Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Knight

PeerFactor+utorrent?

Recommended Posts

Why do some people even BOTHER to post?

The open/closed source argument is idiotic if you ask me. Most of us are using at least ONE (usually many more) of closed source software. We place our trust on OS developers, firewall developers, whatever developers, that they aren't doing anything with our personal info and the way we use the net (be it open or closed source software). Damn, most sites we visit leave all sorts of sh*t on our pc, cookies, etc etc. And while you can block some of that stuff, some sites you WANT to see don't function well. You're always putting blind faith to whoever is responsible for the site or software.

Plus, saying open source is safer is crap. Since anyone can get and develop the code, it's easier for someone to tweak the software and trick people to download the vulnerable client instead of the official one (yes, there are MANY computer illiterate out there). And it's easier for someone to find weaknesses in that software and exploit them.

The good thing about open source though is that it can be developed faster because you get direct input from the community developers, it's free, if you're on a tight budget, and it's easier to spot malpractice in the code.

You just choose your poison and keep vigilant. But to flame a software for being close source is crap. It's one thing to blame Windows for having security holes and another to blame Windows because it's not open source.

Although, that collaboration does seem a bit suspicious, I'll just have to trust ludde. And anyway, no one forces anyone to use μTorrent, if I feel like not using it, I'll not, but for now, it does its job ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The open/closed source argument is idiotic if you ask me. Most of us are using at least ONE (usually many more) of closed source software. We place our trust on OS developers, firewall developers, whatever developers, that they aren't doing anything with our personal info and the way we use the net (be it open or closed source software). Damn, most sites we visit leave all sorts of sh*t on our pc, cookies, etc etc. And while you can block some of that stuff, some sites you WANT to see don't function well. You're always putting blind faith to whoever is responsible for the site or software.

I don't place any trust in anything that isn't open source. I take every precaution to make sure my privacy is enforced. Sure, many sites leave crap on your computer... if you're sloppy and unintelligent. I myself have gotten 2 viruses in the last 6 years and I've downloaded hundreds of gigs of material. Not once has my computer been compromised to where it was rendered inoperable, nor have I been contacted by any goody two-shoes lawyers either for shady downloading(I hid a nasty term with a cute label also!).

How could I possibly be this safe and secure, you may ask? It's because I'm "so-called" paranoid and it's stuff like this that shy's us away from supposed glorious software. I think µtorrent (Looky I read all the faqs and recalled that from memory! Go me!) is an ungodly program, but I'll never use it unless I can see the source. Trust me there are tons more paranoid people out there than ignorant unsafe downloader fools who would violate their privacy under "blind faith". Of course, I can say I am not as skeptical of µTorrent as I am other closed source software. I supremely dislike the nanotorrent redirection, some could misconstrue this as "Data mining" and judge the software just on that aspect (that is also a superficial speculation so please feel free to enlighten me). So let me ask you this, where do you get off saying that everyone invests such blind faith (which is a cutesy term for "moron") in everything?

Plus, saying open source is safer is crap. Since anyone can get and develop the code, it's easier for someone to tweak the software and trick people to download the vulnerable client instead of the official one (yes, there are MANY computer illiterate out there). And it's easier for someone to find weaknesses in that software and exploit them.

I'll just add in my two cents here in saying this:

If you find this as a feasible arguement then that's a load off my mind. Vulnerabilities are flaws in code and tons of flaws can be found without reviewing code. Obviously you never play any online games, any game can be cracked, hacked, and destroyed.

Closed source doesn't mean crap for security as an alternative either because...well, dare I use windows as a construct for this arguement? A varitable paradise of flaws and vulnerabilities that are easily found (not by looking at source code oddly.. Gasp!) and exploited on a day to day basis.

Pleas don't use "scam-sites" as a way to bash open source either. There are people out there that actually double, triple and quadrupal check to make sure the site they found is the legit and original site. I also have noticed even though google and such are full of sites that are returned on let's say "emule" the real site is usually on one of the top 10 links returned. Pay sites that charge "tutorial fee's" and give you software that was not designed by them. I have no sympathy for people who fall for these scams, they didn't research and fell headlong into a good ol'fashion trick. I hate to use this as an example but my cousin fell for that joke of a scam. (Here's the reason I said that) He has no college education and no experience with computers at all, he thinks computers are toys and thusly gets what he deserves.

You just choose your poison and keep vigilant. But to flame a software for being close source is crap. It's one thing to blame Windows for having security holes and another to blame Windows because it's not open source.

I agree with you on this note. Yes we do choose our poisons but in the end you'll die and I'm just high (just a analogy here). If you choose to indulge in completely unsafe software and get crushed but, the "paranoid dilluted imbeciles" remain safe and annonymous then thats your choice, hence your choice isn't a smart one.

