined by theGDF you have to ask for authorization?

      Do I have to stop using it when asked to? Note that I am talking about the name, but "many concepts discussed in the GDF".

      And:
      "many of which are implemented in the development version of limewire."

      Yes, that is true. But no other client implements more Gnutella standards than Shareaza. So if we will use this a positive thing, Shareaza stays ahead.

    7. Re:What about the domain name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you shut up, quit trolling slashdot, finish jerking off to goatse, move out of your parent's house, and get a life?

    8. Re:What about the domain name? by asv108 · · Score: 1

      Since when is it my network? I didn't realize that kiddies from Umass spent so much time defending Shazea. I assume your one of Mike's buddies?

    9. Re:What about the domain name? by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      What are you, like five?

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
  23. IPv6 by pldms · · Score: 1
    I'm suprised that IPv6 support is barely mentioned in this spec:

    IPv6 addresses are longer and are not yet defined within the scope of Gnutella2, however applications should be aware that if the node address is not 6 bytes it is of a different address family



    With the number of machines now sat behind NAT it seems like an odd omission. So many p2p applications have FAQ entries explaining carefully how to port forward, and that only enables one machine behind the NAT box to be fully part of the network.

    --
    Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
    me a number based on the order in which I joined
    1. Re:IPv6 by havaloc · · Score: 1

      You can have multiple machines behind NAT by forwarding different ports to different machines.

  24. Today on "ask slashdot": by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I've finally decided to take the plunge and try Linux.

    What's the best distro for me to use?

    thx,
    Pedro

    1. Re:Today on "ask slashdot": by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FreeBSD.

      Linux is dead.

  25. Could somebody... by cygnus · · Score: 1
    put the specs for Gnutella2 out on Gnutella?

    i mean, that's the whole point of peer-to-peer, right? to solve problems like Slashdotting. :)

    --
    Just raise the taxes on crack.
    1. Re:Could somebody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot seems extremely bad at magnet links, so:

      Sharelive

      or

      Bitzi.com

    2. Re:Could somebody... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, peer-to-peer was created so pasty nerds can get their anime porn free of charge.

    3. Re:Could somebody... by Heidistein · · Score: 1

      Search for gnutella2_draft.htm on gnutella, and at least my node should pop with a result :) sha1 sum is: 6480ccfd0b49ef221df64392ea2434eba9f08173

  26. Ah Gnutella.. by ewhenn · · Score: 1

    The first chocolate hazlenut P2P network....

    1. Re:Ah Gnutella.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yummy :)

      PS: mod this up!

  27. In the meantime... by Crusty+Oldman · · Score: 0

    In the meantime you can use Shareaza
    http://www.shareaza.com/
    and maybe bring something new to share!

  28. re: Handshake Stages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    GNUTELLA CONNECT/0.6
    Listen-IP: 1.2.3.4:6346
    Remote-IP: 6.7.8.9
    User-Agent: Shareaza 1.8.2.0
    Accept: application/x-gnutella2
    X-Ultrapeer: False

    The Remote-IP header contains the IP address from which the remote host is connecting. This allows a remote host operating through some kind of network address translation system to learn its effective external address.

    The Local-IP header contains the IP address and port number that the local host is listening for inbound TCP connections on. It should be listening for UDP datagrams on the same port. The format of this header is "IP:PORT", eg "1.2.3.4:6346".

    Can you say DDoS? Would be fun and easy to get an entire network of gnutella clients to respond to one ip.

  29. Re:The "About" information f*** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oooh.... i can say the word fuck! i must really be saying something strong... oh i am such a baaaad boooy! cussing always makes people listen... ooooh!

  30. Re:THE FOLLY OF DENYING GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does God use Gnutella? If so does he share his pr0n?

  31. Gnutella traffic shaping ? by BigJim.fr · · Score: 1

    Among the "must" features I read : "Some form of bandwidth management scheme to keep network and transfer bandwidth below 95% of the user's link capacity - be it manually configured or some automatic scheme (very important to avoid flooding local connection)". I would have presumed that this functionality has nothing to do with Gnutella and is better left to iptables. I don't even understand how Gnutella is supposed to be aware of what other applications are doing with the link so that it can "keep network and transfer bandwidth below 95% of the user's link capacity". To me this should have been a "should", not a "must".

    1. Re:Gnutella traffic shaping ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was also a bit perplexed by that, I feel its more of a implementation issue than something which belongs in a spec. Besides, there are also shared connections which have no known/hard limits in regard to either bandwidth or latency. I guess those will have to use 0.1kb/s then, as to not overload it...

  32. Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While refining the original protocol is all well and good, why not look towards intergration with other open networks now?

    I've used em all, as they say, and while no one client is best for all applications I'd say the Emule development is damn close. Since it's Open Source and there are several main "production" versions from different groups plus individual modders putting out even more versions on the cutting edge of development. The best code gets quickly integrated all the way from the edge to the trunk, I've had my eye on their mod forums as well as the latest emule 27a thru 27c releases and things are really moving towards another great milestone release.

    With the integration of Overnet support into EMule it now has the best of both worlds, with both public servers and client to client directories. Plus with weblink sites making it easy to find and add known good files to your queue, by batches if needed, it gives the end user the complete experiance of a mature tech.

