Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Firefox Gets File Sharing Extension

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the only-a-matter-of-time dept.

Jonnty writes "Firefox finally has a good P2P extension.. "[It] incorporates peer-to-peer capabilities into the browser via a sidebar. AllPeers "combines the strength of Firefox and the efficiency of BitTorrent" to add media sharing to the long list of available extensions." "

7 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. avoid slashdot effect? by zapp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Could this be expanded to create a mini-bittorrent type network where if the browser can't contact the server, it checks its peers to see if a cached copy exists, and download it from them?

    --
    no comment
    1. Re:avoid slashdot effect? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Would it be easier to check and see if there was a Coral Cache'd version and then serve that up instead? Why build a new network (which using BT for would be silly as small-sized content over BT is ridiculous) when you could just utilize something that already exists?

      Because Coral Cache is an anonymous proxy, and a lot of corporate (and governmental) firewalls block anonymous proxies. Plus, if certain legislative bodies get what they want, you'll find ISPs being forced to block anonymous proxies as well.

      --
      My blog
  2. Maybe Possibly by kernelpanicked · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since the allpeers site is just a bunch of pictures and promises, with no actual extension available, shouldn't the title be "Firefox MIGHT get file sharing extension"?

    --
    Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
  3. Nice Pre-Release PR by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    • It isn't even released yet. All there is are some easily dummied up screenshots.
    • It's basically BitTorrent in a sidebar. Why is this impressive, again? My browsing and file-sharing are completely separate tasks, and the integration is as logical as putting file system defragmenting in a sidebar.


    Color me cynical, and unimpressed.
  4. Implication by Omnieiunium · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, this might not be such a bad idea and it sort of makes sense. For webpages that heavily depend upon video or audio, this would work perfectly if implemented well. It makes sense that if you downloaded the file and played it in a built-in player in Firefox or other. I can also see it saving a lot of bandwidth for sites. It also saves the need of having to get another client, like Azureus, and downloading the .torrent file and all that extra stuff to download something, while having it just download in Firefox. This may be a new interesting to way spread content, so I think it should be watched closely.

  5. Re:The future of data sharing? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These protocols need one or more centralized server(s) to function properly.

    That isn't true at all. P2P is finding ways to de-centralize more and more every day.

    The idea of a third party intermediary is not unheard of -- in fact, there are numerous BitTorrent replacement protocols being developed right now that take advantage of another user on a network to mask the sender and receiver from one-another. You can go out and get the latest "pirate" MP3, but you have no idea who you're getting it from and they have no idea who they're sending it to. I find that this is a better way to keep over-regulation of the Internet down, and uphold the right to free expression.

    Another idiotic idea. Why the hell would I want to spend my time LOOKING for the website I want, instead of just plain visiting it? Yes, this WOULD require me to look for the website. Also, security (Login information, et cetera) is practically impossible in such situations.

    I'm an anarchocapitalist, and I hate knowing that DNS will likely be the control system our governments user to censor the information out there. I'm constantly trying to find theories in how we could use the Internet without central regulation (such as DNS), and I feel that networks are becoming more and more transparent to domain names as time goes on. Yes, google and other search engines rely on domain names but this is merely to keep things simple. Over time I believe we'll see search engines develop that completely ignore domain names -- although how we'd link to one another is another problem, but that is being worked on as well.

  6. Re:My perhaps stupid question... by mogwai7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Since it is a plugin and not a part of Firefox, no. This is one of the best advantages of a plugin architecture. You can allow controversial functionality, like adblock, to be added and avoid consequences. They may go after the plugin writers, but so what? Even if they stop them, 10 more would probably be released, especially if the original implementation is open source.