Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey Kay
    I just downloaded this, but I guess I m missing the point of this for small groups. The problem of sharing information within a Windows-based organization
    Message 1 of 24 , May 29, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I just downloaded this, but I guess I'm missing the point of this for
      small groups. The problem of sharing information within a Windows-based
      organization isn't really that significant considering that Windows
      networking allows you to easily share files as long as you are on the
      same LAN.

      The problems seem to start when two of us, each behind firewalls in
      different organizations, decide we need to share information. If a good
      set of public nodes aren't available for something like WASTE, it's
      unlikely that we will ever be able to connect. We'd need to have a set
      of well known, public nodes to get a connection. Maybe that's what will
      happen with WASTE; that's how Gnutella got started.

      However, if that's the case, then why not just look at something that's
      more efficient at routing like Jabber? The Jabber architecture is
      better suited to point to point routing, which is what instant messaging
      and file transfer really require (admittedly, Jabber isn't very good at
      file transfer) and node discovery is much easier because of a naming
      convention that uses DNS. The only different appears to be that Jabber
      states up front that there must be nodes that are publicly connectable
      while WASTE sort of ignores that fact.

      I've been staring at this problem for a long time and the closest that
      I've come is using e-mail as a transport protocol and just ignoring
      instant messaging for now. In thinking about future evolution of this
      sort of thing, I can imagine more capable messaging servers that support
      both e-mail and IM, but they aren't here yet.

      jeffrey kay
      weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
      share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>

      "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
      mark twain
      "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window and
      locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
      biker's guide to life
      "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
      work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Lucas Gonze [mailto:lgonze@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:08 PM
      > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
      >
      >
      >
      > Brander and Bob report that they have the unix version up and running
      > already. Not much to speak of...
      >
      > <lucas> hello server
      > <server> [autoreply] I am but a dumb server
      > <lucas> yes, I know
      > <server> [autoreply] I am but a dumb server
      >
      > ...but it's more than you can say for Groove.
      >
      > - Lucas
      >
      > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Dave Winer wrote:
      >
      > > I just downloaded and installed it too. I think this could
      > be huge. Those
      > > Nullsoft guys are very cool. Thanks to Clay for the link. Dave
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Lucas Gonze" <lgonze@...>
      > > To: <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:10 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      > > > If anybody's in need of a test connection, email me for
      > IP and public key.
      > > >
      > > > I like it so far.
      > > >
      > > > > Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups --
      > the "N^ 2
      > > problem"
      > > > > is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small --
      > Nullsoft has
      > > launched
      > > > > WASTE
      > > >
      > > > Groups appear to be extremely sticky, so I imagine there
      > will be clumps
      > > > well above the target 50 nodes.
      > > >
      > > > - Lucas
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > To
      > unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe
      > from this group, send an email to:
      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • brandon@blanu.net
      This product is extremely similar to FolderShare (foldershare.com), which in beta from the same people that brought you AudioGalaxy. The main difference as far
      Message 2 of 24 , May 29, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        This product is extremely similar to FolderShare (foldershare.com), which in beta from the same people that brought you AudioGalaxy.
        The main difference as far as I can tell is that WASTE has chat rooms and FolderShare has message boards.

        They both are designed for small groups, use crypto, and get around NATs by turning non-NAT nodes into brokers for NAT nodes.
      • Justin Chapweske
        The trick is that you need to optimize your topology for the task at hand. Any system that tries to provide a generalized topology for multiple functions such
        Message 3 of 24 , May 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          The trick is that you need to optimize your topology for the task at
          hand. Any system that tries to provide a generalized topology for
          multiple functions such as search, file transfer, and chat will be bad
          at at least two of those functions.

          As you say, Jabber is great for instant messaging, but poor for file
          transfer. The solution isn't to bolt file transfer on an IM platform,
          the solution is to provide a p2p content delivery network that runs
          parallel to the IM network.