In the end I think that µTorrent is an ingenious software and the programmer is extremely smart. I have tested his software and I would rate it as a 5 of 5 but, just as the greatest heros of our time have been crushed underneath controversies so will µTorrent I feel. This is all because of the constant backwards steps that have been made to ensure that you do not gain the trust of the general public. I know that µTorrent went to 2nd used BT software at a time but dropped to 4th after the Peerfactor mistakes according to an article I read. Yet, even 4th is not to bad as you have managed to capture 25% of the p2p society. I guess the question all boils down to this. "Do you wish to be known as a person who revolutionized and reinvented BT software or just another victim of a conspiricy theory?". Perhaps I could be completely incorrect and I'm a minority of people who look too deep into an application for hidden dangerous code or intentions.

On a completely differant subject (which I do not intend on hijacking a subject but here goes)...:

I read that one of the forum mods or posters said "make a compelling arguement to go open source and we may consider it" (and locked the thread, lol go figure) to which my mind instantly flooded with possibilities. To my suprise though, I am appauled that I would have to make an arguement at all since we're approaching a new era where open source is the epitome of trust. Not just on the side of the people who use the program but the trust of the developer (which I've yet to see from µTorrent developer). Frankly (and this is just my opinion, I am not setting my "standards") I think closed source is a supreme action of selfishness, and open source is an act of selflessness. If more people taught others how they did things instead of retain their "uniqueness", the world would be a better place.

To further explain this reasoning I'll put in a small analogy: "I will not tell you because I do not want you to know, but I want you to do what I instruct you to do". This is the mindset of the closed source community.

Yes, I am biased to open source software. If there is a program that does the same thing better or worse thats open source I'll use that instead. I look at open source as contributing your intelligence and time to the whole world. Closed source communities will be never be as beneficial as open source. As the designers of close source software dies the software dies with them and only the residual concept remains. Where would we be if the whole world thought like this?

Open source can not only (as avararl stated) increase production time by getting public feedback but it can also appeal to the masses of people who stick to open source programs as an alternative. I will also say that if it weren't for the original creator of BT to make it open source your closed source project wouldn't exist. People fail to realize that just that one developer's choice ended in a giant revolution in the genre of p2p. He sent a shockwave of creativity through the world. Yes, I know that sound a bit overdramatic but how else could someone interpret this? People learn from open source development also which is another facet that most people obviously overlook from the constant negative reactions on open source posts on these forums. µTorrent did something not any other BT software (and tons of others have done) which was to create a very powerful and small program that doesn't hog system resources. I frankly download hundreds of programs from every genre and I rarely see people employ these kind of standards in their programs to consider the lower end systems that could suffer from giant diskspace and memory hogging.

Without the massive contribution from the open source community we may not be where we are now. So with all this being said... I'll end this side story in saying this: Your program is widely used, but it will never be the best -- EVER -- until you move it to open source. I can assure you with all the fabric of my being, this will be your most epic of obstacles to overcome if you choose to slap the face of every person in the open source community. Alot of people's decision on software is based on the reputation of the programmer or corperation of the program. The inability of the developer to release the code (which is the majority of my refusal to use) with the shady happenings of Peerfactor is more then enough reason for me to find a differant program. If the devloper of course doesn't care about his BT client hitting #1 on the charts and just is doing it for the fun of it, more power to you. As long as you're happy I guess thats all that matters to you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I know this will offend many people, including the developer but I say this from my heart and not from hatred. I would love to see µTorrent on the number 1 slot of most used BT client. I use Azureus and even though I supremely hate it's gigantic memory usage and bloated installation I know I can trust them. I of course have a fairly good computer so I can afford the loss in memory and cpu usage.

I have made said many things about open/closed ideals. I have been biased in my response but I researched it and it is possible to be correct on a subject as simple as open and closed source standards. The ideals of closed/open are not OPINIONS, they are facts. There is no reason to be closed source unless you want to be original or greedy or if you wanna make money and dont want others copying you. I have used the whole controversy of Peerfactor as part of my arguement as well but this isn't 100% of the reason why I choose to deny µTorrent on my computer. I frankly don't need that as fuel to say no to µTorrent, just the moral pretext of being closed source is reason enough. I do feel sorry for open source programmers that are exploited by having their software changed to look like someone elses, this is unfortunate. But, better the martyr then the violator

Since I know someone will ask, yes I do use some closed source programs because there truely is no open source alternative and it disusts me. If you wish to play the kiddy card (yes im blatently insulting anyone who does this because it is immature) and use this as a "ha ha you're a hypocrite" go ahead. These are just scape goat ploys to distract a person from the truth.

Anyways, I am sorry if this seems like a flame post, but it is not. I have thought this through as I typed it and I am willing to take any critical responses that may be spawned from this post without an agressive reaction. We are all adults here and I believe that all that I've said can be taken with a grain of salt and not confused as some random man's assault on someones hard work. I am not poking fun at anyone to degrade but mearly to reveal the thoughts of one single mind in the world.

