|
By Thomas Mennecke 2/25/03 Much dissent has been generated by the Gnutella community regarding Shareaza's implementation of Gnutella2. This community has been referred as “Mike’s Protocol” (MP) to those who do not recognize the use of the term “Gnutella.” While many have become dissatisfied with Shareaza, the BearShare camp has been most vocal. In this interview, we spoke to Vincent Falco, President of FreePeers, Inc., creators of BearShare. We would like to thank him for participating in this extended interview. |
|
Slyck.com: There's been a lot of talk on the GDF about how Shareaza has been overqueerying the Gnutella network. How significant is this? Did this occur before or after the implementation of "Gnutella2" (or MP)?
BearShare: Currently, the end user is
able to specify the frequency of the query; this is inappropriate. The user
has the ability to set the query rate to give a DoS (Denial of Service) attack
effect on the network. The download-retry interval is additionally adjustable,
which causes a DoS attack effect on individual hosts. These are hostile actions.
Additionally this constant hammering gives an unfair advantage in that the client
using friendly querying does not receive the same attention as the client using
hostile querying which uses up all available network resources.
Network resources are things like, CPU, memory and bandwidth capacity. The most
precious of the three is bandwidth, no single user/client should be allowed
to consume more than their fair share. Gnutella developers with a significant
share understand this paradox and have designed their clients to be bandwidth
friendly. Each Gnutella vendor has a share of the Gnutella network based on
the popularity of their client. It is understood by responsible developers that
network resources must be used fairly and only when appropriate in order to
achieve the best possible experience for the user while maintaining a healthy
network.
The current stance taken by Mike on this issue is troublesome, in that he feels
it's their (the user’s) computer so they should be able to do whatever they
want. What apparently isn't taken into account is the health and well being
of the Gnutella Network, which is the primary concern for all Gnutella developers,
not to mention the effect it has on the computer (on the receiving end) being
over-queried.
Shareaza currently has a smaller share of the peer to peer market than other
clients such as Limewire, Xolox or BearShare. If one of the larger clients had
incorporated this "feature", the Gnutella Network would be slowed to a crawl;
however, a developer with a small share like Shareaza's, can get away with these
tactics in order to gain a perceived advantage for its own client without the
rest of the network feeling the full effect immediately.
There is no need to allow for such frequent querying, unless the intent is to
perform a DoS attack on Gnutella clients (unlikely), or to gain an advantage
over other servents at the expense of network health (likely).
Shareaza had shown this behavior even before the introduction of MP and continues
to show this behavior after the introduction of MP. The problem was brought
to the attention of the Shareaza developers by the GDF and currently the issue
is still withstanding with no apparent action taken toward resolution by Shareaza
developers. Well, actually they did do something; they developed a proprietary
protocol, wrapped in an open protocol name, made a lot of promises about specs
and documentation which has yet to be seen by the GDF. I guess Shareaza developers
figured out that the best way to protect a network from aggressive querying
is by keeping the specs and true nature of the newly introduced proprietary
protocol secret.
Slyck.com: What are some of the major problems
facing the Gnutella network today? What is being done to confront these issues?
BearShare: Currently there are two major
problems facing Gnutella today, the first is of technical nature the second
is of communicatory nature.Technically, the biggest problem facing the Gnutella
network today is the nature of broadcast queries. Gnutella is fantastic at getting
the search out quickly. The downside is if you are searching for popular content,
there is no way to throttle the flood of responses. Fortunately, by working
through the GDF with the other Gnutella developers, dynamic querying combined
with a high out-degree network topology will solve this problem. We have already
incorporated support for both high out-degree and dynamic querying in the publicly
available current beta of BearShare 4.3.0; this feature uses the implementation
that came about through GDF discussion.
Gnutella’s biggest strength is an open community, which unfortunately can also
be its biggest weakness as seen recently. The Gnutella’s strength comes from
it being an open protocol, anyone can contribute, and anyone can study it. I
would venture to say that more University papers deal with Gnutella or are based
on Gnutella than any other P2P protocol. However, that open-ness is a double
edged sword, since development takes place in the open, greedy developers can
take advantage of other developers and their contributions. The Gnutella developers
essentially have an open playbook, anyone can look anyone can know what the
next move will be and how to counteract that move or how to put that move in
their own playbook. Without this type of open-ness the Gnutella Network would
cease to function. The Gnutella Network is for everyone. It is disheartening
to see anyone take pieces developed by the GDF then market it as their own or
even to go so far as to take the pieces, then begin an anti-Gnutella marketing
scheme based around technology provided by the GDF.
