Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Shareaza 2.0 Released Under GPL

Posted by timothy on from the runs-under-whatnow? dept.

RageEar writes "Today it was announced that the latest version of Shareaza, a popular P2P application for Windows, was released under the GPL. Currently the source code is hosted by the Shareaza servers, but the announcement makes mention of the code becoming a project on Sourceforge. The binaries are still available for Windows only, but I imagine it is only a matter of time before a Linux port emerges."

16 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. anybody compiled it yet by jonasmit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    on Linux/BSD? Do any ports currently exist?

    1. Re:anybody compiled it yet by vDave420 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Gnutella developers have complained that Shareaza's Gnutella implementation is outdated & that it wrongly sends tons of "Gnutella2" packets to clients that don't want them.

      No kidding! (Disclaimer, IAA Gnutella Developer)

      I myself am in the process of adding Udp support to BearShare, and right outta the gate, various Shareaza nodes begin blasting tons of unsolicited "Mike's Protocol Udp packets" at me.

      Granted, there is a generic problem of random traffic when using Udp, but I don't see "random traffic", I see "lots of unsolicited Non-Gnutella, Udp MikeProtocol packets".

      Grrr...
      Not to mention the appropriation of the well-known name "gnutella" for a non-gnutella protocol.

      No, in short, Shareaza is more a "jack of all trades" that never (IMHO) had really great support for any of the protocols it implemented.

      From my own experience, at least, the Gnutella and BitTorrent implementations aren't that great, and tend to lag pretty severly behind the mono-network clients. Can't really speak from personal experience with the ED2k and MP side, though. For all I know, those implementations work well enough.

      -dave-

      --
      The pig browse. With Google. Sigh is to the chicken. Chicken is fool. Giggle. The DailyWTF giggle.
    2. Re:anybody compiled it yet by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bram Cohen has complained that Shareaza's BitTorrent implementation is terrible

      Do you have a source for that? I'd actually heard the opposite, that he was pleased to see support being integrated into other software.

      Gnutella developers have complained that Shareaza's Gnutella implementation is outdated

      I think that's one of the primary reasons for the open sourcing -- the original developer doesn't have time to work on Gnutella support and hopes somebody else will step in to maintain this aspect.

      & that it wrongly sends tons of "Gnutella2" packets to clients that don't want them.

      I believe that is related to a bug that was fixed a while back, when version 2 GWebCache servers became commonly available.

      Would you prefer a client that picks a goal and makes it work amazingly well, or a client that tries to do lots of things so-so

      I've never actually found a client that works better than shareaza, for me. I switched to it from limewire a while back, and was definitely impressed with the improvement in quality I saw. The UI is more intuitive, the application is more responsive and uses less memory (a critical feature for an app you leave running in the background all the time, as I do). While it seems that Gnutella has improved since I switched (it now returns results a lot faster than it used to), the support for the edonkey and G2 networks is very useful... G2 does provide a wider choice when searching for rare files, I find, and edonkey is very useful for downloading larger files that few gnutella users seem to have.

    3. Re:anybody compiled it yet by Adam+Fisk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is perpetuating a common myth, namely that connecting to multiple networks translates into access to more files. It's a myth that makes sense on the face of it. It breaks down on the level of the searching protocols, however, and it's a myth that programs like Shareaza and Morpheus use as a marketing gimmick to get users to try their programs. Why is it a myth? It's a myth because all p2p networks have physical limits that prevent searches from reaching beyond certain numbers of computers without overloading the bandwidth capacity of every node on the network. "Gnutella2 (aka Mike's Protocol)", Gnutella, eDonkey, FastTrack, etc all face these physical limits. All of these networks are highly advanced at this point. The eDonkey and Gnutella search architectures in particular are extremely efficient. The MP architecture seems pretty good, but it's not specified very well and will require someone plugging through the source code to really have a look at how good it is. FastTrack is probably trailing all of the other networks at this point in terms of search efficiency. That said, none of these network are able to search beyond a million or so nodes for a given (rare) file simply because there's only so much bandwidth to go around, and we've already extracted most of the big efficiencies to be tweaked out of these architectures. The only way connecting to more networks can result in more files is if a client acts as a leech, if it connects to a network and sucks resources from it and contributes no resources back. This is precisely what Shareaza does with Gnutella and eDonkey. It connects as "leaves" to both networks to ensure that it does not have to contribute any resources while leeching off the other users of those networks to get files. Yick! Same thing the Morpheus folks do. Don't get me wrong, Mike is clearly a talented programmer and Shareaza has lots of great features, and Mike's generally a nice guy. These kinds of behaviors are just a little obnoxious though, and doesn't tend to make Shareaza any friends. I don't work for LimeWire any more, by the way. These are my own, completely independent views.