EDITED: Fixed typo's and some sentence structure mistakes. *Added in a FYI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh don't worry about your post being a flame, it most certainly isn't. I'm sorta getting tired of this discussion, but I'll semi-respond (don't feel like thinking of too many arguments xD)... I get the feeling my counter-response will be destroyed, but we'll see =P

Like many other debates about ideals, there isn't really a right or wrong to open source vs closed source, contrary to what you say. It's a philosophy, and even though it may seem greedy, if one wants to keep his ideas private, so be it. He did create it, and it's his choice, beneficial for the community as a whole or not. Even if leaving the source closed doesn't benefit the community in terms of knowledge of implementation and whatnot, the creator would still have contributed in some way or another by developing what he did. Opening the source does not necessarily guarantee security either. For all we know, (hypothetically) someone could just release their "source" to put on a facade and look like a "good guy," then release a binary compiled version of a malicious version, knowing that a majority of people are too lazy or don't know how to compile on their own. While there is a very low chance of this happening (if ever, and if it does, someone can fork), it just shows that there are exceptions to things, including developing closed source software... No matter how unsuspicious/suspicious something may be, you never know where the exceptions are. Open source? Might be a facade. Closed source? Person might just want to protect his work in whatever way he wants, without any malicious intent whatsoever.

As a sidenote, people can easily monitor closed source applications and their behaviors, and it might possibly be easier than scanning through and understanding the entire source code, especially if the open source software's code is extremely large. Heck, if the "open source" coder's good, he can probably hide malicious code in a bunch of unlikely places. If there's some suspicious, unintended, or unwanted activity happening in the closed source software, then its integrity can be called into question, right?

My last argument is this one product: Microsoft Windows. While it's probably my weakest argument, it's still a valid one, to a large scale. Closed source. Best? Probably not. Trustworthy? Yes, Microsoft is (and has to be), no matter how many security issues it may have, since those issues are not coded intentionally. If they were, they'd be under plenty of fire.

In the end, I'm neither biased toward closed or open source software. I use what works best, which, in my opnion, is more sensible than purely using open source softwares whenever the chance lends itself. If the open source software is less functional than its closed source (but as of yet unproved, safe) counterpart, and you need the functionality that's missing, you're just limiting yourself and your productivity by choosing the open source software, which is worse (the decision, that is), if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the best views I have read so far about open source vs. closed source. (if I typed too slow and someone posted between me yet again, I mean Odium's view):) What he said about Bram getting the ball rolling on all these other clients is right on point. One reason open source is lacking is because of the support issues. Whats funny is that ALL problems I have ever had with ANY software I found the best help from forums, not the support ppl from the software maker. Thats the main thing with Windows vs. Linux in corporate America. Linux is cheaper, but the training and support is where the TCO (Im assuming it means Total Cost of Ownership) comes into play. Its silly to me tho. Free/low cost OS vs. Windows. See, to me the TCO will straighten itself out once companies helpdesk/ IT Depts get up to speed with Linux. I always laugh when I see those Microsoft ads about which is really cheaper. Of course Windows will be cheaper as far as support and training cuz its been around and embedded in society longer. But there should be nothing wrong with learning something new. To me, doing your job should be a constant learning experience anyway.

Somewhat back on topic, Claria (formerly Gator, one of the originators of adware/spyware) has announced they are getting out of the adware business and putting their adware business model up for auction. And get this: they are also interested in content distribution. When they announced this, 180solutions and another company I cant remember right now (both adware/spyware companies) contacted Claria about their soon to be former business. =| See, some folks do wanna go straight, while some dont. We just need to give PeerFactor the benefit of the doubt in this matter. Like I said at Slyck, whats so great about this society is that we go by:

=|"guilty until proven innocent"=|

By the way, Im not a supporter for open or closed source. I just use what gets me from A to B the best. The ONLY reason I use Windows is cuz it just has more products made for it than Linux.

(Like PS2 vs. Xbox back in their early days. I chose PS2 cuz it had more games, I couldnt give a rats ass about which had better grahics) Developers always target Windows first. Thats the ubiquity of Microsoft.

***Edit***

Again, I be posting too slow. I wouldnt have even posted half of this stuff if Ultima woulda been a lil faster...:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there's a half-an-hour difference in our original posting times O.O

Not to mention I was jumping between threads and responding to others while I was formulating my cheap response xP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was gonna say the same thing.. Everytime I see a new post I say "who still posting in this?" I just felt left out and had to add my 2 cents. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt so compelled to speak my mind I signed up to the forums and instantly began typing. I really don't mind how old a thread is, it's better then making a new thread (buy a new horse and beat it dead). Anyways, thanks Jroc for your input, I tried to speak as truthful as I could to give a realistic view of the audience that I represent.

I think people have an unrealistic view of why people are so judgemental on closed source developers. I was merely trying to bring light to why we think this way and explain that it isn't a paranoia, but a moral and cautious initiative.

I'm curious to what Ludde would say to my post... I doubt he will drop into this thread as it probably has haunted him since it was posted, lol. None-the-less I would always enjoy more feedback.