With the introduction of anti-Gnutella marketing and school ground type arguing,
the Gnutella Network is facing its biggest challenge. Private conversations
and attempts at civil discussion have failed, which unfortunately has forcibly
caused the block of a hostile Gnutella client. This is an unprecedented move,
however so is a closed protocol on the Gnutella Network and anti-Gnutella marketing
by a Gnutella client.
Developing a client on the Gnutella Network takes a considerable amount of time
and dedication. When creating a Gnutella client, you are not only making changes
to your program, but you are also possibly making changes to the network as
a whole which impacts all clients. Anything which globally impacts the Gnutella
Network is discussed in the GDF prior to implementation. If something is incorporated
into a client which globally impacts the Gnutella Network without previous discussion
in the GDF, heated discussion will of course ensue. This is common even with
features that are discussed prior to implementation. Each developer feels strongly
about his or her contributions and the contributions of other developers. With
any open discussions also comes open arguments, profanities, reactions, ideas,
positive feedback and resolution. This is the nature of creativity and programming.
You cannot have a new feature without discussion, disagreement, refinement and
thought. If you are on the outside looking in on this group of developers you
may become entangled in a single aspect of the overall process – the disagreement
portion. There are some users who feel very passionately about their client
of choice and will defend it at all costs. This is not always helpful to the
development process; however the GDF is an open discussion format because Gnutella
is for everyone. Lately a chasm has been created in the GDF, one side versus
another. This is not the intent or purpose of the GDF; disagreements are frequent
and short lived on the GDF because a resolution is quick to follow. All disagreements
on the GDF find resolution between developers; however a resolution was not
met due to a complete communication break down. If a developer on the GDF decides
to place harmful “features” in their client and become unresponsive to the rest
of the GDF and/or does not resolve the issue in a timely manner, problems will
occur. The GDF has gotten stuck in the client vs. client discussion and needs
to move forward for the betterment of the entire Network.
We hope that with the split, the spirit of brotherhood will return to the Gnutella
Development community. There is of course backlash to our decision, however
it is justified based on several factors which have been discussed ad nauseum.
In the upcoming months there will be significant and exciting changes to the
Gnutella network, we look forward to further developing this rich technology
in an open and friendly environment. We additionally look forward to moving
past this current obstacle and continue working to create a positive atmosphere
in the Gnutella community.
Slyck.com: Tell us a bit more about GUESS
and how it works. Will this be implemented into BearShare?
BearShare: GUESS is a UDP based querying
mechanism that allows the querier to iteratively search Ultrapeers one or more
at a time. The idea is that the client can stop when it reaches a desired number
of results. It is NOT supposed to be a global search mechanism - it is made
very clear in the GUESS documentation that the client MUST stop after it reaches
a certain number of Ultrapeers. Another issue with UDP is that it doesn't work
on all systems. Some providers (like AOL) block UDP traffic except on specific
ports. In other environments, system administrators block external UDP traffic
entirely, since that is the default configuration on most hardware.
We hope to avoid the implementation of GUESS entirely, since it is UDP based.
UDP implementations suffer from two major problems: 1) Inability to apply flow
control to incoming datagrams, and 2) Problems with firewalls and configuration.
By switching to UDP, we also eliminate the possibilities of compressing host
connections, or leveraging existing TCP/IP based protocols (like SSL).
We are continually working with fellow Gnutella developers and hope to have
a vastly improved system implemented very soon, whether or not it will ultimately
be GUESS or a hybrid version is still up for debate.
Slyck.com: What exactly happened between
the Gnutella developers and Shareaza? Many individuals feel that Mike Stokes
played a very positive role and contributed many helpful ideas to the Gnutella
community.
BearShare: Mike started off as a respected
new member of the Gnutella developers’ community, and then things began to go
very very wrong. Many new developers implement new features which end up being
harmful to the Gnutella Network, they are contacted then a resolution is met.
Mike went beyond what is considered acceptable when he created an entirely new
closed protocol without the guidance and support of fellow Gnutella developers
then released it on the Gnutella community. Mike was included in discussions
of GUESS, the proposed evolution of the existing Gnutella protocol, as were
all Gnutella developers.