    At least Gnutella is open and may actually end up moving in this direction, I'm disappointed in hearing that the upcomming WinMX will still be closed, both their client and their network really have some good features but in the P2P world closed is death IMHO. As for me, I'll be waiting for the latest 27c EMule as modded by Sivka, my personal favorite at this time.

    Jonah Hex

    1. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Goatse+Guy · · Score: 0

      Jonah Hex - The size of your dick is 1 Foot=-O

      --
      IM the Goatse Guy!! My AIM screenname is GoatsexGuy
    2. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Anenga · · Score: 1

      ED2K really isn't a "Network", persay. It's centralized. In addition, the content on it is pretty much limited to ShareReactor. Overnet has the possibility of being different, since it's decentralized and more user friendly (though Overnet's main software isn't very user friendly).

      I find that Shareaza has the best GUI and set of features. Gnutella2 is surperior to ED2K (and Overnet, AFAIK) since it has systems that allow metadata, thumbnail preview of video in search results, uses less bandwidth etc. I've tested Overnet before and it didn't seem to be global (though that might of changed by now).

      Clients with multiple network support seem to be getting more popular now. MLdonkey recently added Gnutella1 support, and as you mentioned eMule has Overnet support now. Which is a good thing, perhaps it's time to use a client because of it's features instead of the size of the network.

      WinMX has some intersting things on their roadmap, such as a way of viewing video in a chatroom with all users viewing in sync. WinMX is plauged with it's horriable UI (it should be used as an example of what not to do in CS classes) and with it's queue system. They say it's going to be improved in their next version, but they've attempted to fix it before (with no luck). Who knows what will happen next.

      It's time for open/free networks to dominate the user bases, and ED2K/Overnet/Gnutella2 are all good canidates.

    3. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Inda · · Score: 2, Informative

      With the integration of Overnet [overnet.com] support into EMule it now has the best of both worlds, ...

      You sure about that? There is no mention of Overnet in the eMule changelog. You sure you aren't thinking of the eDonkey Hybrid?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    4. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by froseph · · Score: 1

      Sounds like MLDonkey where the client has plugins for edonkey2000, overnet, direct connect, gnutella, soulseek, and opennap networks. The gui is seperated from the core so you can run it on a server and check up on it via the web, telnet, or some other gui.

    5. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Magila · · Score: 1

      ED2K is not centralized, it's topology is similar to the untrapeer/leaf system used by gnutella except the "servers" run separate software and host many more users each (up to 100,000).

      As another poster said, the jury's still out on the real Gnutella2 but Shareaza is certainly not superior to emule. Shareaza uses more bandwidth the emule, all it takes is a cursury check of the stats page in emule then the amount transfered to connected hubs in Shareaza to confirm this. Most people using emule use sharereactor or similar sites (and there's a lot of content on SR) so they've already seen all the metadata they just want to download the file.

    6. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by traskjd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Overnet is not currently integrated with eMule however the developers are working on it. The opcodes are in the source and it should be available in the next few versions somewhere (so I have read).

    7. Re:Combine with EMule and Overnet Instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've used em all, as they say, and while no one client is best for all applications I'd say the Emule development is damn close.

      Yeah, but giFT is already there, and it hasn't even been released yet =) I mean, it actually works.

  33. You're next! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freakin' eurofags should be rounded up into camps and modded down on sight!

  34. Gnutella is a great client by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I cant believe it...I keep wishing what I saw was a dream. I keep pinching myself hoping I'll wakeup from this nightmare...this world nightmare. What I saw will change the world, just like it has changed mine. I have started this web page for the purpose of warning the world. I will tell my story in the coming weeks, jumping to city to city, hoping They don't find me. In time, when I feel safe, I'll show the evidence, the proof that this is coming.

    How I Found It:

    This all started in Rhode Island on September 27th of this year. I was in Providence for the weekend visiting my parents, like I tried to do every weekend. My parents wanted me to go to Prudence, a small island near Bristol, RI. I agreed and on the 28th we set off to Bristol to ride the ferry to Prudence Island. When we got to the island and unpacked all our stuff, I decided to go sight seeing and brought my camera with me. Prudence has a lot of heritage, dating back to the Native Americans and Roger Williams. I wanted to take pictures of the islands famous Indian water well.

    I sent off into the woods for a hike to the well by myself, not wanting to be bothered by the locals. When I got to the well I started to take a bunch of pictures, not wanting to stay long. I looked into the well and was about to take more pictures when all of a sudden I heard a branch break to the left of me. I groaned knowing it was one of the stupid kids on the island running around or something. I looked towards where the branch broke and to my surprise I saw a man looking at me. When he saw me notice him, he looked away and started walking away from me. I thought nothing of it, thinking it was one of the weird locals.

    When he walked away he must of dropped something because there was keys were he just was standing. I picked up the keys and walked down the path he went down when he walked away from me. I wanted to be polite and give him the keys he dropped so I rushed ahead trying to catch him. I watched as he went near a small wooden shed and started putting his hands in his pockets trying to find something. I started to run towards him to give him what he appeared to be looking for. He saw me...and just ran. I started yelling to him that I had his keys but he just ran faster into the woods. I walked to the shed and put the key on the ground near the door, thinking this man was crazy.

