any word on gnutella 2 adoption?

**CaptainAvitar** · November 9th, 2002, 09:58 PM

This is really weird I really thought that the new protocols that Shareaza started to use would cause a big stir. Theres not alot of talk about it on the Limewire site, in fact I hear that the code will be released this week or next week sometime. Do you think other gnutella clients (LW,BS, etc) will acept it ? if so how long would it take to put into thier programs?

**jonny5** · November 9th, 2002, 10:55 PM

interesting questions you have raised.. I assume if the gnutella 2 network is proven to run more efficiently and quicker, then the other clients will do what shareaza is doing and use both g1 and g2. I didn't know/haven't really been paying attention.. but you said that g2's source code hasn't been released yet.. so that's probably why there has been no talk of it on other gnutella based program's websites.

That's just what i think.. my ramblings at 1am :P
I'm interested in seeing what other people think too.
*thinks this is a good thread* :)

**evilmegaman** · November 9th, 2002, 11:12 PM

The only thing is that even when I am just connected to gnutella 2, I get uploads from many different clients from the gnutella 1 network so I imagine that gnutella 2 is only a portion of the network.

**Sephiroth** · November 10th, 2002, 03:44 PM

There has been discussion on the GDF about it..

One of the best posts about it is Greg Bildson's post which i think probably best summarizes all the other gnutella developers opinion on it.

Personally i think shareaza damaged their relationship with how they have handled "gnutella2" so far. They didnt tell any developers before which all gnutella proposals that have been agreed and are in gnutella now have gone through the GDF and havent been done in the ship it now, and get other programs to jump on the bandwagon.

IMHO Mike has given up on the GDF and assumed that they wouldnt listen to his idea or have allready rejected his idea which is why Shareaza and mike has said that he will support other implementations also. I think those kind of assumptions are wrong.

Also hes hasnt handled this entire thing in the best of manners in my opinion and the fact that they are trying to capitalize off the name "gnutella" by using "gnutella2" without taking the traditional route in proposing protocol changes and without the support of the gnutella community behind them was wrong. Its "Gnutella2" without "gnutella." Weather its Mike or someone thats helping him out its mike's program, hes in charge and weather he likes it or not it all comes back to him..

Also by pushing people from the shareaza forums to go out on the gdf and elsewheres to "spread the word" which is only hurting shareaza. Blowing this up into a big flame war wont accomplish anything.

The idea that gnutella just needs "marketing" is dumb and really nothing more would please me than to have more people using gnutella but the approach that shareaza has taken IMHO was not the best way at all. Because they have fragmented themselves from gnutella on what should be a common goal. Find me a developer that would not want a better way to search on gnutella that is more efficent than broadcasting and i suspect youll have a very hard time..

The other devs arent stupid they arent going to commit to something that they havent seen. Yeah shareaza may or may not release the specs but i think its wrong for people to expect the other devs to make a decision that they will support it or not until then especially since none have committed to it.

No matter how well it works in beta becuase the number of users is too small to see how well it work if a very large number of people used it. People dont understand that if gnutella only had 70 thousand users or so then it would work just as great as "g2" or whatever in that you could search every single host and it would be alot quicker. People assuming that it will work and is flawless is pretty premature too.

Me im waiting until what the people who have been working on gnutella for years have to say until i determine how good or bad it is. If it doesnt get accepted then i dont think that people should blame the other developers because they are really looking out for the best interest in gnutella and not just letting "marketing" and "the mob" affect their judgement.

Ive probably pissed some people off here but i just want to realize that Im not against shareaza or anything. I just disagree with what most things that shareaza is doing which they think is helping gnutella.. I might clean this up and maybe wait a little bit to see what happens and post it all as a editoral too.

John W. Lindh · November 10th, 2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by CaptainAvitar
Do you think other gnutella clients (LW,BS, etc) will acept it ?