Mike adopted Gnutella and implemented some proposals that were brought to the
GDF by others, for example: Gordon Mohr's MAGNETS. There is this myth that he
contributed something to Gnutella, while in reality he contributed nothing,
he implemented others proposals while leaving the heavy lifting of network health
to the established players. Had there been no GDF, he would have had no sources
for his work. Even his own MP protocol is a derivative of work of many ideas
that lead up to GUESS, with the big difference being that the GUESS specs were
discussed openly in the GDF and its specs are available to everyone, while the
MP specs are his and his alone.
Currently, if we (the Gnutella Network) decided we wanted to name the next generation
of Gnutella "Gnutella2", we couldn't, because the name has been wrongly stolen
out from under the community. There was never any need to register Gnutella2.com
because everyone involved was working toward a common goal, except apparently
one person. The Gnutella developers cannot sit idly by as a once upstanding
Gnutella developer takes it upon himself to introduce a hostile client, hostile
marketing and go on to give it the apparent stamp of approval by placing the
Gnutella name on a product which was not created, tested and refined by the
Gnutella developers community. Mike's actions are at best questionable.
The incorporation of hostile “features” in Shareaza such as:
As you can see from the above, Shareaza has done everything possible to act
as a hostile client and team. Only after the above actions and repeated failed
attempts at discussion did BearShare finally block the hostile client in order
to help keep the Gnutella network safe.
Slyck.com: Has the dust settled between
Gnutella (BearShare, LimeWire) and Shareaza? What communications, if any, exist
between the Gnutella camp and Shareaza?
BearShare: The dust will not settle for
so long as Shareaza's hostile marketing continues and communication is absent.
The GDF is the established means of communications for Gnutella developers.
The Shareaza developers are welcome to participate, but they have decided not
to. The only Shareaza participants in the GDF are users and testers, the actual
developers are absent. If you don't participate in the GDF, then you're not
contributing, just leeching.
The Gnutella developers’ community has and is attempting to move on and introduce
some great new features which we have scheduled for release quite soon.
Slyck.com: With all the proposed improvements,
how long do you feel it will take for Gnutella to perform as well as some of
the top P2P networks?
BearShare: Performance depends on what
you are measuring. Although the bottom line as far as users are concerned is
how quickly and reliably the file they see in their search results will be delivered
to their systems and the answer to that is within the next 3-6 months you will
see Gnutella performing substantially better than some of the currently top
P2P networks.
I believe that the Gnutella is currently performing as well as or even better
than some of the other top p2p networks. Gnutella is a proven and growing network,
it's a very exciting time for Gnutella -- there are many exciting changes scheduled
and currently being developed. I believe the rest of the p2p community will
be very impressed once the new changes are rolled out. The Gnutella network
has a very powerful ace up its sleeve, it's an open protocol so the more developers
there are, the stronger the network. As long as the Gnutella network retains
this ace, it will be unstoppable.
Slyck.com: How do you envision the future
of Gnutella in 6 months? A year?
BearShare: Stronger, more innovative, stable.
The longer Gnutella is around, the better it gets. In six months, see above.
In a year, our intention is to make Gnutella the premier content delivery network.
If you were to compare the Gnutella of today to the Gnutella of 6 months or
a year ago, there really is no comparison. The Gnutella has implemented quite
a few new features and there are no signs of stopping any time soon. It will
be a great year for Gnutella based on the planned features which are up and
coming. The buzz word will be "revolutionary".
Slyck.com: Since the deployment of Gnutella2
(MP), what effect, if any has it had on the Gnutella network? Do you feel it
has drawn users away?
BearShare: The current effect on the network
is minimal as MP is used by a very small percentage of users. The overall effect
of MP on the development community has been one of disappointment. We all saw
a great light in Mike Stokes and watched as it became tainted when he put his
desires ahead of the Gnutella network.
If you are asking if it has drawn users away from BearShare, the answer is no.
Unbiased user experiences of Shareaza include reports of instability, inability
to locate content, and a poor user interface.
Shareaza doesn't have a solid foothold in the p2p market (BearShare currently
has at least 50 times more users (a very conservative estimate) and its current
slander campaign has done nothing to help its numbers, it has instead hurt it
and Mike's reputation. Most Gnutella users don't participate in forums and websites
associated with peer to peer clients. There are several million Gnutella users;
there are only a few hundred or even a few thousand active voices in the peer
to peer online world. The voices have already made their choice, so nothing
that's been said will change their opinion. The bottom line is you're either
a Gnutella client user or a future Gnutella client user because there aren't
any other open protocol networks. Open protocol networks are the way of the
future; it is folly to consider creating or even implementing a closed protocol
in today’s atmosphere.