    When I started to walk away from the shed something caught my eye in the shed's window...a hanging noose. I walked up to the window thinking maybe this crazy man was about to kill himself. I looked into the shed through the widow and saw stacks and stacks of books with the words "Its Coming" on them all. On a table I saw a handgun and a weird piece of metal right next to it. My curiosity got the best of me and I grabbed the key from the ground. I looked around and then unlocked the shed door. I walked in and started to take pictures of everything.

    I picked up the piece of metal on the table and saw the words "On the 31st" on the back of it. I put the piece back onto the table and picked up one of the books and started flipping through it. The book was full of paranoia type stuff. I rolled my eyes at the book and flipped to the last page. In big green letters were the words "On the 31st". I took a picture of the text and put the book down. I looked around the shed for a little bit and saw a rug in the corner of the room that looked sunken in, in the middle. I lifted the rug and saw a hole in the ground where the rug was sunk in. I took a bunch of pictures of it and peeped my head through it. What I saw was...I jumped back at what I saw. It couldn't have been what I think it was.

    I mustered up the courage and jumped into the hole. I started taking pictures of everything, the pictures, the items, the...I took pictures of everything. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I started getting paranoid, thinking I would get caught down there, so I climbed out of the hole and walked out of the shed. I left that shed a different person. I knew what was coming.

  35. Re: Handshake Stages by Goatse+Guy · · Score: 0

    Anonymous Coward - The size of your dick is 7 Inches

    --
    IM the Goatse Guy!! My AIM screenname is GoatsexGuy
  36. BitTorrent by eddy · · Score: 1

    I found the concept of BitTorrent pretty cool; as a normal user you only share what you're currently downloading! Clients download in "segments" from multiple other clients in a distributed fashion.

    There are problems; The space for the file "must" be preallocated. If you end after getting 50% there's no guarantee that you've got anything like a usable file (you can't expect even streamable files to work), and the fact that there are fewer and fewer sources to get data from as you approach the end of the file, this because clients usually close down when they've completed the download, thereby never giving the others a chance to download from the complete file.

    BitTorrent is good for files that are mostly interesting for a short period of time, like for instance recorded TV-shows.

    The one thing that is needed is some way to punish nodes that close down as soon as they've completed their download.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
    1. Re:BitTorrent by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      Shareaza can also act as your primary download manager, and supports sharing parts of files as they are downloaded.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  37. Users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see a show of hands.

    How many people here either use, or have used, or are thinking about using *any* P2P system for obtaining software they can't (or don't want to) afford?

    [counting.....] 567, 568, 569, 1006, 2793, 4932, 13,652 ...... WOW !

    (That's just what I thought). No need to mention any names.

  38. giFT is not remotely close to ready by yerricde · · Score: 1

    the later cvs's work pretty well now

    Seventy plus percent of Slashdot readers use Microsoft Windows as their primary operating system. The giFT developers currently consider giFT not yet ready for even beta binary packages for Windows. Use eMule instead until giFT progresses further.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  39. Re:The "About" information or... you are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah you fuckhead... a karma whore would post as an Anonymous Coward

  40. distributed functionality by tunesmith · · Score: 1

    Hey, how close are we to having something like Gnutella2 host a massive database, where we can create tables and store data and make queries against it? The advantages of this should be obvious.

    --
    skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
    1. Re:distributed functionality by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      Oh, like this?

    2. Re:distributed functionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The developer of Shareaza said it's easy to do. He just needs to be convinced to prioritize it :)

  41. how do you pronounce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you pronounce Gnutella?
    I pronounce it: new-tell-ah
    from what I gather, everyone here seems to pronounce it: nut-el-ah?

    What is it then? I'm not big into P2P, so I really don't know.

  42. Mirror@ http://www.kiwiuk.net/gnutella2_draft.htm by Istealmymusic · · Score: 1

    There is a mirror over at http://www.kiwiuk.net/gnutella2_draft.htm (not mine).

    --
    "The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
  43. Re:THE FOLLY OF DENYING GOD by SuDZ · · Score: 1

    He gets the best up skirt pics.

    SuDZ

  44. Huh? by rlowe69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sorry, I'm new to this Gnutella2/Gnutella battle.

    If Mike really did use the Gnutella name without permission, why doesn't someone sue him? These "products" are far too similar to be called by such similar names. For example, I'd get my ass sued if I made a new operating system and called it 'Linux2'. Unholster the IANAL's and tell me why. Or even better, get a real lawyer to tell me why.

    Otherwise, stop bitching about the fact he's using the name if you aren't going to do anything about it.

    --
    ----- rL
    1. Re:Huh? by Anenga · · Score: 1

      Because the Gnutella name is not trademarked/copyrighted. It is "Open/Free". Nobody owns Gnutella, just as Mike does not own Gnutella2.

      To me, it's silly. It's like the Internet. Do people who own the Internet (??) sue the people who created Internet2? No.