As for you Ultima, I partially understand your concept but it's so dark and depressing. Sure he has his rights and he can keep his code, it is his. So scientists that find a cure for aids don't have to release their findings, it is their research right? I mean ... who cares if he spreads the knowledge that could save millions (Yes another dramatic analogy). My point to this - Just because it's a persons "Rights" doesn't mean it's right.

You can write your deepest darkest secrets on 1 page amongst 1,500 pages... eventually someone will get to that page and everyone will know. I doubt that any open source developer would think that he could get away with that kind of an action programming code "hoping they wont find it".

Also, windows had some controversy when their "Malicious Software Removal Tool" supposedly had windows validation code in it to check for pirated copies, this was when they first released the tool. The validity of this isn't exactly crisp but it still stands... It's alot easier to sneak stuff into your program when its closed source. Yet, you are correct I could easily make sure nothing sneaky is going on by debugging the program and decompiling it. I could run monitering software to see every single thing that it does. (Another side note: I am displeased with the nanotorrent redirect used for getting revenue in µTorrent. It's blocked by peerguardian and will remain blocked).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for you Ultima, I partially understand your concept but it's so dark and depressing. Sure he has his rights and he can keep his code, it is his. So scientists that find a cure for aids don't have to release their findings, it is their research right? I mean ... who cares if he spreads the knowledge that could save millions (Yes another dramatic analogy). My point to this - Just because it's a persons "Rights" doesn't mean it's right.

The analogy does not apply, because the developer has already stated the reasons why it's better to keep it closed source. Whether you agree with those reasons or not is inconsequential, because the 2 sides of this argument are completely "parallel" and there's just no common ground for a discussion here. All this is, is just futile rhetoric, which hardly has anything to do with the original topic of this thread by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Odium: I'm not sure how that analogy with the scientists really applies. The scientists are out looking for a cure or vaccine for AIDS for the sole purpose of saving people by sharing what they learn. ludde is writing µTorrent (1) as a hobby project, and (2) to make a great, low-resource BitTorrent application. They both reach their goals. I don't see why going open source is something ludde has to do if it doesn't help him reach his goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Odium: I'm not sure how that analogy with the scientists really applies. The scientists are out looking for a cure or vaccine for AIDS for the sole purpose of saving people by sharing what they learn. ludde is writing µTorrent (1) as a hobby project, and (2) to make a great, low-resource BitTorrent application. They both reach their goals. I don't see why going open source is something ludde has to do if it doesn't help him reach his goal.

Like I said previously, it will never be "great" until it's open source because then it will appeal to everyone instead of just one side. Would he somehow lose his hobby if he moved it to open source? No...

All this is, is just futile rhetoric, which hardly has anything to do with the original topic of this thread by the way.

I am not trying to preuade anyone, merely stating my opinion. Yes, the subject has gone off course a smidge... I disclaimed that section in my above post that it was on a side note. Anyways, not to be rude but I believe thats my sign to bow out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dead projects on SourceForge are great as well? Going open source doesn't magically make something great. Not magically, you might say, then in what way does open source software suddenly attain greatness? The sudden "community" factor? For all we know, ludde might prefer working on his own baby. Which brings something else up in my head now... if two caring parents have a baby, should they just give the baby up to the community to tinker around with? If you say that babies have influences from their community, and that that's the open source factor in that context, then what about this community? Is this community not giving input on how µTorrent should develop, and where it should go? In that hypothetical situation I made up, the parents are the people who (at least in the baby's young age) determine how the baby should develop. Granted, living things have minds of their own, but that's not the point of my argument. At the end of the day, ludde is the one who's controlling where and how the project goes, and outside hands muddling in his code doesn't help his cause.

ludde's still helping the BitTorrent community with this great client. Heck, he's shared his ideas for PE and Azureus' (possibly) forthcoming Enhanced Messaging Protocol, contributed back to the community in that way as well. ludde wants to keep the client as compact as possible, and if other people come in and code differently than he would, that goal is lost instantly.

That's my take on it, but don't take it as the final word. I'm not ludde, but that's the way I see the whole discussion. In the end, ludde has stated that he might consider releasing the source if he feels he is unable to maintain µTorrent any longer. As for whether I'd make any software I write open source? Depends on what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, it is good this thread is still here, people can come and read the various opinions and more or less official statements. Maybe even sticky this thread for a while? Or link it from www.utorrent.com, as that notice link doesn't seem to work... Fix that link or remove it, it looks bad when it is not working like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh, yes. I thought i had utorrent site allowed for scripts. Stupid me. No, wait - stupid open source firefox extensions! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dead projects on SourceForge are great as well?

They're dead for a reason: because nobody has any interest in them, including the developers. So, no, they are not great in any sense of the word. The people have spoken.

if two caring parents have a baby, should they just give the baby up to the community to tinker around with? If you say that babies have influences from their community, and that that's the open source factor in that context, then what about this community? Is this community not giving input on how µTorrent should develop, and where it should go?