Slyck.com: Vinnie made this post to the
BearShare forums, "Mike
Stokes, author of Shareaza, is nothing more than a common thug and deserves
a thorough beating." There are other negative comments from Vinnie
regarding Mike Stokes in the GDF. Please justify these comments, and do you
still believe this about Mike?
BearShare: The GDF is a place for very
open (and often blunt) conversation. When you're working in a community environment
where each client has its own voice and yet must continue to comply with the
rest of the network, discussion can get heated because we all feel strongly
about our individual clients and the network as a whole. There's a fine line
between giving your client an edge and harming the rest of the network. Mike
leapt over this line and in turn I voiced my opinion of his actions. The difference
between me and Mike is my words are sometimes hasty, whereas his actions are
hasty. The link you've provided and the quote you give do not harm the Gnutella
Network and its performance, Mike's recent actions do.
These comments are completely justifiable. Mike has allowed his users to deprecate
other developers, other applications (like BearShare), and the Gnutella protocol
itself. He unjustifiably calls Gnutella "a crappy, outdated, inflexible protocol".
How can someone whose client is based on Gnutella technology turn around and
issue such false statements?
Slyck.com: It seems many in the P2P community
have taken a dislike to BearShare. Do you believe that comments as mentioned
in Q9 have helped BearShare's public relations? What is being done, if FreePeers
believes there's a problem, to resolve much of the negative feelings towards
BearShare?
BearShare: You will need to define "P2P
community". If you intend for it to mean the user base of the Gnutella Network,
then you are very incorrect in assuming that there has been any type of dislike
taken to BearShare. Quite the contrary. We have received numerous emails letting
us know how pleased they are with our product and to "keep up the good work".
We have not experienced any type of drop in downloads or anything else which
would indicate displeasure with BearShare. If anything we have experienced an
increase in downloads and an influx of emails complimenting our newest version
of BearShare. The free version of BearShare now has only one bundled product
- this high quality advertising product doesn't send user information out and
of course respects privacy. In fact, a few weeks ago we removed the banner advertisements
from the BearShare application and replaced it with the message "In appreciation
of our loyal users, we have removed the advertising from this space". One week
later, we replaced the message with free content. Instead of advertising banners,
we now provide information and MAGNET style downloads to independent artists,
with pages hosted by our own servers on our own bandwidth. The artists that
we worked with have been overwhelmed, and have sent us numerous emails proclaiming
their appreciation of the massive boost in exposure.
If you intend "P2P community" to mean the vocal 1% of p2p users who visit and
take part in p2p discussion online they are basing their arguments and opinions
on the slander campaign launched by Shareaza. You will also notice that most
if not all persons voicing their dislike of BearShare have based it not on the
technical performance, but rather because they are fanatics of Shareaza or of
other networks such as Fast Track. Their opinion has not changed, instead they
have found a reason to be vocal about their current and previous opinion of
BearShare (no matter how long ago or if ever they have used BearShare). With
this having been said, it's irrelevant what was said and what was not said,
their opinion would have been the same.
Some of the recent hostilities in the GDF and in other forums have brought issues
to the forefront. For example, BearShare has been criticized for its "island
effect" and for our Secure Channels feature, which provided a way to download
from other servents, but not allow uploads to them. The latest round of Gnutella
vs. Shareaza elicited negative comments regarding these BearShare "features",
and we have responded by adjusting the way our application behaves and the features
it presents.
We have redesigned our Secure Channels feature so that it is either entirely
on or entirely off. We have also made changes to reduce the unintentional island
effect which was created during security improvements. These changes are evident
in the latest BearShare 4.2.4 release.
We appreciate and encourage constructive feedback, which is why we have a BearShare
Labs forum, a BearShare Feature Request forum, a 10 things I hate about BearShare
forum and so forth. We encourage feedback, then analyze the overall effect each
proposal will have on the client and network then we incorporate/redesign/improve
them as appropriate.
As the founder and CEO of BearShare, I will continue to be an outspoken member
of the Gnutella developers’ community for so long as the ideals of the Gnutella
community are not being upheld. It is my job and every other developer's job
to ensure that Gnutella remains Gnutella.