          I've been working with the Gnutella crew for a long time to move things
          in this direction, and slowly but surely they are seperating their
          search topology from their content delivery topology and now basically
          have to parallel networks that are symboitic with each other.

          >
          > However, if that's the case, then why not just look at something that's
          > more efficient at routing like Jabber? The Jabber architecture is
          > better suited to point to point routing, which is what instant messaging
          > and file transfer really require (admittedly, Jabber isn't very good at
          > file transfer) and node discovery is much easier because of a naming
          > convention that uses DNS. The only different appears to be that Jabber
          > states up front that there must be nodes that are publicly connectable
          > while WASTE sort of ignores that fact.
          >


          --
          Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks
          http://onionnetworks.com/
        • Jeffrey Kay
          Justin -- ... I suppose it depends on what the primarily goal of the topology is and to what extent it prevents other functions from working. The search
          Message 4 of 24 , May 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Justin --

            > The trick is that you need to optimize your topology for the task at
            > hand. Any system that tries to provide a generalized topology for
            > multiple functions such as search, file transfer, and chat
            > will be bad
            > at at least two of those functions.

            I suppose it depends on what the primarily goal of the topology is and
            to what extent it prevents other functions from working. The search
            topology of Gnutella is designed in a very specific way to avoid
            centralization and thus can preclude the optimal operation of other
            functions.

            > As you say, Jabber is great for instant messaging, but poor for file
            > transfer. The solution isn't to bolt file transfer on an IM
            > platform,
            > the solution is to provide a p2p content delivery network that runs
            > parallel to the IM network.

            I'm not so sure that's the case. Jabber's protocol isn't well designed
            to handle high-volume data transfer, but it wouldn't be hard to design a
            similar one that could handle it. I'd say the design decision was
            probably due to overwhelming focus on instant messaging and thus Jabber
            doesn't support file transfers will as a result.

            > I've been working with the Gnutella crew for a long time to
            > move things
            > in this direction, and slowly but surely they are seperating their
            > search topology from their content delivery topology and now
            > basically
            > have to parallel networks that are symboitic with each other.

            I could see that with Gnutella, principally because of the goal of the
            protocol. In looking at WASTE, which purports to do all three of those
            functions, whether the formation of groups is going to be useful because
            of the heavy design focus on what looks like Gnutella style routing of
            messages. The problem that I see is that file transfer, IM, and group
            formation are all examples of things where point to point data transfer
            works best. Small group formation (in WASTE, Groove, and others)
            requires an intermediary since most of the end nodes will be behind
            firewalls. If the intermediary is required in most cases, why not look
            at a "smart" intermediary that can do high performance routing and
            connections? Where does the "mesh" really offer any advantages? That
            was my leap from WASTE to Jabber.

            I'm not a huge Jabber fan, but the idea that folks will make publicly
            available WASTE nodes doesn't seem likely to me. I don't see the public
            set of intermediaries emerging like they did in Gnutella because the
            benefit to the intermediary is almost non-existent. In Gnutella,
            publicly available intermediaries formed the core value of the network
            by being there and offering files that could be downloaded. But in
            WASTE, the networks are all "closed", so someone in the middle won't get
            any value from having participated.

            jeffrey kay
            weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
            share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>

            "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
            mark twain
            "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window and
            locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
            biker's guide to life
            "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
            work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein
          • Lucas Gonze
            ... I ve been proxying traffic for friends all day. What I get out of it is that I m happy to help them out. This is more like a friendnet (small, personal,
            Message 5 of 24 , May 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:
              > I'm not a huge Jabber fan, but the idea that folks will make publicly
              > available WASTE nodes doesn't seem likely to me. I don't see the public
              > set of intermediaries emerging like they did in Gnutella because the
              > benefit to the intermediary is almost non-existent. In Gnutella,
              > publicly available intermediaries formed the core value of the network
              > by being there and offering files that could be downloaded. But in
              > WASTE, the networks are all "closed", so someone in the middle won't get
              > any value from having participated.