Heh, it's interesting how you answered your first question so eloquently. Now about your second one, the difference is that this community can only make suggestions while an open source community can make changes. Anyway, the analogy is flawed because it wouldn't be the baby itself the community would be tinkering around with, but a carbon copy clone of that baby. The original baby would be unchanged and the parents would be free to raise it as they saw fit. Likewise, Ludde would be free to develop his own client as he has always done. The only difference would be the "mindshare" that may potentially be drawn away from the original should the clones prove more popular. Perhaps it is this loss of control that he truly fears. The problem with treating "intellectual property" as physical property is that ideas cannot be constrained like a tangible good (and even those are being threatened by technologies like rapid prototypers). They are ever subject to the fickle desires of the public and often times transferring power to the people makes the elite nervous.

In that hypothetical situation I made up, the parents are the people who (at least in the baby's young age) determine how the baby should develop. Granted, living things have minds of their own, but that's not the point of my argument.

That's why I simply abhor analogies. They end up as a circuitous discourse without arriving at a logical conclusion. So far, all I've seen are contratradictions with only a single substantive query.

At the end of the day, ludde is the one who's controlling where and how the project goes, and outside hands muddling in his code doesn't help his cause.

One doesn't even need to see the code in order to modify the client's behavior. Any schmuck with half a brain can Google for himself and find reverse engineered uTorrent clients on leecher boards all over the Internet. How exactly has keeping the code proprietary prevented "muddling"? Answer: It has not. Of course, Ludde can try to obfuscate away in a vain attempt to prevent further modification, but we all know it will only be a matter of time before even that measure is rendered void. I see from another thread the he's digitally signing his builds. Perhaps in the future, we may begin to see some draconian retribution in the form of official uTorrent clients banning all other uTorrents that do not respond with the proper crypto signature. That will be a dark day, indeed.

ludde's still helping the BitTorrent community with this great client. Heck, he's shared his ideas for PE and Azureus' (possibly) forthcoming Enhanced Messaging Protocol, contributed back to the community in that way as well.

I would certainly hope so if he wants to maintain compatability with the rest of the world. Otherwise, uTorrent would be an loner cut off from the larger network.

ludde wants to keep the client as compact as possible, and if other people come in and code differently than he would, that goal is lost instantly.

I have written above why this statement is misguided. In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson: "He who receives an idea from me receives instruction himself without lessening mine—as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." We must each have the courage to step out of our reclusive Dark Age into the light of a new Rennaissance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I felt so compelled to speak my mind I signed up to the forums and instantly began typing. I really don't mind how old a thread is, it's better then making a new thread (buy a new horse and beat it dead). Anyways, thanks Jroc for your input, I tried to speak as truthful as I could to give a realistic view of the audience that I represent.

I'd disagree. It is actually better to make a new thread. This is a 90 degree tangent off the original.

As for you Ultima, I partially understand your concept but it's so dark and depressing. Sure he has his rights and he can keep his code, it is his. So scientists that find a cure for aids don't have to release their findings, it is their research right? I mean ... who cares if he spreads the knowledge that could save millions (Yes another dramatic analogy). My point to this - Just because it's a persons "Rights" doesn't mean it's right.

Wrong analogy. In this case, scientist already released his finding and product, and for free.

You can write your deepest darkest secrets on 1 page amongst 1,500 pages... eventually someone will get to that page and everyone will know. I doubt that any open source developer would think that he could get away with that kind of an action programming code "hoping they wont find it".

Ultimately, it all comes down to trust. How do you know that the open-source code is exactly the same as what was published? Or what if I publish one version of the code, and then publish an "update", and I delay the updating of the published source code for a while. Of course, eventually I republish a clean version and source code before people catch on, then more dirty versions, and so on...

And if you have to carefully check the real opcodes or analyze behavior to be really sure, than what's the difference between open and closed source?

Like I said previously, it will never be "great" until it's open source because then it will appeal to everyone instead of just one side. Would he somehow lose his hobby if he moved it to open source? No...

But why must he show his hobby to anyone else? Why should he be forced to publish his secret game-winning strategy?

"Greatness" in a program is defined by function and efficiency. In both respects, uTorrent is top class. If I make a study of open source vs close source based on BitTorrent clients, open source would look like a direct path to bloat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're dead for a reason: because nobody has any interest in them, including the developers. So, no, they are not great in any sense of the word. The people have spoken.

Actually, I'd disagree somewhat with the concept that a program's greatness is based on an Appeal to Popularity. I prefer objective measures like efficiency and function.

Now about your second one, the difference is that this community can only make suggestions while an open source community can make changes.

True, but two counters:

1) Only a very small minority in an open source community has the technical expertise to make real changes, so in both cases most of the community can only suggest and pray.

2) Why should Ludde help you destroy his vision?

This is an important point. Apparently more than his main competitors, Ludde has a set of principles, which manifest in decisions as to what features to enter. For example, Ludde will never implement a Right-Click-Ban feature, or BitComet's (unmentioned) Rapid Connection Recycling, and of course any leeching features. AFAIK, he wants his client to be "torrent-friendly".