    2. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the shareaza parrot answer. A community has used the term Gnutella for years without someone swooping in and stealing after making ZERO contributions to the network previosly. It was done for publicity, slashdot ofcourse fell for it.

      Legal, perhaps, the "right" thing to do, definitely not.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anenga · · Score: 1
      A community has used the term Gnutella for years without someone swooping in and stealing after making ZERO contributions to the network previosly.

      Huh? Mike had made lots of contributions to the GDF before and even now. Such as Remote queueing, and the Partial File Sharing Standard. Mike didn't "steal" anything. The GDF doesn't own Gnutella, thus you can't take it away from it.

      Frankly, doesn't matter what the protocol is called. It's better than anything out there now and it's going to improve File Sharing and P2P technology.
    4. Re:Huh? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Frankly, doesn't matter what the protocol is called.

      If so, why not call it something else that doesn't risk confusion of lineage? The fact is, name is important, which is why trademark laws formally protect brand names. Why did Linus Torvalds have to trademark "Linux", even if he has no apparent intention to market anything?

    5. Re:Huh? by pjrc · · Score: 1
      If Mike really did use the Gnutella name without permission, why doesn't someone sue him?

      Because they can't sue. They don't have a registered trademark on the name "gnutella". Just brcause the name is in common use to describe the protocol doesn't make it a trademark.

      For example, I'd get my ass sued if I made a new operating system and called it 'Linux2'.

      Linus does hold a registered trademark on the term "linux" as used to refer to computer operating system software. Wether he's sue is a good question, but you'd certainly get a lot of bad press and stir up a lot of contraversy... much like this whole gnutella issue.

      The key difference, however, is that gnutella has strong reputation and long history of miserable performance.... so a promise of a much better network that solves all the "old" problems of gnutella can win quite a bit more support than co-opting the name linux, which generally everybody likes (except maybe some folks in Redmond :)

      Unholster the IANAL's and tell me why.

      To sue for trademark infringment, one needs to have a trademark. Bearshare, Limewire and the others strongly against Mike don't. Linus Torrvalds does have a registered trademark.

      The story of the linux trademark is also quite interesting.... briefly, a slimball named Della Croce registered "linux" as his operating system trademark in 1995, and attempted to extort fees from various cdrom distributors in 1996 (back then, most people bought compilation cdroms from Infomagic and others). Everybody was outraged. Most of the major linux companies filed a suit or provided assistance, and ultimately the trademark was assigned to Linus.

      Since IANAL, I did gloss over the whole issue of registered vs non-registered trademarks, and what opportunities one might have to sue if a trademark is not registered. Maybe someone who knows about this will respond. But it's pretty safe to say that the term "gnutella" is not a trademark.

    6. Re:Huh? by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      For example, I'd get my ass sued if I made a new operating system and called it 'Linux2'.

      Er...no...I think you're sort of missing the point of Linux.

    7. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why AOL or the FSF should trademark "Gnutella" and shut all of these clowns up.

  45. misspelling by jesser · · Score: 1

    "Gnutella" is mispelled in the specification draft, but not in the title of the Slashdot article. Is that a first?

    --
    The shareholder is always right.
  46. What you're saying is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your p0rn are belong to us.

    Somebody set us up the lube!

  47. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe that the GDF owns Gnutella, then yes, this is not the "Offical Gnutella2".

  48. This is NOT Gnutella by sbwoodside · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To be more to the point -- this is NOT Gnutella. The Gnutella developers are not happy about the so-called "Gnutella" 2 since it goes against their wishes in many ways. Basically this one individual hijacked the name to push his own ideas.

    From the last story it's pretty damned clear that "Gnutella" 2 is not going to be a particularly helpful or effective protocol. As someone who uses the real Gnutella (sometimes even for perfectly legit purposes) and thinks it works, I'll stick to the real Gnutella. It keeps getting better ...

    simon

    1. Re:This is NOT Gnutella by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The original AOL developers are not happy about the so-called "Gnutella" since it goes against their wishes in many ways. Basically a few individuals hijacked the name to push their own ideas

    2. Re:This is NOT Gnutella by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gnutella developers are not happy because it is much better than Gnutella. The only ones that are really upset are Limewire and Bearshare (the two companies that develop Gnutella clients). Its clear there intentions are to try to publicly put down G2 in hopes of not losing users to it.

  49. Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And with the dupes we can keep it down for weeks! :)

    Well duh, this is Gnutella 2. You're supposed to post everything twice!

    Well duh, this is Gnutella 2. You're supposed to post everything twice!

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, this wasn't funny.

      The other 2 parent posts were, but this was horibly sad.

    2. Re:Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      I admit, it's a groaner...

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    3. Re:Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the score of redundant is even funnier

    4. Re:Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      Actually, I agree!

      Can we mod the mods?

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    5. Re:Well, you're supposed to post it twice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er..yes, its called metamods.. lets hope I get to meta-moderate them.

  50. Shareazza/mp concepts by throwaway18 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1) Shareaza works reasonably well though the lack of a usefull anti leech
    mechanism is a drawback. A leaf and hub architecture is a reasonable compromise,
    it usually dosn't allow searching of the whole network.
    A distributed hash table architecture would allow global search but DHT is
    vulnerable to an attacker with modest resources flooding the search space with
    junk.