              I've been proxying traffic for friends all day. What I get out of it is
              that I'm happy to help them out. This is more like a friendnet (small,
              personal, persistent) than a napster-style network (huge, anonymous,
              transient).

              But anyway, as Brandon said there's no new ground here on a technical
              level. The contribution is that it's lightweight.

              - Lucas
            • Jeffrey Kay
              FWIW, the link just disappeared from the NullSoft site. jeffrey kay weblog pgp key aim share files with me -- get
              Message 6 of 24 , May 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                FWIW, the link just disappeared from the NullSoft site.

                jeffrey kay
                weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
                share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>

                "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
                mark twain
                "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window and
                locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
                biker's guide to life
                "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
                work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein


                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: Lucas Gonze [mailto:lgonze@...]
                > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM
                > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: RE: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
                >
                >
                > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:
                > > I'm not a huge Jabber fan, but the idea that folks will
                > make publicly
                > > available WASTE nodes doesn't seem likely to me. I don't
                > see the public
                > > set of intermediaries emerging like they did in Gnutella because the
                > > benefit to the intermediary is almost non-existent. In Gnutella,
                > > publicly available intermediaries formed the core value of
                > the network
                > > by being there and offering files that could be downloaded. But in
                > > WASTE, the networks are all "closed", so someone in the
                > middle won't get
                > > any value from having participated.
                >
                > I've been proxying traffic for friends all day. What I get
                > out of it is
                > that I'm happy to help them out. This is more like a
                > friendnet (small,
                > personal, persistent) than a napster-style network (huge, anonymous,
                > transient).
                >
                > But anyway, as Brandon said there's no new ground here on a technical
                > level. The contribution is that it's lightweight.
                >
                > - Lucas
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Jeffrey Kay
                I didn t address your other point, but probably should. The idea of helping others is good, but generally not scalable with this kind of software. If
                Message 7 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I didn't address your other point, but probably should. The idea of
                  helping others is good, but generally not scalable with this kind of
                  software. If everyone had the ability to put up a relay node for others
                  to use, you'd get the kind of ad-hoc group formation that I think WASTE
                  was going for. But that's a bigger problem when you're dealing with
                  enterprise environments.

                  What would work is some way for an enterprise to "sanction" the use of
                  this somehow by putting up a corporate node, one that could be monitored
                  and managed, for their employees to use. That's sort of the Groove
                  approach with their enterprise relays -- sanctioned P2P. But directly
                  connecting from the edge is going to continue to be a problem without
                  that sort of thing.

                  jeffrey kay
                  weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
                  share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>

                  "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
                  mark twain
                  "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window and
                  locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
                  biker's guide to life
                  "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
                  work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein


                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: Jeffrey Kay [mailto:jeff@...]
                  > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:49 PM
                  > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                  > Subject: RE: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
                  >
                  >
                  > FWIW, the link just disappeared from the NullSoft site.
                  >
                  > jeffrey kay
                  > weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
                  > share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>
                  >
                  > "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
                  > mark twain
                  > "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the
                  > window and
                  > locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
                  > biker's guide to life
                  > "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y
                  > plus Z. X is
                  > work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein
                  >
                  >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: Lucas Gonze [mailto:lgonze@...]
                  > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM
                  > > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Subject: RE: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:
                  > > > I'm not a huge Jabber fan, but the idea that folks will
                  > > make publicly
                  > > > available WASTE nodes doesn't seem likely to me. I don't
                  > > see the public
                  > > > set of intermediaries emerging like they did in Gnutella
                  > because the
                  > > > benefit to the intermediary is almost non-existent. In Gnutella,
                  > > > publicly available intermediaries formed the core value of
                  > > the network
                  > > > by being there and offering files that could be
                  > downloaded. But in
                  > > > WASTE, the networks are all "closed", so someone in the
                  > > middle won't get
                  > > > any value from having participated.
                  > >
                  > > I've been proxying traffic for friends all day. What I get
                  > > out of it is
                  > > that I'm happy to help them out. This is more like a
                  > > friendnet (small,
                  > > personal, persistent) than a napster-style network (huge,
                  > anonymous,
                  > > transient).
                  > >
                  > > But anyway, as Brandon said there's no new ground here on a
                  > technical
                  > > level. The contribution is that it's lightweight.
                  > >
                  > > - Lucas
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Mike Faunce
                  They must not have liked the publicity because the link below doesn t work anymore and WASTE isn t listed on their main page. Mike Faunce ... From: Clay Shirky
                  Message 8 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    They must not have liked the publicity because the link below doesn't
                    work anymore and WASTE isn't listed on their main page.