One can see that any uT-derived thing, made by more cynical and less idealistic people, will likely incorporate these features. And it'd be popular too. I've heard of at least a few guys say that they would switch to uT and rid themselves of the Azureus Deadweight if not for the lack of Right Click Ban. Ludde's supporters here may argue good reasons for not including any of these, but if a uT variant appeared boasting these as options, it'd look very tempting...

Ludde can't stop people from using Azureus and BC. But why should he be forced to make it easier for people to do things that he does not personally like? As far as he's concerned, if you really like Right Click Ban, you can pay by killing your computer with Azureus. That he should be expected to make it easier for people to have Right Click Ban without paying that price must have been shocking to him...

Answer: It has not.

No security can ever be perfect. That does not mean one should not try to make it a little tougher on the bad guys.

I would certainly hope so if he wants to maintain compatability with the rest of the world. Otherwise, uTorrent would be an loner cut off from the larger network.

So, is Azureus (open-source program) a loner for not supporting Mainline DHT network?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong analogy. In this case, scientist already released his finding and product, and for free.

Wrong assessment. If you claim to know anything about the science, you must know that any claim or discovery must be backed up with proof that is both observable and repeatable by anyone. What we have now is the product, but not the procedure. Are we then supposed to take the scientist's word on faith? Of course not! He would be laughed out of the scientific commmunity if that were the case. Then again, Ludde is not a scientist, but a businessman. He is more interested in protecting his nebulous assets than serving the global community.

Ultimately, it all comes down to trust. How do you know that the open-source code is exactly the same as what was published?

Well, you can always check for blatant inconsistencies (i.e. differing strings, protocol, etc.), but generally you cannot, which is why the source alone can be truly trustworthy. The binaries are for the clueless masses who do not know/care about their security. Their apathy deserves whatever tragedy comes their way.

And if you have to carefully check the real opcodes or analyze behavior to be really sure, than what's the difference between open and closed source?

Because protocol analysis is only a fraction of the puzzle. Understanding how the software reacts to the protocol is much more important. In any case, real freedom is never free. It is bought with eternal vigilance.

But why must he show his hobby to anyone else? Why should he be forced to publish his secret game-winning strategy?

And exactly what kind of game is he trying to play, pray tell? Perhaps his ultimate aim is to capitalize on his "hobby"? It makes sense seeing how he's attempting to market his core intellectual property (ugh) to PeerFactor these days. No, this is no hobby. This is free beta testing and debugging.

"Greatness" in a program is defined by function and efficiency. In both respects, uTorrent is top class.

You are correct only in the latter regard. I believe an overwhelming component of function is extensibility, the ability to mold the program to fit your liking. If Ludde is so confident in his "vision", then he should be secure enough to allow others to inspect and build off of his work. After all, imitation is the best form of flattery and any cheap knockoffs will only serve to highlight the superior skills of the original coder.

Actually, I'd disagree somewhat with the concept that a program's greatness is based on an Appeal to Popularity. I prefer objective measures like efficiency and function.

I agree that popularity by itself is no definitive indicator of quality, however, there is a strong correllation between popularity and quality, especially among the developer community. Why else would developers invest their time in a project unless they felt it worthy of their talents? Of course, the opinions of passive users don't count for anything since they are unaware of the issues that affect large-scale networks and will only voice their approval for anything that offers them a "faster download".

1) Only a very small minority in an open source community has the technical expertise to make real changes, so in both cases most of the community can only suggest and pray.

I would still prefer an oligarchy to a dictatorship. At least then there is the possibility of getting a feature implemented that a single developer doesn't agree with (i.e. plugins, TCP NAT traversal, overhead included in bandwidth calculations, etc.).

2) Why should Ludde help you destroy his vision?

Vision is highly overrated. If an idea is powerful enough to stand on its own, people will naturally gravitate toward it. If not, then it should rightfully die and fade into obscurity. A fine example of a solid idea in the midst of many imitators is the eMule client. The developers allow anybody to make modifications to their copy of the source code, even malicious changes, but they don't try to stamp them out. Instead, they adapt to new threats through intelligent design. Furthermore, the vast majority of beneficial developers have strengthened and improved the code over time many times better than the original developers could have ever done by themselves. And all this assistance was done free of charge! Furthermore, most of the modifications come back to original codebase whenever it is updated because they know it is that reliable. The original developers never lost any "vision", they gained the support of a worldwide pool of knowledge and expertise while still maintaining control over their own code.

Ludde's supporters here may argue good reasons for not including any of these, but if a uT variant appeared boasting these as options, it'd look very tempting...

Indeed...

That he should be expected to make it easier for people to have Right Click Ban without paying that price must have been shocking to him...

Not like it mattered what he thought in the end. People still got their manual ban right along with their ignore private flag features and without having to sacrifice anything. Now, if he had released the code, many great minds would have been able to counter such actions with appropriate reactions in a matter of days.

No security can ever be perfect. That does not mean one should not try to make it a little tougher on the bad guys.

