[haiku] Re: BeShare
- From: Bryan Varner <bryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 12:50:01 -0400
Pete,
Like you I love BeShare and see its value to the community. I also
appreciate your recent work on it.
The one change I'd like to see would be to make it share files in a way that
you don't have to punch a hole in your firewall.
I don't mind doing this, but I think it turns many people off to using it.
Anyway around this? Like how BitTorrents or Gnutella do it?
Jim
I seem to recall there being a method to do this at one time… It may have been
only implemented in that other QT based beshare client back in the 2002-2003
era? What was it called? I don’t remember… I know the author went by VitViper
(Vitality was his name, iirc).
I looked into it at one point in the java-based client, but never bothered — I
think it required special support (or an option enabled) on the muscled server,
or there was another ‘bot’ (like Atrus) that mediated the transfers. The issue
there was that it basically bottlenecked all the file transfer data through
that poor third party (server, or bot) and would kill bandwidth.
Under the covers, the BeShare method of transferring files (chunks) and the BT
method (chunks) isn’t too dissimilar, if the chunk size was fixed across
clients, it wouldn’t be hard to request different chunks from different hosts
having the same (hash matching) file. I had some ideas many moons ago about
replacing bebits with a system not too dissimilar to what’s being discussed
here, and throwing a web front-end that would interrogate a muscle client on
the backend for people who wanted the ‘traditional’ web-based experience of
hunting for software. :-)
Regards,
-Bryan
Other related posts:
