|
Peer to Peer The 3rd millenium technology! |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
29-05-02, 12:06 PM | #21 |
New Kid on the Block
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 18
|
Who's Who?
Like Who is the Wise Guy, and who is the lover?
Never mind Gr, you can have wideband by proxy, tell me what you would like on CD (apart from that already known) The Original Mr Cool... Guss |
29-05-02, 03:42 PM | #22 | |
Who's really in control here? Help me...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 222
|
Quote:
I forgot to mention that when I get a 56k user downloading from me all I do is just open another slot so that others can use my available bandwidth. So basically I start out with 2. If I get 2 broadband users then I leave it at that. If one or both slots get taken up by 56k users then I add more slots appropriately. I just wish that this process can be automated by the p2p program. I believe this would be a fair way to satisfy both the 56k users and broadband users. Like TG's description of a fair leech control system mentioned awhile back, there needs to be a fair bandwidth control system. A system that can redistribute the available bandwidth depending on who is downloading from you so that no one is discriminated against. I've uploaded to many 56k users and will continue to do so. What I have described in my last post is only if I have a new popular movie which I would like to be spread quickly so that everyone can enjoy. |
|
29-05-02, 04:55 PM | #23 | |
WAH!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 725
|
Quote:
I wasn't ragging 56kers; I'm on the internet 56k about half the time myself. I'm annoyed by transfer speeds that are below 1k/s. A 56k user who limits himself to 1 (or even 2) downloads at a time would be pulling down from 2k/s to 5k/s. But under 1k/s is just ridiculous and is a waste of a slot. So yes, I AM elitist toward 56k people who try to download 10 files at a time. I mean, how stupid can stupid be?
__________________
I hate hate haters |
|
29-05-02, 05:38 PM | #24 |
yea, it's me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 2,093
|
For Snarkie -
For JohnDoe - For Assorted - (j/k) |
29-05-02, 06:47 PM | #25 | ||
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
A good post, John.
Quote:
Quote:
- tg |
||
29-05-02, 07:25 PM | #26 | |
yea, it's me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 2,093
|
Quote:
With all due respect, isn't this all just wishful thinking on our parts? Who could we depend upon to create such a dream application? Is it in the interest of the developer? Is it more realistic to hope a fellow user could "enhance" an already established program? What incentive, if any, would be interesting enough for any of them to want to develop a program with the options we need? I understand these options are actually necessities and anyone who's used any of the p2p programs (past and present) knows, it's a bad idea to hold one's breath waiting for a much needed improvement. So I guess I want to know: Here's the wish list now, where do we go from here? |
|
29-05-02, 08:15 PM | #27 | |
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
Quote:
Ever since Napster happened the ideas and techniques of p2p programming have been spreading among a growing group of programmers, many of them active and enthusiastic p2p users who are willing to contribute some of their skill and spare time to the common good of the p2p revolution. There are several people with programming skills on this forum alone, and there must be hundreds of other similarly p2p-oriented groups and communities around the world with their own programmer members. These are the people who will take p2p to its next phase. We have already learned as a community that we can only expect that much from the commercial p2p ventures - and there is always a price to what we get from them, in form of advertising or spyware. If we want more features without any of the commercial crap there is nobody but ourselves that can provide it. The exchange of experiences and ideas that we do on this forum serves this purpose well - we just need patience to wait for these ideas to gradually get realized, evaluated, accepted and finally implemented to non-commercial, community-oriented p2p applications. - tg |
|
29-05-02, 08:44 PM | #28 |
my name is Ranking Fullstop
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
|
I need a lover who won't drive me crazy.
In lieu of that, a mushroom cheese steak sub would be nice... |
29-05-02, 09:15 PM | #29 | |||||
Who's really in control here? Help me...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 222
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
31-05-02, 03:21 PM | #30 | |
Guardian of the Maturation Chamber
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Unimatrix Zero, Area 25
Posts: 462
|
Quote:
You should all realise that some people have few options, yet want to contribute to p2p communities without being penalised for it. DSL & cable are terms that cause confusion and wonder where I live! The only "broadband" options the public have are ISDN & satellite/dial-up combos (which charge exhorbitant fees PER MB!) and for most this is beyond their means. 'Preferential treatment' should be based more on ability than disability IMO |
|
01-06-02, 05:44 AM | #31 |
Guardian of the Maturation Chamber
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Unimatrix Zero, Area 25
Posts: 462
|
Somebody mentioned the fact that some modem-users are multisourcing their downloads or have a relatively high transfer limit. I think this problem is due to the way the p2p progs (Kazaa in particular, which is probably the most common among dial-up users) don't strictly adhere to their specified limits. There is also a major problem with FT clients going into 'Searching' mode for hours and downloading nothing, then increasing the no. of transfers to compensate, then spiralling out of control after it eventually finds what it was searching for! It should try to adhere to a limit of 2, while maximising throughput. Instead you watch as the number increases to 20 'micro-transfers' by the next morning! You people are being rather harsh IMO. I would literally commit several felonies to be in your position of ultimate power!
|
01-06-02, 06:31 AM | #32 | |
yea, it's me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 2,093
|
Yea, me too!
