Posted by db on 09/26/05 23:37

"ChenHA" <hzhen@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:33tgj1hbpldsp8980stcdjlbnkpirirthk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:06:08 +0100, "db" <@ .> wrote:
>
>>
>>"ChenHA" <hzhen@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>>news:suhgj1d5pva21psu9a4sm4d1la5omg960m@4ax.com...
>>> Barring Frontcode deciding to do something about WinMX future, it
>>> looks like people using the program is actually taking over the
>>> running of the network. It's an accidental people's revolution. I
>>> see advantages and problems - for example, it would be easier to
>>> control the fake files since the people using it are the more
>>> "computer savvy" type, and so it might be easier to identify and block
>>> the fakers, it may also means that the people running the servers
>>> might become subject to legal action.
>>
>>Assuming they even need to use the peer caches for access (which I don't
>>believe they necessarily do)...
>>
>
> How so?
>
> Is there a germ of an interesting idea?

I'm not saying this is how it does work, obviously, but if you wanted a list
of primaries operating on the network I think that all you'd need is a
primary on the WPN (or even secondary) feeding back information pulled from
the flow of data that passed through it (and that's a lot of fresh
information (SPM for example (or in the case of a secondary, running
searches))). Woah overdose on the brackets there.

Just a thought really. It'd be nice if this wasn't the case and the media
companies ended up being forcefully sent on their way, but, in reality, I'm
not hopeful that the network will ever see the back of them so long as the
WPN is an interest of theirs.

>>I'm not sure about 'where do we go from here' as I'm not too confident
>>that
>>things are going to turn out well at all given some of what I've been
>>seeing
>>lately (concerns with the new 'operators' attitudes, in-fighting, the
>>jostle
>>for authority, etc, etc (power, and all it entails)). I keep alternating
>>between a positive & negative outlook about the future of the network so
>>far, though probably biased towards the negative.
>
> I don't have any particular opinion one way or the other. I think
> that it is likely to be temporary thing until someone else come up
> with a better solution, and I do also think that fragmentation of the
> network is a very likely scenario with different people running
> different WinMX networks.

I dunno about the fragmentation thing. I think the network should still be
a whole as it was before as the running caches are (a) currently being mixed
via a 'split' hostfile, and (b) I believe the WinMX client, at least in
primary mode, exchanges addresses with other peers on the network during
operation to maintain a local cache of peers to connect to without
necessarily having to call on a peer cache (that's what I hear anyhow though
I can't prove that easily without attempting to look into the protocol).

Could all be bollocks though I don't know. ;)

>>The way I'm looking at it is that WinMX and the WPN was effectively put
>>down
>>when FC's caches went offline, though, has been resusitated in a new guise
>>to whose future is uncertain. Trust ended on that day, for me, to be
>>replaced by concern (or something).
>>
>
> Trust in whom? Frontcode or the people running peer caches? I do
> wonder if I can trust the people running peer caches, but we'll see.

Just uncertainty on my side regards who's involved, maybe irrational but
trust is earned, right?

Time will tell.

[Back to original message]