Firefox P2P extension

[Snapster]

In development and soon to be released. Interesting idea though.

 

[BW86]

I'll check this out later.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Another file sharing client?

 

[igowerf]

That's a lot of hype. I hope it lives up to it.

 

[secretanchitman]

this looks interesting. i signed up for updates.

 

[MBrown]

sounds nice.

 

[Nothinman]

That seems pointless. They use the BT protocol but restrict it to your 'friends' which removes the main speed advantage of using the BT protocol. And embedding it inside of FF is even dumber since I would assume that you have to leave FF open all of the time for it to keep sharing.

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
That seems pointless. They use the BT protocol but restrict it to your 'friends' which removes the main speed advantage of using the BT protocol. And embedding it inside of FF is even dumber since I would assume that you have to leave FF open all of the time for it to keep sharing.

Rather harsh view without seeing the full thing is it not? Who's to say it's restricted to friends, it could easily be that you can bookmark your 'friends' to see when they are available to share, talk, whatever. And yes, FF probably will have to be open, just like you have to have a file sharing client open, what's the big deal if it's your main file sharing client?

Don't get me wrong, it could flop, it could be a hit, I was just highlighting an abitious extention which could help firefox gain more popularity.

 

[Nothinman]

Who's to say it's restricted to friends, it could easily be that you can bookmark your 'friends' to see when they are available to share, talk, whatever

The website. It specifically says "Regain control! You decide which media files you want to share with whom and to maximise your privacy". If you don't restrict who can download from you, you lose the privacy it's selling. And the encryption would be pointless if anyone could join the encrypted swarm.

And yes, FF probably will have to be open, just like you have to have a file sharing client open, what's the big deal if it's your main file sharing client?

Haven't you seen all of the threads about people bitching about FF using too much memory? I have FF open with 3 tabs (it's not my main browser) and it's using 55M of memory, imagine if you used it with a lot of tabs and this filesharing thing, it'll probably be up in the hundreds. My bt clients use a lot less memory and they're more convenient because they're text based so I can control them remotely with screen.

Don't get me wrong, it could flop, it could be a hit, I was just highlighting an abitious extention which could help firefox gain more popularity.

Whether it's a flop or a hit it'll still be crap, repackaging old ideas is apparently a good way to make something popular. Look at IRC->IM, finger files->blogs, Java->.Net just to name 3. Although some will argue that Java was popular to begin with, .Net just by virtue of being released by MS will probably have a bigger user base.

 

[Snapster]

The website. It specifically says "Regain control! You decide which media files you want to share with whom and to maximise your privacy". If you don't restrict who can download from you, you lose the privacy it's selling. And the encryption would be pointless if anyone could join the encrypted swarm.

It doesn't necessarily mean it's limited by that factor. Yes you have your private files and its one selling point of the extension, but it doesn't say that you can't have public facing files either. Until something is released and there are more development notes we don't know. Yes there are always better ways for the power users to share files, but remember not everyone is like that.

Haven't you seen all of the threads about people bitching about FF using too much memory? I have FF open with 3 tabs (it's not my main browser) and it's using 55M of memory, imagine if you used it with a lot of tabs and this filesharing thing, it'll probably be up in the hundreds. My bt clients use a lot less memory and they're more convenient because they're text based so I can control them remotely with screen.

Yes I've seen all those threads and know there is some memory consumption bugs out there. I personally haven't come across it, and am quite happily sitting at 30meg for 6 tabs. It does seem like you are going for worst case scenario, it's no worse than having a browser open and using a memory hungry BT client. If a person is so concerned about every little K of memory they use in their system they'll use a text based client like you. Obviously this sort of extension isn't based at you, but maybe less savvy users who want something simple and integrated rather than dedicated applications. Personally I'll stick with my own torrent client, but I could easily see some potential in this for example family members or communities using it for sharing between eachother.

Whether it's a flop or a hit it'll still be crap, repackaging old ideas is apparently a good way to make something popular. Look at IRC->IM, finger files->blogs, Java->.Net just to name 3. Although some will argue that Java was popular to begin with, .Net just by virtue of being released by MS will probably have a bigger user base.