                    Mike Faunce


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Clay Shirky [mailto:clay@...]
                    Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:39 AM
                    To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE


                    Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2
                    problem" is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small -- Nullsoft
                    has launched WASTE, about which they say:

                    WASTE is a software product and protocol that enables secure
                    distributed
                    communication for small (on the order of 10-50 nodes) trusted groups
                    of
                    users.

                    WASTE is designed to enable small companies and small teams within
                    larger
                    companies to easily communicate and collaborate in a secure and
                    efficient
                    fashion, independent of physical network topology.

                    Runs on Windows, some server functionality for BSD (Free and Mac OS
                    versions). Source is available under the GPL for porting.

                    http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/

                    -clay





                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Kevin Prichard
                    Anybody willing to put up a mirror of the downloads? If not, send them to me, I ll put them up somewhere. (it was GPLed iirc.) Kevin Prichard
                    Message 9 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Anybody willing to put up a mirror of the downloads? If not, send them to
                      me, I'll put them up somewhere. (it was GPLed iirc.)

                      Kevin Prichard


                      On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:

                      > FWIW, the link just disappeared from the NullSoft site.
                      >
                      > jeffrey kay
                      > weblog <k2.com> pgp key <www.k2.com/keys.htm> aim <jkayk2>
                      > share files with me -- get shinkuro -- <www.shinkuro.com>
                      >
                      > "first get your facts, then you can distort them at your leisure" --
                      > mark twain
                      > "if the person in the next lane at the stoplight rolls up the window and
                      > locks the door, support their view of life by snarling at them" -- a
                      > biker's guide to life
                      > "if A equals success, then the formula is A equals X plus Y plus Z. X is
                      > work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut." -- albert einstein
                      >
                      >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: Lucas Gonze [mailto:lgonze@...]
                      > > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 5:34 PM
                      > > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Subject: RE: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:
                      > > > I'm not a huge Jabber fan, but the idea that folks will
                      > > make publicly
                      > > > available WASTE nodes doesn't seem likely to me. I don't
                      > > see the public
                      > > > set of intermediaries emerging like they did in Gnutella because the
                      > > > benefit to the intermediary is almost non-existent. In Gnutella,
                      > > > publicly available intermediaries formed the core value of
                      > > the network
                      > > > by being there and offering files that could be downloaded. But in
                      > > > WASTE, the networks are all "closed", so someone in the
                      > > middle won't get
                      > > > any value from having participated.
                      > >
                      > > I've been proxying traffic for friends all day. What I get
                      > > out of it is
                      > > that I'm happy to help them out. This is more like a
                      > > friendnet (small,
                      > > personal, persistent) than a napster-style network (huge, anonymous,
                      > > transient).
                      > >
                      > > But anyway, as Brandon said there's no new ground here on a technical
                      > > level. The contribution is that it's lightweight.
                      > >
                      > > - Lucas
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      > decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • Brian Behlendorf
                      ... Clay, do you have a reference to Ozzie s statement? I wanted to get the right context... In my experience, the size vs. quality argument runs slightly
                      Message 10 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Thu, 29 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                        > Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2 problem"
                        > is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small

                        Clay, do you have a reference to Ozzie's statement? I wanted to get the
                        right context...

                        In my experience, the size vs. quality argument runs slightly differently,
                        and more like your power law concept. Most online communities I've been a
                        part of (while probably more email-based than most people here - I just
                        can't stand the UI and usability of every web-based forum I've tried) have
                        had concentric circles of participation, ranging from core participant to
                        lurker.