Slyck.com: Assuming FreePeers believes
they have an image problem, what do you feel caused this situation?
BearShare: If upholding the ideals of the
Gnutella developers’ community and including fellow developers on any globally
impacting features is considered an image problem, it's a problem BearShare
is happy to have. Any other "image problems" are the cause of Shareaza zealots
visiting download.com or our forum and trolling or posting negative marketing.
At no point did BearShare, its representatives, or our user base go to our competitors
(Gnutella or otherwise) and promote bearshare.com. Shareaza was the first to
introduce this underhanded behavior. Mike never went out of his way to stop
it.
Slyck.com: Shareaza seems to be developing
a strong userbase, with many expert users stating that it out performs Gnutella.
Will FreePeers implement some of Gnutella2s attributes? If not, why?
BearShare: Shareaza is not developing a
strong user base if you view the numbers; it is instead remaining a very small
percentage of the Gnutella Network. Their recent slander campaign has done nothing
to help promote their product; it has instead left a bad taste in the mouth
of Gnutella developers and leads them to question the motives of the developer
of Shareaza. The "expert users" you are referring to can only be the very young
Shareaza fanatics which are quite vocal in slandering other Gnutella clients
while giving false information about their own client in order to receive more
users. If you look at truly unbiased opinions, you will see many responses such
as "I couldn't connect at all", "this program is very unstable", etc.
These self proclaimed “expert users” are under the illusion that it performs
better, unfortunately you cannot compare its performance to Gnutella’s, nor
can you evaluate the protocol. Their test environment is skewed. A network of
a couple of thousand cannot be compared to a network of hundreds of thousands.
If Gnutella were just 10,000 nodes it would not have any query and result traffic
issues to deal with, and by the way at 10,000 nodes, all searches would be universal
and almost instant. Anyone tested how long a “universal” search takes on Shareaza?
These self proclaimed “experts" flock to Shareaza because it is highly customizable.
So customizable, that you can alter the programs behavior on Gnutella to take
advantage of network resources at the expense of reducing everyone else's user
experience. If all programs behaved this way, Gnutella would never work. I would
also like to point out that Shareaza offers little to NO controls for the MP
protocol behaviors, probably because Mike doesn't want his proprietary network
to be vulnerable to degradation.
MP is a closed and undocumented protocol which is not supported by the Gnutella
developers’ community. Free Peers incorporating anything related to MP would
be similar to incorporating anything from Fast Track or any other network using
a closed protocol. Free Peers upholds what Gnutella stands for and a closed
protocol is very much the opposite.
Slyck.com: It was obvious that FreePeers
was dissatisfied when Mike registered Gnutella2.com. Was it the intention of
FreePeers to register this domain alone or coordinate the purchase among the
major developers? If it was FreePeers intention, why wasn't it registered much
earlier? Is Mike not free to register any domain that is available?
BearShare: Gnutella.com is not owned by
a single individual, Gnutella2.com is. Gnutella.com does not promote a single
client, Gnutella2.com does. Gnutella.com is a symbol of community and the combined
hard work of several developers. Gnutella2.com is one developer's domain. It
was never the intention of Free Peers, Inc. to register Gnutella2.com , to do
so would be a slap in the face to fellow developers. Yes, the domain was available
which gives one the ability to register it, however ethically the domain was
not available and to register it and use it would be wrong. The Gnutella development
community was not involved in the creation of MP, therefore the name "Gnutella"
should not be applied to the new closed protocol. If the Gnutella Network were
a closed protocol, this would have never been an issue because Shareaza would
never have been created, nor would BearShare for that matter. The fact is Gnutella
is for everyone, no matter who you are. If any person attempts to close off
that opportunity, they are no longer following the ideals of the Gnutella Network.
There is one recognized protocol on the Gnutella Network, not two.
If Fast Track were to create a Gnutella client then test out a new closed protocol
incorporated into the new Gnutella client, it would be a very cut and dry case
of banning. If they were to go on further to name the new closed protocol "G3"
and register the domain name of Gnutella3.com and insist the protocol used (and
created) by all other Gnutella clients is outdated and inferior, there would
be an immediate reaction. What is different between Mike's closed protocol vs.
one made by a competing network? Nothing. There is not proper documentation
of the new closed protocol, there was never discussion of the new protocol between
developers prior to the implementation and launch of the new protocol, there
was not any type of approval given to use the new name and register the domain
name, there was nothing communal about this new protocol except that it affects
all other clients on the Gnutella Network whether they like it or not.