Whether it's old ideas repackaged or new ideas, developments are always welcome and you never know what could spin off from them. Forgive me for saying but you seem like you are being a bit glass is half empty on the entire subject. Fair enough this extension isn't for you because it's not suited to your mannerisms, which are more than likely that of a power user, but is there any reason for just going tooth and nail to just kill something right away.

 

[Nothinman]

t doesn't necessarily mean it's limited by that factor. Yes you have your private files and its one selling point of the extension, but it doesn't say that you can't have public facing files either. Until something is released and there are more development notes we don't know. Yes there are always better ways for the power users to share files, but remember not everyone is like that.

And technically BT already does that, you can setup trackers to restrict who can participate in the swarm. Doing it per torrent might be useful, but I can't say that current trackers can't do that either.

it's no worse than having a browser open and using a memory hungry BT client.

Memory-wise yes, but combining them means I have to have a browser open to share files and vice versa. They're two seperate functions and should be dealt with seperately.

If a person is so concerned about every little K of memory they use in their system they'll use a text based client like you.

It's not all about memory usage, hell I use mutt to read my email but it's using 120M of memory right now. And I've seen btdownloadcurses get up into the dozens of megs of memory before on large files with lots of peers. I use them because they're easier to deal with and give me more flexibility, not because they're slimmed down, because they're not.

Obviously this sort of extension isn't based at you, but maybe less savvy users who want something simple and integrated rather than dedicated applications.

How is clicking on a torrent file and having it open the client more of a hassle? They'll have to install that extension just as they'll have to install the torrent client.

Whether it's old ideas repackaged or new ideas, developments are always welcome and you never know what could spin off from them.

Yea look how much progress all of the IM development has gained us. A dozen incompatible protocols and even more clients that try to support them all to make it managable.

Forgive me for saying but you seem like you are being a bit glass is half empty on the entire subject.

Yes, I am. When I don't see a point to something I look at it with extreme skepticism and so far I haven't seen a real advantage. Hell it would have made more sense to integrate it with an IM client like GAIM, at least there you already have a 'buddy' list and crap. No need to create yet another one.

 

[MangoTBG]

I'm sorry, did someone say that FireFox 1.5 has memory problems? You tell me if I have memory problems...That's 12 tabs open between two windows, let's see what IE's memory is when you have 12 explorer windows open?

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
I'm sorry, did someone say that FireFox 1.5 has memory problems? You tell me if I have memory problems...That's 12 tabs open between two windows, let's see what IE's memory is when you have 12 explorer windows open?

Wait, so you're telling me if I tried the same thing in Internet Explorer that it'd be nearly twice the memory usage? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

 

[Snapster]

And technically BT already does that, you can setup trackers to restrict who can participate in the swarm. Doing it per torrent might be useful, but I can't say that current trackers can't do that either.

The control there is in the tracker not the end user.

Memory-wise yes, but combining them means I have to have a browser open to share files and vice versa. They're two seperate functions and should be dealt with seperately.

So we shouldn?t have FTP in IE either? Yes separate can be better because they are more focussed in their development, but integration does have its advantages also.

It's not all about memory usage, hell I use mutt to read my email but it's using 120M of memory right now. And I've seen btdownloadcurses get up into the dozens of megs of memory before on large files with lots of peers. I use them because they're easier to deal with and give me more flexibility, not because they're slimmed down, because they're not.

So it was, and now it?s kinda not ?all? about memory. As for flexibility, yes it?s beneficial to you and how you work. What about those that just want something simple and that just works easy for them?

How is clicking on a torrent file and having it open the client more of a hassle? They'll have to install that extension just as they'll have to install the torrent client.

And what about setting up a torrent for file sharing? Ok for someone technically apt, but you get mom n pop to do that. It's not just about downloading torrents.

Yea look how much progress all of the IM development has gained us. A dozen incompatible protocols and even more clients that try to support them all to make it managable.

So I suppose we should all just have one operating system, one IM client, one make of car? Why have any competitive development at all. Yes you single out IM development as an example and it has been slightly fragmented development, but they are actually talking of working towards making them basically compatible with each other. It doesn?t mean that nothing has improved with IM over the years either. Yes they still do the plain old text like they?ve always done, but they?ve added voice, video, file transfers etc all rather seamlessly within the clients.

