Talk:Roadmap - Revision history

ArneBab: /* Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks in Phex */

ArneBab — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:44:49 GMT

Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks in Phex

←Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 19 December 2008

	Naturally a p2p-network lives from its sharers, and some p2p-networks are used by fans of one type of content, while others have different users. So, a short-term approach to this problem is to implement all those p2p-networks into one client.		Naturally a p2p-network lives from its sharers, and some p2p-networks are used by fans of one type of content, while others have different users. So, a short-term approach to this problem is to implement all those p2p-networks into one client.

-	But using this approach means, that effort is being split among several networks instead of putting all effort into improving one single network.	+	But using this approach means that effort is being split among several networks instead of putting all effort into improving one single network.

	That means that you'll be stuck in the end with several suboptimal networks, which each consume network bandwidth and CPU-time instead of one network which really works and constantly improves.		That means that you'll be stuck in the end with several suboptimal networks, which each consume network bandwidth and CPU-time instead of one network which really works and constantly improves.

ArneBab: /* Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks */

ArneBab — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:31:38 GMT

Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks

←Older revision		Revision as of 11:31, 12 September 2007

-	=Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks=	+	=Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks in Phex=

	There are quite many multi-protocol clients out there, but we at the Phex team think, that implementing several different p2p-networks is like curing the symptoms instead of thinking about the reasons.		There are quite many multi-protocol clients out there, but we at the Phex team think, that implementing several different p2p-networks is like curing the symptoms instead of thinking about the reasons.

89.12.1.3 at 04:49, 16 February 2007

89.12.1.3 — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:49:08 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 04:49, 16 February 2007

	So we should rather think about the reason: Why do people choose a certain network over Gnutella, and how can we change that?		So we should rather think about the reason: Why do people choose a certain network over Gnutella, and how can we change that?

-	Our decision to avoid multiple networks stems from the firm belief, that Gnutella is the best approach towards a scaleable, ~~name~~-based searcheable p2p-network.	+	Our decision to avoid multiple networks stems from the firm belief, that Gnutella is the best approach towards a scaleable, tag-based searcheable p2p-network.

-	We believe in the one tool for one task philosophy, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.	+	We believe in the "one tool for one task" philosophy, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word or tag based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.

	For other tasks we have, for instance, the download mesh, which implements a BitTorrent like decentral source-exchange network around each actively downloaded or uploaded file, the GWebCaches for finding the first hosts we connect to, UDP-host-caches to exchange information about active hosts in the network, and soon a dht for searching by sha1-hash.		For other tasks we have, for instance, the download mesh, which implements a BitTorrent like decentral source-exchange network around each actively downloaded or uploaded file, the GWebCaches for finding the first hosts we connect to, UDP-host-caches to exchange information about active hosts in the network, and soon a dht for searching by sha1-hash.

ArneBab: /* Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks */

ArneBab — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:28:51 GMT

Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:28, 12 October 2006

	For other tasks we have, for instance, the download mesh, which implements a BitTorrent like decentral source-exchange network around each actively downloaded or uploaded file, the GWebCaches for finding the first hosts we connect to, UDP-host-caches to exchange information about active hosts in the network, and soon a dht for searching by sha1-hash.		For other tasks we have, for instance, the download mesh, which implements a BitTorrent like decentral source-exchange network around each actively downloaded or uploaded file, the GWebCaches for finding the first hosts we connect to, UDP-host-caches to exchange information about active hosts in the network, and soon a dht for searching by sha1-hash.

-	But all these have their own field, and they work flawlessly together without "competing" for resources in one and the same field, as ~~we can see~~ it in multinetwork clients.	+	But all these have their own field, and they work flawlessly together without "competing" for resources in one and the same field, as it happens in multinetwork clients.

	And in the long term we hope, that this will make Gnutella the major tool for distributing, locating and retrieving content in the internet.		And in the long term we hope, that this will make Gnutella the major tool for distributing, locating and retrieving content in the internet.

ArneBab: /* Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks */

ArneBab — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:19:50 GMT

Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, 5 August 2006

	So we should rather think about the reason: Why do people choose a certain network over Gnutella, and how can we change that?		So we should rather think about the reason: Why do people choose a certain network over Gnutella, and how can we change that?

-	Our decision to avoid multiple networks stems from the firm belief, that Gnutella is the best approach towards a scaleable, ~~word~~-based-searcheable p2p-network.	+	Our decision to avoid multiple networks stems from the firm belief, that Gnutella is the best approach towards a scaleable, name-based searcheable p2p-network.

-	~~One~~ tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.	+	We believe in the one tool for one task philosophy, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.
		+
		+	For other tasks we have, for instance, the download mesh, which implements a BitTorrent like decentral source-exchange network around each actively downloaded or uploaded file, the GWebCaches for finding the first hosts we connect to, UDP-host-caches to exchange information about active hosts in the network, and soon a dht for searching by sha1-hash.
		+
		+	But all these have their own field, and they work flawlessly together without "competing" for resources in one and the same field, as we can see it in multinetwork clients.
		+
		+	And in the long term we hope, that this will make Gnutella the major tool for distributing, locating and retrieving content in the internet.

ArneBab at 23:07, 5 August 2006

ArneBab — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:07:56 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 5 August 2006


	One tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.		One tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.
-
-	~~=blah=~~
-	~~=Blahbla=~~
-	~~=blablahblah=~~

ArneBab at 23:07, 5 August 2006

ArneBab — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:07:11 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 5 August 2006


	One tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.		One tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.
		+
		+	=blah=
		+	=Blahbla=
		+	=blablahblah=

ArneBab at 23:06, 5 August 2006

ArneBab — Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:06:40 GMT

New page

=Why we don't want multiple p2p-networks=

There are quite many multi-protocol clients out there, but we at the Phex team think, that implementing several different p2p-networks is like curing the symptoms instead of thinking about the reasons.

Naturally a p2p-network lives from its sharers, and some p2p-networks are used by fans of one type of content, while others have different users. So, a short-term approach to this problem is to implement all those p2p-networks into one client.

But using this approach means, that effort is being split among several networks instead of putting all effort into improving one single network.

That means that you'll be stuck in the end with several suboptimal networks, which each consume network bandwidth and CPU-time instead of one network which really works and constantly improves.

So we should rather think about the reason: Why do people choose a certain network over Gnutella, and how can we change that?

Our decision to avoid multiple networks stems from the firm belief, that Gnutella is the best approach towards a scaleable, word-based-searcheable p2p-network.

One tool for one task, and for the task of searching for a file by its name or by word-based metadata, Gnutella is the best tool out there, and it constantly improves.