Quote:
|
|
02-06-02, 04:11 AM | #33 | |
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
Quote:
Apart from the technical and content-related factors come also the various human characterics of the peers that may completely overdrive all other issues. A person may have a line that is totally unsuitable for uploading so both quantity and quality of content are out of the picture. But the person may still be able to share his/her expertise, knowledge and contacts and thereby indirectly help us with better Internet connections to get some stuff that we enjoy. - tg |
|
02-06-02, 07:55 AM | #34 |
Napsterite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 138
|
Last edited by butterfly_kisses : 02-06-02 at 06:09 PM. |
02-06-02, 06:49 PM | #35 | |
Who's really in control here? Help me...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 222
|
Quote:
Don't be fooled into thinking that all broadband users don't appreciate 56k'ers because more then half the time we are downloading something from you since you still make up the majority in p2p programs. Without 56k users the speeds and que lines would be worst then they currently are. Every little bit of bandwidth helps when it comes to p2p. There just needs to be a fair way to distingush users who have legitimate reasons for doing what they do rather then some users who just don't feel like sharing that day/month, or they don't want to share because they can selfishly get faster speeds. What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly. These users give users with valid reasons not to share a bad name. The problem is that we can't tell which is which or even which are truely lying. The only reason I know is that a few times I have been curious and have asked someone of these users why they don't share. Image my surprise when they admit that their only reason to not share because they don't want to. Some users also admit that they simply get better speeds if they don't share, which I interpret as, "you do all the work and I'll take all the benefits". What makes it worst is that some of these users state it calmly because they fully know that there's not much I can do about it. There's always someone else they can leech from. Currrent p2p programs don't do much in giving them incentives to change as TG and I have mentioned a few posts back. And just to let you know SA_Dave and all 56k users, 9 times out of 10 I just let you guys download from me not matter what since you guys are going so slow. This is a very problematic issue which is further aggravated because of the very little willingness by many p2p program makers to solve it. |
|
02-06-02, 07:36 PM | #36 | |
yea, it's me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: usa
Posts: 2,093
|
Hey John........
Quote:
For me it's not an us against them issue at all. It's the few bad apples out there who have no tolerance for 56k users. Hasn't happened to me much lately but there was a time when I'd actually get cussed out for 1) daring to dl from a bb'r and the best speed I could muster was 4-5 K/s or 3) Being told to go myself if I pm'd someone who wasn't sharing a single thing especially users who had just finished dling a file from me during a previous session or 3) having a speed less than 1 in the midst of multisourcing from many, many users at the same time. Perhaps it was just mere coincidence that most of these incidences occurred more often than not whenever someone's connection was listed as broadband? Label me the queen of generalizations and stereotyping Nearly 85% of my files came from bb'rs (the majority of which believe in share and share alike mentality............ |
|
02-06-02, 09:40 PM | #37 | |
Who's really in control here? Help me...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 222
|
Re: Hey John........
Quote:
I agree it's those bad apples that seem to destroy the meaning of p2p programs. If anything it should be us against the RIAA. Sometimes it sounds more like a divide and conquer tatic by the RIAA only they aren't the ones that started it. Although, I do understand the frustrations that several users have stated. For me I'm more frustrated about most p2p programs not even addressing this issue. Although, our needs isn't something that most of the commerical programs do too well. Adding spyware and crapware is what they seem to do best. Hopefully, things will get better and not the other way around. |
|
03-06-02, 03:03 PM | #38 | |||
Guardian of the Maturation Chamber
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Unimatrix Zero, Area 25
Posts: 462
|
@JohnDoe - I apologise if any of my remarks were interpreted by you as offensive. I did read all the posts in this topic & I do appreciate your (and other's) understanding attitude. However, I feel that most broadband users (no generalisations intended) are concentrating on the wrong issue. I feel that the problem with leeching is a priority!
Quote:
As far as normal users are concerned, there shouldn't be options to disable sharing. The excuse that uploading slows downloads is unfounded. It doesn't affect my ultra-slow African dial-up connection, so why should it be an issue in countries with comparatively modern infrastructures? The "leeching phenomenon" seems to be equally spread amongst all users, regardless of connection speed, and is a major issue. I believe the solution lies in prioritising transfers (upload priority to FTP prog for example, then to p2p - like AGSat's 'Bandwidth Throttle' but more refined) & there should be some universal standard for reading 'caps' from either the ISP itself or your OS. Quote:
Quote:
I hope I've made my opinions clear. |
|||
03-06-02, 08:46 PM | #39 | |||||||
Who's really in control here? Help me...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 222
|
Quote:
I might have overly pushed my point that not everyone fits into the generalization and stereotypes that are usually voiced so quickly and strongly in this topic. For that I apologize. It's just that I've noticed that usually when these discussions turn into anger they quickly go downhill and lose all usefulness except to vent people's frustrations. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So they have shared or are continuing to share...just not on the same computer. This is a common problem because many companies have fast T1 lines that people like to use for downloading but some type of corporate firewall blocks sharing. The problem is how do we know if this person is actually sharing at home to make up for all the bandwidth that they have taken? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
04-06-02, 02:57 AM | #40 | |
Madame Comrade
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Area 25
Posts: 5,587
|
Quote:
In case of highly asymmetric lines like cable and satellite the limited upload bandwidth can be a real problem. Let's say your cable allows you 150 k/s downloads but your upload bandwidth is capped at 15 k/s. Should you want to utilize your full download bandwidth you would actually need your whole upload bandwidth for the reverse traffic generated. This is of course an extreme situation and would also require a source that can feed you with such a speed. Anyway, I recommend you to experiment to find a good setting for your dedicated upload bandwidth. Even a 1 k/s difference in the setting can have a drastic effect on your own download speeds in situations where you have heavy uploading going on. - tg |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|