    2)I'm interested in the reliable communiaction over UDP part of the protocol.

    Two peers, neither of whom accept incoming connections due to connection sharing
    or firewalling can't exchange files with any current p2p software.

    I'm a bit surprised that no p2p project has tried to do UDP connection splicing
    to allow two peers, both behind internet connection sharing (NAT) to talk to
    each other. It not be possible but I havn't come across anyone who has tried at all.
    It dosn't have to work for everyone to be usfull. Just allowing 10% of
    NATed hosts to communicate would be worth the effort.

    NAT routers usually allow outgoing UDP connections, normally the remote
    machine will be listening on a UDP prt (most common use is port 53 for domain
    name lookups. The local computer sends out a packet with a unique local port
    number (sequentially or randomly assigned) and a remote port of 53.
    When a UDP reply arrives from the internet, it also has a remote port number
    of 53 and the chosen local port number. The connection sharing machine
    looks at the local port number and compares it to a table of known connections.
    If it matches an entry it knows which of the computers behind the NAT
    it is intended for and forwards it.

    In theory, if two NATed hosts send out UDP packets at the same time, using
    the same port numbers the connection will penetrate the NATs. It requires the
    help of another machine but in a p2p system you have plenty of machines that
    can pass on some small messages.

    The only problem I can see is that a NAT may change the local port number.
    I hope that cheap cable/dsl routers only change the local port if necessary,
    or if they do will use predicatable numbers.

    This technique will also be usfull for getting through statefull firewalls.

    I need to research this more. Am I missing somthing?
    I'm aware that shifting files over UDP requires TCP compatible flow control
    so it dosn't hog all the bandwidth.

    3)Due to the number of people behind transparent proxys that hijack all outgoing
    connections to port 80 and the number of people who set their filesharing
    clients to listen on 80, I think is is a pity Mike didn't take the opportunity
    to add a faculity to encapsulate traffic with a fake HTTP GET header so it will
    go through http-only proxys. Kazaa does somthing like this.

    1. Re:Shareazza/mp concepts by PureFiction · · Score: 1

      I'm a bit surprised that no p2p project has tried to do UDP connection splicing
      to allow two peers, both behind internet connection sharing (NAT) to talk to
      each other.


      Check out the UDP based messaging protocol used in the alpine search communication. It supports dual NAT communication between peers and reliable/unreliable transport of datagram packets.

      For bulk transport (most apps use UDP for messaging only) you would need to use something like AirHook to handle retransmission and high throughput transfer.

  51. Er.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note that I !NOT! am talking about the name.

    That makes more sense :)

    1. Re:Er.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just to clarify, i am not talking about the name. also i am insane.

  52. The question! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *WHO* will start a Linux G2 client?

    Please? :)

    Ps: You can also help Ashitaka.

  53. SILLY AMERICAN MODS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    filter

  54. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the way that G2 operates compared to Gnutella, I am sure that most folks will be happy while being "fooled".

    "Don't be fooled" == "Be inferior"

  55. Re:THE FOLLY OF DENYING GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is a leecher

  56. lMule (Linux) by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    In case anyone wants to run eMule in Linux, you can get lMule (Linux port).

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  57. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by scrytch · · Score: 1

    > 1. Can this version prevent abuse from folks that try to flood the system with bogus or damaged files?

    Here's how I do it, because I have a dial-up and can't waste my time downloading junk:

    1. Use the result with the most hosts. Not only the most reliable download, but it's probably been verified by some of them.

    2. If it's really big, I'll verify it with Bitzi (it's one click from shareaza), plus I can bookmark the page if I want to grab it later (since it has ed2k links).

    3. If I see a "XXX IS BOGUS.txt" file, I grab it so I'm one more node sharing it and passing on the word. The file usually contains a hash.

    Not going to be a perfect system, and not likely to stand up to organized attack (not even freenet can do that). Speaking of freenet, given the nature of the internet, freenet would be required to do such a thing as anonymous downloads. gnutella simply brokers peer connections, freenet is a virtual network itself, serving somewhat different needs. A freenet/gnutella gateway would certainly be nice, but probably in freenet's scope, not gnutella's.

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  58. So, to summarize... by p3d0 · · Score: 1

    After lots of heated debate, let the debates begin.

    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  59. ITS BUILT INTO SHAREAZA AND IT WORKS!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you hit F7 it goes into the security tab there you have a list of banned Ip's or ip ranges
    by downloading a XML security update it adds all the known IP's that have bogus/infected files as well as ban companys (time warner, mediaforce cogent, overpeer) that monitor what you share, and send your ISP the LETTER, so in addition to this it has the best searching of ANY client, I constantly get 1.5k-2k hits on files and thats after filtering out the bad or bogus files

  60. Why don't I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Distribute trojaned windows executables disguised as the Gnutella2 specs on the KaZaA networks?!?!

  61. OMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG jorje bush just dropped the thermel global nucular bomb on iraq!!