Yes, I am. When I don't see a point to something I look at it with extreme skepticism and so far I haven't seen a real advantage. Hell it would have made more sense to integrate it with an IM client like GAIM, at least there you already have a 'buddy' list and crap. No need to create yet another one.

A good point, but it may have been much harder to develop for considering the number of clients like you said.

I can?t help but think you are only limiting your thinking to your point of view, which is that of someone who?s technically intellectual and chooses to tailor their machine to exactly how they like because you have the ability to do so. Think of it more simply and you'll maybe see one or two advantages that can be developed on.

 

[Nothinman]

The control there is in the tracker not the end user.

And this is just giving that user a tracker, they can do the same thing already if they want to.

So we shouldn?t have FTP in IE either? Yes separate can be better because they are more focussed in their development, but integration does have its advantages also.

In general, yes. It makes more sense to integrate FTP with Explorer than IE. It's just a side effect of the way MS designed them all that they end up working together in essentially the same app.

So it was, and now it?s kinda not ?all? about memory.

It never was all about memory, that's just the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions FF.

As for flexibility, yes it?s beneficial to you and how you work. What about those that just want something simple and that just works easy for them?

It would make more sense, and could be just as simple, to just design a seperate P2P app around the BT protocol than to shove one into FF. And without some central server or tracker it won't work too well because of NAT issues that all filesharing apps have. If both users are behind a NAT device how are they supposed to establish a connection to each other?

So I suppose we should all just have one operating system, one IM client, one make of car?

No, but standards are required for things to work well. The only reason the Internet works at all is because TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, etc are all open standards. Same thing with cars, there aren't roads that only Ford cars can drive on.

Why have any competitive development at all.

Competitive development is one thing, but can you honestly say that you think the fact that GAIM has to support 8 protocols hasn't slowed it's development at all?

Yes you single out IM development as an example and it has been slightly fragmented development, but they are actually talking of working towards making them basically compatible with each other.

Only since Google has stepped up and started using the Jabber protocol.

Yes they still do the plain old text like they?ve always done, but they?ve added voice, video, file transfers etc all rather seamlessly within the clients.

And each one doing it differently enough so that the others can't work with them. Can you have a video conversation between someone on MSN and someone on AIM?

A good point, but it may have been much harder to develop for considering the number of clients like you said.

Not at all, they would have the exact same advantages and problems just without the dependency on FF. People will still have to download and install the FF extension and they'll still have to setup 'buddies' to share them with on whatever network the extension requires.

Think of it more simply and you'll maybe see one or two advantages that can be developed on.

But how is it more convenient than sharing a file via AIM or GoogleTalk? The BT protocol was designed to get high transfer speeds by spreading the load across all of the peers, if you're limiting your transfers to a handful of predetermined peers you're wasting the main benefit of the BT protocol.

 

[secretanchitman]

well, if you dont like it, then dont use it (when it comes out)! no one is forcing you to.

 

[Nothinman]

And I won't, but that doesn't mean I can't speak my opinion on the subject.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: MangoTBG

Originally posted by: MangoTBG
I'm sorry, did someone say that FireFox 1.5 has memory problems? You tell me if I have memory problems...That's 12 tabs open between two windows, let's see what IE's memory is when you have 12 explorer windows open?

Wait, so you're telling me if I tried the same thing in Internet Explorer that it'd be nearly twice the memory usage? Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

You need to look at VM Size instead of Mem Usage. There are other factors too - some people say they experience it, others say they don't. Unfortunately, nobody REALLY knows what the factors are. People talking about the memory cache didn't bother to read the code to see what their "fix" actually does (usually their suggestions tell FF to use MORE RAM for the cache than it does by default). Anyhow, let's not turn this into another "Firefox uses too much RAM" thread.

 

[imported_LoKe]

Let's add some bloat to Firefox. Some more crap we don't need.

I'll use a Torrent program rather than use this extension. I like closing Firefox every so often to avoid a possible memory leak.

But that being said, it's simply an extension, so those who'd like to use it will use it. We're not forced to use it and that alone is good enough for me.