Slyck.com: Gnutella has stayed off the
RIAA/MPAA radar for now. Do you feel Gnutella developers may become a target
in the future? What has protected you up until now? What contingency plans exist
in order to combat a potential RIAA/MPAA onslaught?
BearShare: Gnutella is based on community
involvement and participation with a combined goal to see the Gnutella Network
improve and grow. Gnutella is more like a family than a development group, each
voice is heard and new members become involved every day. Currently, all clients
on the Gnutella Network use an open protocol, this allows for a hydra effect.
The RIAA/MPAA can cut off one head/client and a new one (or two) will grow in
its place. As long as the Gnutella community continues to stand for open protocols
and community involvement, Gnutella will continue to thrive.
Slyck.com: Have you used Shareaza since
its implementation of Gnutela2? Please give us an honest assessment. How do
you feel it compares against BearShare/LimeWire/XoloX?
BearShare: Yes. MP is based on UDP, although
it boasts the ability to "search globally", this is not true. It can search
Shareaza users that are using MP, which is unimpressive but it cannot search
the entire Gnutella Network. This global search ability was available in previous
versions of BearShare, prior to the introduction of UltraPeers -- the difference
of course being that you were searching the Gnutella network. If this "feature"
remains in Shareaza and they have a substantial increase in users, the protocol
will collapse. It is impossible to design a system that allows for global keyword
searches that scales infinitely. Even the GUESS specification makes it *extremely
clear* that the algorithm must stop after visiting a certain number of Ultrapeers
(10,000 I believe). Even if there are 50,000 Ultrapeers in the global network,
GUESS requires stopping after a fixed number. This is made very clear, and the
supporting research explaining why global keyword searching can never scale
is given in the GUESS document and relevant GDF postings. Anyone with p2p development
experience or mathematical skills can easily see through this “global search”
ruse. Shareaza is nothing more than a hobby for Mike, currently there is absolutely
no incentive for him to avoid abusing the Gnutella Network in order to give
his client a perceived advantage, and he does in fact have everything to gain
by abusing and badmouthing the Gnutella Network.
Currently MP and Gnutella are both parts of Shareaza, if Shareaza were to suddenly
stop using Gnutella, Shareaza users would disappear because the content is simply
not there. MP added to Shareaza is simply a means of testing out a new proprietary
network and as such should never have entered the Gnutella network.
Slyck.com: Give us an assessment of the
current and potential impact of Gnutella2 on the Gnutella community. How great
or small is the threat? Is the current campaign against it necessary?
BearShare:Gnutella2 does not exist as of
yet, however MP does. The Gnutella developers’ community is working on the evolution
of Gnutella as we currently know it; we cannot name it Gnutella2 as that name
is already taken. The "threat" is the same of any other closed protocol -- minimal.
The current "campaign" is very justified, MP goes against every ideal that the
GDF upholds. Negotiations failed, actions were then taken to forcibly fix the
issues which the creator was either unable to or simply did not want to fix.
The same actions would have been taken on any hostile client.
Slyck.com: I understand that the Gnutella
community is concerned that Shareaza has not released the G2 specs. Please elaborate
on this.
BearShare: In the Gnutella developers’
community, communication is everything. It is imperative that anything which
globally affects the Gnutella Network (positively or negatively) be discussed
amongst all developers prior to implementation. Mike took it upon himself to
avoid this standard practice and introduce a globally effecting closed protocol
on the Gnutella Network. He did not remove the offending closed protocol until
such time as proper documentation and discussion may have a chance to take place;
he instead released it in a final version (non beta) of Shareaza and promptly
went on vacation. There have been many excuses and very little action, the longer
the excuses went on the more frustrated and concerned the Gnutella developers
community got. Mike has lost the trust of the Gnutella developers’ community
and it will take a very long time (if ever) for him to regain that trust.
BearShare's
homepage.
Other MP3 Stories:
Gnutella
vs. Gnutella2, Part 2
eMule Interview
Locutus: P2P
with security
Tom from Slyck.com is a regular contributer to MP3 Newswire. Tom's insights on other digital music issues can be read on his site and we encourage you to check it out.
The Samsung
700H comes with 128MB of memory and an FM tuner and is available
on Amazon
Other MP3 Stories:
Screwed by
the record labels? Claim your settlement from the record industry price fixing
case.