  62. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by br00tus · · Score: 1

    I agree. This is a protocol that is going to die a quick death. Instead of creating a great new protocol, he just created yet another p2p protocol (there are hundreds of other ones), but he figured out that if he stuck the Gnutella name on it, he could get lots of free publicity from sites like Slashdot. This way it wouldn't have to be judged on it's merits. Hell, I just developed Gnutella 3 which outdates Gnutella 2, come look at my site. No one minds he wrote his own protocol, but he quite uncreatively comes out of nowhere and calls his new protocol Gnutella 2. Problem is, virtually every Gnutella developer, myself included, doesn't buy into it. And who the hell else is going to develop for it - this is dead in the water. You can barely get enough developers developing on good protocols like Gnutella and Freenet. Also, this guy thre a temper tantrum and said that he was keeping the protocols of Gnutella 2 "secret", but I guess he changed his mind. Hey everybody, come visit my website, Slashdot 2.

  63. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by sabNetwork · · Score: 1

    Don't be fooled! This is Slashdot, not CNN.

  64. I'll admit I haven't read the spec... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but there will still be porn, right?

  65. Re: Handshake Stages by Anenga · · Score: 1
    Can you say DDoS? Would be fun and easy to get an entire network of gnutella clients to respond to one ip.

    Looks like somebody didn't read the entire G2 Specs. Miss the part about Search Security, have we? Just so you don't have to get your Anonymous ass up and look, here it is for you:

    In an environment where a single query injection may result in a number of responses, acting as a virtual "traffic amplifier", it is desirable to verify that the return address is indeed that of the original sender. This prevents the network from being used as a method of generating a large-scale traffic generator.

    The Gnutella2 network uses a system of "query keys" to solve this problem.

    Before a search client can transmit a query to a particular hub, it must obtain a "query key" for that hub and include it in the transmission. Query keys are unique to the hub generating them and the return address with which they are associated and generally expire after a relatively long period of time.

    Search clients request a query key by sending a query key request to a hub, which includes the intended return address for the key. The hub generates a key unique to that return address and dispatches it there. This makes it impossible to get a query key for an IP which is not controlled, and prevents keys from being shared between two nodes (key stealing).

    When receiving a query from a foreign node, Gntuella2 hubs check the query key against the one they have issued for the query's requested return address and proceed only if there is a match. If and only if the query key matches will the query acknowledgement be sent, or the search processed locally and forwarded to local leaves and neighbouring hubs.

    This has several positive effects. If a query does not have a valid key for the receiving hub, it will not be processed and will thus not generate a traffic amplification effect which may be used in a denial of service attack on a third party host. Secondly, the query key mechanism ensures that queries are only processed if they were transmitted from a host which has control over the host in the return address (in the normal case, this is the same host). This means that flood control mechanisms can remain just as effective as in the TCP case. Similarly, host blocking is possible as the original query source can be verified.
  66. is Gnutella2 better than Kazalite ? by zymano · · Score: 0
    kazalite is damn good. Reliable. Lots of stuff. Fast.

    haven't used Gnutella in awhile

    Have to agree with earlier replys about Gnutella having sloooow downloads and it being unreliable.

    1. Re:is Gnutella2 better than Kazalite ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, but at least it's a published standard, although not a particulary open one. FastTrack (the KaZaa protocol) is being slowly and painfully reverse-engineered by the giFT team so that those who don't use Windows can enjoy it, but the company behind that network has revamped it specifically to disrupt their work, and I'm sure they'll do it again.

    2. Re:is Gnutella2 better than Kazalite ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the giFT team stopped trying to reverse engineer the FastTrack protocol months ago (kept getting blocked by FastTrack), and are now working on releasing a similiar protocol of their own devising.

  67. Re:I ate half a jar yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    f'in hilarious

  68. Not the open source mindset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Websites containing information about Gnutella2 (such as gnutella2.com) are encouraged to list only compliant applications, and application developers are encouraged to deny communications with known non-compliant applications. Applications which do not comply with the standard or are still in the development process should never be made available to the public, however private testing is always encouraged."

    HUH? Apps should be developed in secret, and devel versions should be aggressively fought off the network and not reported? This obviously is not the work of open source people.

  69. poo usage of bandwith by Pr0xY · · Score: 1

    i took a quick look at the spec so i may be making some assumptions here. but from what i see, there is a lot of HTTP protocol style plain text being sent as apposed to binary blocks of data. ex:

    GNUTELLA CONNECT/0.6
    Listen-IP: 1.2.3.4:6346
    Remote-IP: 6.7.8.9
    User-Agent: Shareaza 1.8.2.0
    Accept: application/x-gnutella2
    X-Ultrapeer: False

    the same amount of information could be sent with far less "fluff" for human readability. while this is probably more extensible (fields can be out of order, and you can ignore unknown ones). this is clearly not making as efficient use of bandwidth as it can.

    i think they could have done better. this just "feels" like a cheep mod of http which to be honest wasnt originally designed for massive amounts of data transfer.

    proxy

    1. Re:poo usage of bandwith by jilles · · Score: 1

      It looks like you are connecting to shareaza using a gnutella client that doesn't support the new protocol. So basically what you are observing here is that the original gnutella (i.e. 0.4 and 0.6) is indeed not a very efficient protocol. Gnutella 2 actually compresses some of the protocol traffic which significantly boosts the efficiency of the ultrapeers.