Security solely via obscurity. How many times have I heard that lame excuse before: "Well, it's better than nothing!" No, it's not better than nothing. Ludde's only deluding himself with a false sense of security if he thinks hiding behind the assumed opacity of a binary is going to offer a modicum of protection. We're not even talking about perfection at this point, just common sense.

So, is Azureus (open-source program) a loner for not supporting Mainline DHT network?

Why yes, it is. I may not agree with Bram's decision to base his DHT implementation on Bamboo (though I understand where he is coming from), but again, the democratic majority has spoken. That, by definition, makes Azureus a minority, a loner. Then again, because of its open source nature, anyone is able to recode the DHT to be compliant with the majority of the network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ludde doesn't want forks, ludde doesn't want lame additions, ludde doesn't want any of that crap, because he wants the client to be what he wants it to be, not what anyone else wants it to be (even if he does listen to suggestions). that's why there's no source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong assessment. If you claim to know anything about the science, you must know that any claim or discovery must be backed up with proof that is both observable and repeatable by anyone. What we have now is the product, but not the procedure. Are we then supposed to take the scientist's word on faith? Of course not! He would be laughed out of the scientific commmunity if that were the case. Then again, Ludde is not a scientist, but a businessman. He is more interested in protecting his nebulous assets than serving the global community.

Ludde is not a scientist, utorrent is not a thesis he needs to prove, your scientist analogy has no relevance. he IS serving the global community with a free, low resource well featured bittorrent-client.

And exactly what kind of game is he trying to play, pray tell? Perhaps his ultimate aim is to capitalize on his "hobby"? It makes sense seeing how he's attempting to market his core intellectual property (ugh) to PeerFactor these days. No, this is no hobby. This is free beta testing and debugging.

oh, please. do you even know who ludde is? he is the creator of projects such as ScummVM and OpenTTD, why don't you look them up before you declare him a cynical businessman. some morons around today seem to think that if something is free, it must be open source, else the author is a crook. though I personally prefer open source projects (though I have only briefly worked on one), people like you are the kind that gives open source advocates a bad name. and since your arguments don't make any sense at all, you strike me as someone who just wants the source to be opened for your own dubious means. I for one HOPE that he manages to capitalize on his 'hobby'.

You are correct only in the latter regard. I believe an overwhelming component of function is extensibility, the ability to mold the program to fit your liking. If Ludde is so confident in his "vision", then he should be secure enough to allow others to inspect and build off of his work. After all, imitation is the best form of flattery and any cheap knockoffs will only serve to highlight the superior skills of the original coder.

oh, I'm sure he is 'secure enough', I doubt he has anything to prove, since his client is heads and shoulders above the rest in efficiency. and building on someone else's code isn't imitiation, it's modification.

I would still prefer an oligarchy to a dictatorship. At least then there is the possibility of getting a feature implemented that a single developer doesn't agree with (i.e. plugins, TCP NAT traversal, overhead included in bandwidth calculations, etc.).

lol, dictatorship. can I come home to you and tell you what to do with your computer? if not, then that would be dictatorship by your definition. you are obviously trying hard to paint a black and white picture regarding closed and open source, however, even for such a skewed base logic your attempts are incredible crude.

you are not forced to use utorrent, there are plenty open source alternatives. and if you desperately prefer open source above utorrent then you use one of them. now, given two equal programs, I would choose the open source variant. however, utorrent has no equivalent in open source, hence I use utorrent. and just as I respect every programmers right to place his or her code under the GPL licence or any other licence for that matter, I respect every programmers right to keep their code to themselves.

you don't have to like it, but you sure as hell have no right to complain about it, because it's THEIR code.

A fine example of a solid idea in the midst of many imitators is the eMule client. The developers allow anybody to make modifications to their copy of the source code, even malicious changes, but they don't try to stamp them out. Instead, they adapt to new threats through intelligent design. Furthermore, the vast majority of beneficial developers have strengthened and improved the code over time many times better than the original developers could have ever done by themselves. And all this assistance was done free of charge! Furthermore, most of the modifications come back to original codebase whenever it is updated because they know it is that reliable. The original developers never lost any "vision", they gained the support of a worldwide pool of knowledge and expertise while still maintaining control over their own code.

the original developers of emule has left the project since long. in fact, the amount of rogue mods in the emule community is in my book a good reason why Ludde should NOT open up utorrents source code. and yes, I recognize you from the Emule forum.

Not like it mattered what he thought in the end. People still got their manual ban right along with their ignore private flag features and without having to sacrifice anything. Now, if he had released the code, many great minds would have been able to counter such actions with appropriate reactions in a matter of days.

and please, what would those 'appropriate reactions' be? please, give us a technical description, hell, give us any kind of description. can open source clients such as azareus stop this, if so how?

with your arguing, the Emule devs should have added manual peer ban, communities and leech feature long ago, since it's 'not like it mattered what they thought in the end'. just as there are likely utorrent leecher clients, there are definatly emule leecher clients, so what is your point exactly?

if I were Ludde, every post like yours would be further incentive for me to keep the source code firmly closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude. ludde created utorrent. he OWNS it. nobody has the right to tell him what to do. if you not happy,go away and use other clients. end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The masses(...)
The people have spoken.