      --

      Adam Fisk

  2. do we really want OSS P2P apps? by musikit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    don't get me wrong... i am all for OSS. i run linux and mac etc. however if the wire protocol is open wouldn't it be easier for RIAA/MPAA/USGOV/ISPs to look at the data and block certain traffic/file names to "cover their own ass" or have evidence to prosecute you?

    musikit equips tin-foil hat.

  3. And Soon... by Azureflare · · Score: 2, Interesting
    NOT on sourceforge.net. As soon as the DMCA notices arrive at sourceforge, it'll be taken down.

    This should be quite interesting to watch. Personally, I stopped using P2P apps because there's nothing I want these days. Also, I got one of those friendly notices from the MPAA, and I realized, that it seriously wasn't worth it.

    Any software I want, there's a free alternative for linux. None of the music that is coming out now interests me, so this p2p app is completely unappealing.

    1. Re:And Soon... by bigberk · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Any software I want, there's a free alternative for linux. None of the music that is coming out now interests me, so this p2p app is completely unappealing.
      I agree with what you say. In the *NIX world, all the software we need is free. I don't need to buy from $corp, in fact I don't even need to steal from $corp. My desktop Linux installation is compatible with my hardware, and works fine.

      Pop music has been a big disappointment for me, so now I only listen to my campus radio stations. I don't buy CDs from $industry, and I don't download their music online. The $industry registers lost CD sales as Internet piracy, so they're either ignorant or deceptive. Either way... they're screwed in the long run if many do what I'm doing.

      I think this is the appropriate way to have an impact. It's legal, ethical, and even healthy for capitalism.
  4. Remote access by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A new, very comprehensive "remote web access" feature allows full remote control of Shareaza's searches, downloads, uploads and networks from any web browser.
    That's what I am most excited for. Checking your downloads and searches while out of town for a few days or at school. Very useful indeed

    --

    Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
  5. Re:Better? by hawkbug · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, but does it encrypt the data stream so people can't spy on what your download? If not, it's still just another file sharing app people won't use.

  6. Kudoes and all; but,... by Like2Byte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's .NET source.

    From the vcproj file:

    VisualStudioProject
    ProjectType="Visual C++"
    Version="7.10"
    Name="Shareaza" ...

    Ugh.

  7. protocol by hey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would be better if they just published the protocol!

  8. Re:Wow by lordDallan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I always thought the name was a play on Scheherazade, the heroine from "The Book of One Thousand and One Nights".

    Kind of like she told a thousand stories, there are a thousand (metaphorically) adventures in P2P downloading awaiting you, oh humble user.

  9. And here comes the RIAA's illegal hacking... by TyrranzzX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and the MPAA's, and the porn industries, and virus writers. This will be a good test of the viability of open source solutions for real-world security applications; real corporations have real economic incentive to destroy the networks, and now that the source is out and the lock is off, they're sure going to try.

    So says the king of tin-foil wearing freaks of nature!

    --


    Candy-Coated Knowledge

  10. Re:No anonymity - therefore useless by Kenja · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Any P2P without anonymity is useless."

    Translation: Any P2P without anonymity makes it possible to get called on my actions. I don't wana break the law if there's a chance I could get caught.

    So much for the civil disobedience argument.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  11. Re:No anonymity - therefore useless by julesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are uses of P2P networks that the RIAA can't complain about, you know.

    I, for one, share free & shareware software and public domain fonts.

    Plus the networks are used by pron sites to advertise their content.

  12. Re:No anonymity - therefore useless by tukkayoot · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Any P2P without anonymity is useless.

    Hardly. First of all, it's virtually impossible to create a functioning P2P network that offers true anonymity. My understanding is that even Freenet is not truly anonymous (it just offers a few layers of anonymity that could be peeled away if you're determined enough?), and it's also my understanding that Freenet's usability is not up to most peoples' standards (aka, "useless".)

    Second, it's not as if everyone who shares music infringing on the RIAA's copyrights gets a lawsuit brought on them. As a percentage, very few do. So if you're willing to accept the risk of the small chance that the RIAA does pick you to sue, then it's not useless.

    Third, there's a lot of stuff you can share on these networks besides material copyrighted by members of the RIAA/MPAA, including a tons of infringing and non-infringing stuff.

    My P2P client of choice at present is eMule, which doesn't offer a shred of anonymity. I'm not particularly worried about the RIAA and MPAA because I don't download the MPAA's movies and download/share very little of the RIAA's music (mostly older, rarer songs, b-sides and the like... stuff I highly doubt turns up in their searches to catch people for sharing). I share/download a little software via P2P. The bulk of what I download are TV shows (Firefly and Farscape specifically, lately). So, despite eMule's total lack of anonymity, I have to say I find it very useful.