      --

      Jilles
    2. Re:poo usage of bandwith by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      That's only used during the connection stage, and moreover is the original Gnutella. In both protocols, it switches to a binary approach later.

  70. Also Sprach *BSD by scubacuda · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for Linux! I am looking for Linux!"

    As many of those who did not believe in Linux were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

    "Where has Linux gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying Linux? Do we not smell anything yet of Linux's decomposition? Linux too decompose. Linux is dead. Linux remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become Linux simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."

    Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves."

    It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of Linux?"

  71. Re:The SECRET "About" information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [NOTE]Please never mod this post up![/NOTE]

    The real point is Limewire/Bearshare does not own Gnutella and they think nobody else should be allowed to use the phrase 'Gnutella' for a new protocol.

    This fact should be kept secret for visitors of Slashdot, instead we hear Limewire's frontmam Adam repeatetly brabble about god and the whole world and why Gnutella2 (oh sorry "eMPi") sux so much. Well, the whole debate should be obsolete, because an open source community is usually interested in improvements. Gnutella2 and Mikes strong experience (!) in P2P programming is a promising start for another good P2P protocol, let's wish him good luck.

    [NOTE]Please never mod this post up![/NOTE]

  72. persay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahahahah ahahhaha hahahaha persay

  73. Trademarks for wholesale by DarkVein · · Score: 1

    I'm going tangent, and potentially off-topic.

    MP, "Gnutella2," has hi-jacked the Gnutella name. Normally, "Gnutella" would be a registered trademark, making this sort of nominal theft illegal. The intent of trademark law is to prevent this sort of action. We are so disgusted with IP laws that we won't use them, even [rare case] when they're the Right Thing.

    I suppose a judge would laugh at a "copyright theft enabler" using IP laws in this way, despite the legitimacy of the claim.

    I find it odd. The Trademark Law, and nominal protection of Copy Right Law, are the most agreeable parts of IP law. Even a bad tool can do the right thing. I suppose it's not in Gnutella's blood to use existing bad tools. [This article occurs next to an XFree86 re-organization pitch]

    In 1984-ish fashion, I propose we push "Copy Right" in the place of "Copyright." [further off topic] Law and politics are full of perversions of language to control debate and discussion. By changing the emphasis in "Copyright," we move the focus of the concept back to the Right of Copying. The phrase "Copyright," is a conceptual black box to most people, or a fixed reality of some sort. People consider it inviolable, and it's difficult to discuss. By changing the phrase to "Copy Right," its very nature becomes open and questionable. The concept's nature, as a right, is clarified, and the scope of that right is brought under common suspicion.

    --

    I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.

  74. Oh, please by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Linus didn't call it Minix2, jackass.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  75. There is no Gnutella2 and there never will be. by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The people who created Gnutella abandoned the project. No one owns the name, and anyone can call anything 'Gnutella2'.

    There can never be a 'legitimate' Gnutella2 because there is no 'legitimizer' to bestow legitimacy upon it.

    People should allow their protocols to grow on their own, rather then trying to take advantage of a dead name.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:There is no Gnutella2 and there never will be. by julesh · · Score: 1

      There can never be a 'legitimate' Gnutella2 because there is no 'legitimizer' to bestow legitimacy upon it.

      That's not entirely true. "Gnutella" is, by general concensus, now organised by the GDF (Gnutella Developers Forum), and if this protocol were to be accepted by that forum most people would probably consider it a legitimate use of the name.

      However, it is true that the name is not a trademark (AFAIK) but has become, due to multiple implementations, a generic term and therefore can be used by anybody legally.

      There is a difference between legal and legitimate, though.

  76. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by rsax · · Score: 1
    Also, this guy thre a temper tantrum and said that he was keeping the protocols of Gnutella 2 "secret", but I guess he changed his mind.

    From what I can remember it was the author of Bearshare who threw the mother of all tantrums and said that he was going to come up with gnutella3 and make sure it was a closed proprietary protocol. So yea, Gnutella2 or Mike's Protocol or whatever you want to call it, is an open protocol (officially) now. No more reasons to complain now are there?

    As far as I'm concerned Shareaza rocks! It works like advertised: no spyware or ad's, fast and free. If none of the other Gnutella developers (except for the Gnucleus author) want to implement the G2/MP protocol then that's their decision but for now I join the rest of a growing number of Shareaza users who have a wicked P2P application.

  77. P2P networks resilience.. by SystematicPsycho · · Score: 1

    P2P networks must also be resilient to legal attacks. In response P2P must exploit legal loopholes.

    --
    Analytic & algebraic topology of locally Euclidean meterization of infinitely differentiable Riemmanian manifold
  78. Re:The "About" information - clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude, you obviously haven't used the new Shareaza. Try it, then compare with BearShare or Limewire. Aside from the visual superiority, you'll note that download completion rate, search speed, number of results, meta-data capability, etc. are far better than ANY of the old gnutelliums.
    Don't say shit until you've actually tried these programs, man.. nobody cares whether the old Guntella protocol is "good enough" technically, or whether Gnutella2 is theoretically less efficient. The ONLY thing that matters in the P2P world (to USERS, AKA the people who count) is performance, and that's why Limewire is old hat. That's why spyware perpetrators like Bearshare are being deserted, and it's why open source still has a chance in a Kazaa-dominated world.