What is this, some kind of new socialist revolution?

Vision is highly overrated.

So Ludde doesn't have a right to his vision and his work?

Open source, closed source, doesn't matter, it just would be nice to allow the creator some fundamental rights, you know.

There were people who used slightly similar arguments and forced their views on others in a similar fashion.

They were the Bolsheviks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ludde is not a scientist, utorrent is not a thesis he needs to prove, your scientist analogy has no relevance.

Is that not what I just said o_O? And, technically, it wasn't even my analogy. That was Odium's. I just took the point to its logical conclusion. Methinks your reading comprehension skills need a little brushing up.

oh, please. do you even know who ludde is? he is the creator of projects such as ScummVM and OpenTTD, why don't you look them up before you declare him a cynical businessman. some morons around today seem to think that if something is free, it must be open source, else the author is a crook.

Yes, I know who Ludde is. And it intruigues me how both OpenTTD and ScummVM, no longer under the management of Ludde, can be open source and not µTorrent. But I guess desperate times call for desperate measures. He's gotta protect his precious intellectual property and make a buck just like every other joe. Just don't be under any false pretenses that this is anything but a testing ground for his commercial ventures. It is just business as usual and many other developers struggle with similar issues (i.e. BrainSlayer of DD-WRT fame). If you can live with that, then by all means continue to use µTorrent to your heart's content. And for the record, I did not mention "crook". You did.

and building on someone else's code isn't imitiation, it's modification.

To imitate is to mold the preexistent. There is nothing new under the sun; we are simply a remix culture. You know, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that jazz? And there is nothing wrong with that. We all need inspiration to create things.

lol, dictatorship. can I come home to you and tell you what to do with your computer?

By attempting to deny me the freedom to tinker with the bits on my own machine, it has become a totalitarian act, a dictatorship. I will do with my bits as I please. And right now, I am using a hacked version of µTorrent that conforms to my vision. Ludde is, of course, entitled to his own. Just don't force it on me.

the original developers of emule has left the project since long.

So did the original devs for ScummVM. What's your point? Now allow me to make mine, IT DOESN'T MATTER! The code prevails. :D

in fact, the amount of rogue mods in the emule community is in my book a good reason why Ludde should NOT open up utorrents source code.

And how exactly have these "rogue mods" harmed the code base? And please do not give some cockeyed response about semantic constructs "reputation" or "vision". The original developers have free reign to pick and choose whatever features they see fit, just as anyone else has their right to select whatever they want for their own client. The proliferation of a diverse range of modifications stemming from the code base attests to its ultimate success. You see that as a failure of control and it is! Real creativity comes not from clutching tightly to your creation, but letting it go to take on a life of its own.

and please, what would those 'appropriate reactions' be? please, give us a technical description, hell, give us any kind of description. can open source clients such as azareus stop this, if so how?

It is rather simple, actually. We wrestle with these issues all the time with eMule's code. Unfortunately, it requires moving a lot of the intelligence from the trackers to the clients, which would defeat a lot of Bittorrent's efficiency. To curb private tracker abuse you would need to have a "spy" client connected to the tracker as well as the DHT network. The tracker would then update the client with all the other currently connected clients. The client then parses all the clients it sees in the DHT network for ones matching the tracker's list. It then reports back the results to the tracker, which summarily bans (temporarily or permanently, automated or otherwise) those IPs connected to it. This can all be done in real-time and costs the tracker very little bandwidth, considering only one client is needed to collect the reconnoissance data. As for manual banning, there really is not much you can do, since it is done client-side. I suppose you could perform a statistical analysis over time on the tracker's end to create a composite profile of the types of clients it is rejecting. If all of them are, say, modem users or all clients not from a certain geographical area, then that might raise some red flags. When you understand yourself and you understand your enemy, then victory is assured.

with your arguing, the Emule devs should have added manual peer ban, communities and leech feature long ago, since it's 'not like it mattered what they thought in the end'. just as there are likely utorrent leecher clients, there are definatly emule leecher clients, so what is your point exactly?

...that you totally missed mine. It's not just theoretically likely that there are hacked µTorrent clients, the do exist. I've got a few sitting on my hard drive right now (no, I don't actively use them). But that doesn't mean that the original developers are somehow obligated to incorporate every feature from every modification. That would just be ludicrious, even ignoring the many conflicting features from various mods! My point is that the mere existance of undesireable forks, whatever they may be, does not implicitly invalidate the original codebase. People may worry about "diluting mindshare", but that is the small price you pay for freedom of choice. It's all about options and not being imprisoned by another's ideals.

So Ludde doesn't have a right to his vision and his work?

He is entitled to his version of vision and his copy of work. Once it enters my machine, all bets are off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.