After Shareaza Mike pissed them off? No. - I would even have doubted that they would've implemented it completely, if it had been proposed in an acceptable manner - but they might have implemented one part or another.

**Rickio** · November 10th, 2002, 06:05 PM

I think it will all add up to the facts. It will either work will and others will follow, or it will fail and be ignored.

Bearshare tried a little move awhile back, didn't seem to make them all that better.

Might not have been to smart to make a move (to step around gnutella development) as drasitc as they did, but let the chips fall where they may now.

**Borgster** · November 10th, 2002, 06:36 PM

im beginning to think that if other clients like bearshare, and limewire dont connect to the gnutella 1.0 (G2) protocol, that shareaza may use that as there own network, and shareaza can have there own personal network to run clients off of, like napster did.

**Sephiroth** · November 10th, 2002, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Borgster
im beginning to think that if other clients like bearshare, and limewire dont connect to the gnutella 1.0 (G2) protocol, that shareaza may use that as there own network, and shareaza can have there own personal network to run clients off of, like napster did.

Shareaza is allready on its own propierty network because it has not been supported by the other developers mainly because they havent seen it and just because a program uses the gnutella name doesnt make it gnutella.

Where did you get gnutella 1.0 from? Im just wondering.

**Nothingface5384** · November 10th, 2002, 06:53 PM

i heard the phex will be supporting G2 and hopefully when blues army tcourse s over..bout 4 weeks left he said..he'll work on his peerahna and his network some more..hopefully adding g2 to peerahna also!

**Crazy Horse** · November 10th, 2002, 07:58 PM

Good post Seph. I can't pretend to think that I understand all the technical stuff that goes into making the Gnutella network. Nor do I understand what all the developers are doing. I do know that Gnutella needs to scale to meet the demand of a larger user base. I do understand Greg concerns in that matter. The jury is still out on whether this G2 thing is going to be beneficial and only time will tell how good this truly will be. The cat's out of the bag though and like Rickio said let the chips fall. A lesson will be learned - good or bad. I'm hoping this is a major step in the right direction for Gnutella. So many developers should be coming up with major innovations sooner than later. Maybe Mike just upped the ante.

**Rickio** · November 10th, 2002, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Nothingface5384
i heard the phex will be supporting G2 and hopefully when blues army tcourse s over..bout 4 weeks left he said..he'll work on his peerahna and his network some more..hopefully adding g2 to peerahna also!

I tried phex and peerahna in the past and they seemed decent. I think it's definately a boost in the new direction if more clients implement the new features.
I can only feel it is positive, but time tell....

peace

**evilmegaman** · November 11th, 2002, 01:48 PM

One thing is that gnutella2 is like shareaza's way of doing what bearshare does. I think it is just a portion of the gnutella network as I still get uploads from clients like gnucleus 1.6.0.0 and others so there is something very sneaky about gnutella2. I think that mike isn't like he used to be at all... He's trying to hog the glory... he has become a bit overwhelmed... It is very sad for me to say this but... I think he is lying about gnutella2.... I think it is shareaza's portion of gnutella like bearshare did. you can still upload to other clients but you can only connect to a small number of other things...

in reply to nothingface, He is a little skeptical

**Nothingface5384** · November 11th, 2002, 01:55 PM

mega man - i think its just a seperate protocol thats backwards compatiable w/ the current gnutella network....

crackerjacker · November 11th, 2002, 02:49 PM

heh propietary network, how can it be propietry if no one owns the gnet *
hmmm
heh but one thing comes to mind,
note* i aint flaming no one on this thread*
i just think that what seph said is because he felt to express what he saw gnutela as, and what it becomes.

can u prove shareaza is propietry.
no what a questeion, why would i ask it
in part excerpt from this*
whatever in that you could search every single host and it would be alot quicker.

who can attest to this
if this is the case, searching every single host using the latest version of shareaaza*
this will be fuking amazing.
more hosts and sources files for many*\

later