Post reply

Topic Summary

Posted by: ñòóKýçrÕôK

« on: July 16, 2007, 03:32:50 am »

Insert Quote

Gnarly you just took ALL that time to write all of that JUST to see what it looked like on this site didn't you??

Seriously dude,take a deep breath now and relax. All of your summations have been brought foward by more than one user and answered by more than one user. I'll answer your first question with another question. Can't WE, as a community just enjoy what WE as a community have that delivers on its promise. I mean really, if you try the dll patch and it works and you wish to keep using it for whatever reasons you wish to keep using it, then use it. If you don't wish to use it and you wish to use pie patch with it's autoupdater then by all means, use it. I know there's a difference in the two patches because I've used both patches. "OURS"

IS BETTER. Now please do keep in mind because I have a feeling you intend to go "up-in-arms" at that remark. By "OURS" I do mean WinMX as a community. If they say "THEIRS" then in my opinion they are not with the majority of a community and therefor it is "THEIRS" and they are welcome to it. I will stay with ours.

As the creator of the dll patch KM is well within his rights to not make it open source. And I believe he feels as though if you wish to try and disect it you are more than welcome to but I believe it is better left as it is. After all, locks are what keeps an honest man honest wouldn't you say?

The primery and secondery hubbub you ran off about is something that has been here since WinMX was created and pretty much all common sence to figure out anyway. As far as superiority wouldn't you say a list managed by a group who managed to block their own update IP address is not a very well kept list and obviously had very little thought put into maintaining it. So why on earth would any WinMX user WANT to go with PG2 with a list maintained by PG2 group? They've blocked most of the major players in the WinMX community that help keep WinMX connected in one way or another. So for superiority I think Iwould cast that vote for the only person or group of persons who have ALWAYS been on the front line in deffence of the WinMX community and that is the people of WinMX World.

Now to blocking the fake file flooders (say THAT 3 times fast if you'd like!!). Let's weigh the value of that. Ok one one hand I wait 30 seconds then wade for one hour through ENDLESS numbers of fake results ORRRRRRR on the other hand I wait 30 seconds then take my choice between 30 GOOD search results. Enough said on that I think. Don't you?

As for a fix with an option to block or not to block. It's out there. If you wish to use then please do. But keep in mind it's "THEIRS" and not "OURS" and quite honestly it blows for the purpose it was created for. Not really a need for a GOOD patch to give that option or otherwise it becomes no longer a GOOD patch and most of us who use it like it being a GOOD patch.

So I hope this clears up some of your wondering, questioning, doubting, admiring, or basicly whatever is in your head on the subject.
Let me end in saying lighten up dude, it's a P2P world and I'm a P2P girl, errr dude in this case

Posted by: Bearded Blunder

« on: July 16, 2007, 03:18:05 am »

Insert Quote

Quote

If a user connects as a PRIMARY hub, then certainly thought should be given to blocking flooders, either with the DLL or with PG and the related block list. Either method produces relatively equal results. Neither is significantly superior to the other for this function. The user is free to choose either and should not be chastised for their choice.

Turns out not to be quite the case, the DLL updates every 5 minutes, by default peer guardian updates every 48 hours & can't be set to update oftener than 24 hours.. assuming it uses an accurate list when it updates (which by default it doesn't)..
this leaves windows of 4 minutes plus detection time or 23 hours 59 minutes plus detection time for a flooder to attack the network via a given primary using DLL or PG respectively....
i'd call over 23 hours of sustained attack extra a significant difference...

as to the auto-updater it has similar problems though the update interval is improved.. though from a PC security standpoint, anyone who opens their hosts file to be updated remotely and frequently, by parties unknown (or even known ones) needs their head examining.. i wouldn't give my own brother such access...

i could go through the rest of this post destroying it similarly with plane factual statements & logic.. but as ghost pointed out.. it takes too long.

Posted by: GhostShip

« on: July 16, 2007, 02:34:28 am »

Insert Quote

Gnarly I have neither the time or inclination to repeat many times the rebuttals to your "observations", if others feel they have the time to reply to this it takes on average approximately one hour to do so with a modicum of though put into the reply, this post is one of many similar making the same logical flaws in reasoning that I have previously addressed , obviously I do not intend to reply further as I feel there is no point in rehashing the same material every thread, this time will be spent on tutorials that I have on my "to do" list.

PS I must also point out that much of what your suggesting has been acheived some time ago.

Posted by: GnarlySnarly

« on: July 15, 2007, 08:45:49 pm »

Insert Quote

Can't we just get along, without kings, without bosses? I know it may be hard to believe, but it used to be that way..

see:
New Worlds for Old - Reports from the New World and Their Effect on the Development of Social Thought in Europe, 1500-1800 by William Brandon [1986] Ohio University Press

Now, as to blocking flooders...
1] I think there is a general consensus that this is important, for users who connect as PRIMARY hubs.
2] I believe that BOTH the DLL and PG with access to the same flooder block list can perform this function equally well.
3] Users who connect as secondaries have blocking built [no one can connect to them as secondaries to flood - duh!]
4] Therefore, claiming all who use the hosts list fix, irrespective of whether primary or secondary, are damaging the net is a lie.

So I would recommend that the overreaching claims be more objective and more truthful.

My advice would be:

If a user connects as a SECONDARY, neither the flooder blocking function of the DLL or with PG for hosts list users is relevant. Since no one can connect to a secondary user, flooders can't!

So as to blocking fake file flooders, secondary users don't have to choose the DLL over the hosts list, as it is totally irrelevant. One is as good as the other. Whichever one finds works for them makes no difference to the WPN function. Claims that it does are false and should stop.

If a user connects as a PRIMARY hub, then certainly thought should be given to blocking flooders, either with the DLL or with PG and the related block list. Either method produces relatively equal results. Neither is significantly superior to the other for this function. The user is free to choose either and should not be chastised for their choice.

My understanding that the newer 'piepatchupdater' now has some built in automation to update the block list for use in PG, so functions not too differently that the DLL as to this. And all due credit goes to those that suggested this and developed methods to efficiently identify and black list offending chaff flooder IPs.

As to filtering fake files from search results:
This appears to be a boon for many users, but it is unclear to me at this point what effects providing this 'pleasant user experience' may have on the WPN infrastructure. I will await some further specifics as to exactly how this filtering is done and where the CPUsage loads for this task are distributed, whether they remain on the searching users computer or are dumped onto the primaries hub computers. Some behavioral modifications may be in order to protect the WPN.

If after an objective cost-benefit analysis of this function it is thought to produce an overall net advantage, great.

At this point, assuming that this result-filtering process is a win-win situation.. why not share it? for the good of the WPN community? That is what community is all about, communalism, mutualism, yes, communism! Sharing freely with all.

The comments about "OUR [proprietary] blocklist" and "OUR [proprietary] DLL is best" are repugnant to the concept of an egalitarian community. Such miserly hoarding of ideas and information ["intellectual property"] originate with the "selfishness that is the foundation of civilization" [Dawes] and are contrary to the spirit of P2P.

In the spirit of Benjamin Franklin who, after he 'perfected' his famous Franklin stove was offered a patent on the same, rejected it out of principle, saying:

"That as we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others, we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously." [ Who woulda thunk the most intellectual "founding father" of the USA was such a socialist/communist? - they never taught me THAT in school! ]

THAT is the spirit of P2P, of the opensource, free software movement! Move over Al Gore! Ben Franklin was a conceptual forefather of the Internet and P2P!!

Ben later noted that some greedy curmudgeon in London England took his detailed stove plans, modified them with detriment to function and applied for a patent there, from which he made a small fortune.. and so it goes with the ugly propertied class.

My brainfart...

Why not make a stripped down DLL with settable options for both blocking and filtering but without any WPN connection control. IOW, a DLL that would augment use of hosts lists? Wouldn't that be of 'net' benefit? [pun noted]

I despise being told I can use only 1 group of peer cache servers and not the other, or being forced to use patches that enforce this political divisiveness. That is why I still choose roll my own hosts list and incorporate the IPs from both 'warring' groups. 11 peer cache servers is better than 4 and better than 7.

[Caveat is that some current peer cache servers appear to be operating on dynamic or frequently changing IPs, which makes maintaining a custom hosts list burdensome to the user - but until either the DLL team is willing to add all known public peer cache servers into the DLL code or until the open source patch is released to make it possible for others to do this, such unstable IPs will be problematic for users of composite hosts lists.]