    An aside: have you tried Kazaa lately? Or, more appropriately, Kazaa Lite? It's miles better than anything Gnutella has to offer; For now, Shareaza is the only thing out there that can almost compete. You should seriously get out in the world and take a look around sometime, man. Not meaning to be rude :p

  79. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Mike's proto will stike up like Godzilla and trash the old crappy proto... the software is obviously far superior.

  80. Byte order by burnetd · · Score: 1

    Multi-byte integers are serialized in the byte-order of the topmost packet. Little-endian is the default byte-order; however big-endian byte order can be selected for those who want it.

    What so now I have to guess byte order? Why don't people just stick to network order?
    Is there an OS out there that doesn't have a ntohl equivalent!

    1. Re:Byte order by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1
      Is there an OS out there that doesn't have a ntohl equivalent!

      Possibly, but it's trivial to implement your own:

      struct nlong { unsigned char data[4] };

      struct nlong htonl(unsigned long foo){
      struct nlong x;
      int i;
      for(i = 0; i < 4; i++){
      x.data[i] = foo & 0xffu;
      foo >>= 8;
      }
      return x;
      }

      unsigned long ntohl(struct nlong x){
      unsigned long foo = 0;
      int i;
      for(i = 0; i < 4; i++){
      foo |= x.data[i];
      foo <<= 8;
      }
      return foo;
      }
    2. Re:Byte order by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      Seems not so trivial. Try that on Motorola iron :)

    3. Re:Byte order by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, try that on Motorola iron? The code should work on any platform, provided you remain within the proper ranges for values (0..2^32-1 for unsigned long).

    4. Re:Byte order by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      Well of course not. Motorola processors use network byte order natively...

    5. Re:Byte order by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      OK, forget it. Didn't examine your code closely enough.

  81. Re:Don't be fooled! It's not the 'official' Gnutel by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

    There certainly are a lot of so-called "Gnutella developers" roaming around Slashdot today. You would think one or two of them would actually be aware of the history of Gnutella 2.

    --
    You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
  82. C structure? by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    #pragma pack(1)
    typedef struct
    {
    CHAR szTag[3];
    BYTE nFlags;
    WORD nSequence;
    BYTE nPart;
    BYTE nCount;
    } GND_HEADER;

    This is not a C structure. #pragma is an implementation-defined directive according to ISO/IEC 1999:9899. Moreover, it fails to define CHAR, BYTE, or WORD.

  83. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1
    1. Sure, but only if you know the hash of the file you want.
    2. No, that's what Freenet is for.
  84. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    You can't make such a gateway - you'd need to know the filenames and cryptographic hashes of every file on the gnutella network, and have to insert each one individually. And that's not a gateway.

  85. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by scrytch · · Score: 1

    > You can't make such a gateway - you'd need to know the filenames and cryptographic hashes of every file on the gnutella network, and have to insert each one individually.

    No you don't. Any one gateway just needs to know the filenames and hashes of the files it intends to gateway from freenet, then issue queries as requests come in. In fact you could build this list up lazily, but I hate to think of the spurious chatter this would cause on freenet. Multiple gateway-enabled servents would distribute the task of enumerating the files on freenet.

    --
    I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  86. Too slow on non-x86 by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Shareaza is available only for the Microsoft Windows operating system on x86 hardware, and emulating x86 Windows is dog slow on a Macintosh or Sun computer.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  87. Massive NAT by yerricde · · Score: 1

    You can have multiple machines behind NAT by forwarding different ports to different machines.

    One-port-per-box NAT forwarding won't help if you have 2 million machines behind a single IP address, such as the situation America Online has or used to have.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  88. For systems that don't have iptables by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I would have presumed that this functionality has nothing to do with Gnutella and is better left to iptables.

    Where can I download the equivalent of iptables for Microsoft Windows 2000?

    And is there a GUI based configuration program for iptables on Linux? Not everybody who wants to use P2P file sharing has experience with directly editing text files to configure a machine.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  89. A limitation of eDonkey: 8 MB parts by yerricde · · Score: 1

    The eDonkey system implements multiple source downloading by splitting files into "parts" which are apparently 8 MB in size, which is fine for movies and software distributions but too large for music or individual software packages.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  90. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1

    I don't think this is possible in freenet... does anyone know if this is the case?

  91. Re:Two questions: DRM/Flooding & Anonymous Dow by evilviper · · Score: 1

    1. Just search for something fake, and block the hosts that return a result. Most often, the viral node will be just echoing back what you typed, or returning the same file no matter your search, while the legit nodes may have the words in a different order, different case, extentions, and other information in the name that you didn't type in. After you've blocked about 5 hosts, that will get rid of 99.999% of all crap.

    2. Nothing allows downloading or uploading anonymously. You could encrypt the traffic, but then you'd still have to trust all the nodes you allow uploading/downloading from/to. FreeNet claims anonymity, but it's a bold-faced lie. It may give you plausable deniability, but so too does Gnutella.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant