Author Topic: New client suggestions... (Read 11989 times)

GhostShip · « **Reply #20 on:** November 12, 2012, 01:51:57 am »

I cant see how you have addressed the synchronisation of Chat server listings as from your diagram you show 3 Chat list servers and those would have to be operated by someone rather than having a decentralised model and thus we could see missing rooms and other issues, also once they start accepting file listings they could fall foul of the napster or gnutella rulings due to the fact they are centralised rather than autonomous,

This is a great idea btw from some angles, so please dont feel I'm stomping on your plan, I just wanted to know how you have addressed the issues/potential issues I have raised as its not fully clear to me atm.

For a similar model of network as you propose can I guide you to look at the OpenFT protocol as thats pretty much a halfway between what we use for the WPN and the model your proposing

Zénar · « **Reply #21 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:24:04 am »

Well, I've not thought about how the listing servers would communicate but all the files will be hosted by the clients themselves. For this model, you must put somewhere in the configuration the list of IPs of the listing servers so the chat servers and the clients can connect to them. It is similar by connecting to the peer cache and retrieve the node list except its only feature is to manage the list of channels. This model can works with few features only and it is possible to build it so you can add many new features in the future.

The server listing must be downloadable by everybody so it will always be possible to get the channel list somewhere because someone is hosting it. The only disadvantage would be adding the list of IPs manually inside the listing server config. With this model, you can miss a few channels but it will be far easier to stop the spam problems.

Oh I forgot, the protocols of this model should be published to allow programmers to create their own programs and features so it would attract many users because it is fun to use.

GhostShip · « **Reply #22 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:36:38 am »

Agreed that with a semi centralised model we could stop the present buffoonery but there could be possible legal issues so fine detail would need to be pored over to ensure the letter of the law is followed.

As you mention you haven't yet looked too deeply at the synchronisation of listings mechanism perhaps nows a good time to look at DHT methods of room listing as those seem to work well for finding torrent sources and a chat listing entry would seem far simpler, similar to the one in usage in tixati atm, it uses DHT to locate hosts and the room host is able to pass the room to others as the location is "virtual", an exciting concept eh

I agree any new protocol should be open and be safe enough to open, presently thats still not the case so some users have had to take some of the things I have stated over the years on trust but after seeing the damage caused by the last release I,m pretty sure many now see why I stuck to silence for so long.

Zénar · « **Reply #23 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:46:13 am »

Ah... there is many things to define in this model, like communications, etc. If DHT works well, I think it can be a great idea to use it. Why re-inventing the wheel when it already exists

GhostShip · « **Reply #24 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:50:54 am »

I believe there are two answers to that question

1 ) The need for user engagement in the planning stage regarding any new network shape and...

2 ) The lack of expertise in implementing such technology practically, that of course is something that experimentation can resolve however

Zénar · « **Reply #25 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:54:07 am »

Yep... it's good to talk but it's useless if we do nothing right? By the way, if some programmers wants to work with me on that kind of project, I can give it a little of my free time.

achilles · « **Reply #26 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:55:40 am »

Zénar, I believe it's very important that the network is decentralized. A centralized network would not last long before being shut down. It would be best to speak about those reasons in the core or by PM.

achilles · « **Reply #27 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:02:08 am »

Sent you a PM Zénar.

Zénar · « **Reply #28 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:05:06 am »

Skype is a p2p and it contains file sharing and chat. If file sharing between two persons is allowed in Skype and the file searching is not, then we can do an application like that no? MSN and Google talk have file sharing too and it's legal. The only thing illegal is to share illegal files to others.

GhostShip · « **Reply #29 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:14:47 am »

I know the answers to all of the questions that will crop up in the legal domain however this topic is best served by sticking firmly to our technical concepts and choosing the best ones

No one at wmw encourages illegal activity but we do encourage pro privacy mechanisms and the rights to communicate feely and share your own home grown content with friends

Zénar · « **Reply #30 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:26:46 am »

I don't encourage illegal activities but why do we want to create an application like Torrent? If it's the file searching that cause issues, we can remove that feature.

achilles · « **Reply #31 on:** November 12, 2012, 04:07:56 am »

We are not creating a torrent client. There are already plenty of good torrent clients out there to choose from. Also we are not trying to create an application like Skype or any similar applications. No offense, but if I wanted to use something like Skype I would use Skype or a similar application that is already available. There are plenty of applications like that out there. The project is to develop a client with all the original functionality as the old client, and to stop the attacks. Also, we will no longer be bound by the limitations of the old client due to it's outdated protocols. Additional functionality, and features can be released in builds. The new client will be like the old client except it will have more functionality, and it will be more secure. Additional features, and functionality can be released in builds.

silicon_toad2000 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2012, 04:50:12 am »

I think what we're trying to do is build somewhere for the community to move to.
The very basic, minimum outline is to keep all of the functionality the community use and remove perceived vulnerabilities.

Bluey_412 · « **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2012, 10:44:00 am »

The mention of Skype suggests the use of Audio chat, even video.

Experience with Yahoo messenger is that voice functionality in chat rooms gets soon abused, so it is really only satisfactory in private messaging. I think people like the existing style of winmx chat rooms because all the conversations are text, which can be scrolled back to re-read some item.

Can't do that with audio or video.

If you wanna do audio, or video, stick to Skype or one of the other many applications that already exist, no need to Re-re-re-re-re-re-reinvent the wheel

Zénar · « **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:55:19 pm »

Nope I like the chat style of WinMX and I didn't mention of the possibility for the application to have the audio and video. I just compared the chat and file sharing of Skype. I'm pretty sure that many of the WinMX users use it to chat with others instead of sharing files and because of the flood, I don't think that the file searching is working properly.

GhostShip · « **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:16:07 pm »

Any student of P2P history will quickly understand that the filesharing and chat go hand in hand, separating the two will always leave something of lesser value, they are complimentary.

Zénar · « **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:30:07 pm »

Of course it is useful to have file sharing but is it necessary to have the file searching part? If it is that feature that is causing some issues with some organizations, we can omit to add that feature. That doesn't mean it will not have file sharing anymore.

GhostShip · « **Reply #37 on:** November 12, 2012, 05:28:30 pm »

Once again we are veering off topic

We are not going to lose anything we currently have, please keep that in mind , the community wants improvements and security updates not losses of important functions simply to please some copyright monopolists who make all sorts of wild claims simply to defraud politicians and their customers.

Zénar · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2012, 05:53:18 pm »

I just want to learn and have fun with this kind of projects, not to be at war against some organizations. Logically, people that are searching for problems will eventually get some problems and this is not my goal to do that. It is possible to make great applications that people will like it, even if a few features are missing. Personally, I prefer WinMX because of the chat system and not for the file sharing. As you already seen in the past, you can't please everyone.

By the way, sorry if I'm out of topic.

GhostShip · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2012, 06:04:45 pm »

Quote

It is possible to make great applications that people will like it, even if a few features are missing.

Indeed but the developement goal here is not to make anything less that we already have, of course anyone is free to do their own thing but many are waiting for a new mx replacement and thus my focus is on delivering just that.