                        Most people don't have just one community or interaction type, either -
                        most people I know identify with 2-3 groups as "core" and 10-20 as
                        "lurker", with maybe 5-6 in some in-between state.

                        Whether it's communities who write code or throw parties on a beach at
                        midnight, I agree with the concept that there's some natural limit to the
                        number of "core" who can be effective within any given community, but the
                        healthiest communities I've seen are the ones where the barriers between
                        core and lurker are low, and you can have flow between them - not just
                        lurkers moving to core, but core moving to lurker when their interest
                        shifts.

                        I think this is true whether the community is sending emails, sending
                        IM's, or sharing files.

                        The best community-building tools, IMHO, are the ones that

                        a) make it easy to usefully keep pace as a lurker within a large number of
                        communities

                        b) make it easy to cross from lurker status to something closer to core as
                        time & interest permit, as well as go in the other direction

                        c) keep a solid and useful history of a project so someone who's new can
                        quickly grow into a core role without being a burden on the rest of the
                        community.

                        My view to date is that most P2P systems, by themselves, don't really
                        address any of the points above. How is an IM system built on top of a
                        P2P infrastructure *any* different than IRC or AIM to the end user? It's
                        not. Gnutella and BitTorrent have been great for optimizing searching and
                        downloading for flat files distributed around the net, but I'm still
                        grasping for the connection between P2P and community-building that people
                        seem agog over. Just because we can make a group of machines talk to each
                        other more directly doesn't mean they (or their users) have become a real
                        human community.

                        > http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/

                        404 Not Found, unfortunately.

                        Brian
                      • p@
                        Hi, We are developing a p2p application that originated from a community that was based on Hotline and web-forums. The basic structure will be a hierarchic p2p
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi,

                          We are developing a p2p application that originated from a community
                          that was based on Hotline and web-forums.

                          The basic structure will be a hierarchic p2p DNS system. It is basically
                          a tree of clusters, where a cluster can hold any kind of data. The tree
                          is divided into communities. Every community will have its own
                          chat-server so you see, if you travel the tree, who is in the same part
                          of the tree and maybe has the same interests or information you need.

                          The structure is build as flexible as possible. It will be possible to
                          share big files with download algorithms similar to ed2k or bitTorrent.
                          Smaller data structures with high fluctuation, is possible too (forum,
                          instant messaging, websites).
                          Data will be accessed via URL and not by hash like in other solutions.
                          All data is signed by a user-key what makes it possible to change data
                          if you have the right key. The key infrastructure will support
                          encryption for every type of data exchange.

                          A basic paper can be found here:
                          www.treepy.com/dev/docs/concept2.html
                          detailed infos can be found in the dev-forum at
                          www.treepy.com/forum or on the CVS

                          We are developing in python and are still looking for developers

                          Cheers

                          digi



                          -----Urspr√ľngliche Nachricht-----
                          Von: Brian Behlendorf [mailto:brian@...]
                          Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Mai 2003 01:34
                          An: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                          Betreff: Re: [decentralization] Nullsoft launches WASTE

                          On Thu, 29 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                          > Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2
                          problem"
                          > is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small

                          Clay, do you have a reference to Ozzie's statement? I wanted to get the
                          right context...

                          In my experience, the size vs. quality argument runs slightly
                          differently,
                          and more like your power law concept. Most online communities I've been
                          a
                          part of (while probably more email-based than most people here - I just
                          can't stand the UI and usability of every web-based forum I've tried)
                          have
                          had concentric circles of participation, ranging from core participant
                          to
                          lurker.

                          Most people don't have just one community or interaction type, either -
                          most people I know identify with 2-3 groups as "core" and 10-20 as
                          "lurker", with maybe 5-6 in some in-between state.

                          Whether it's communities who write code or throw parties on a beach at
                          midnight, I agree with the concept that there's some natural limit to
                          the
                          number of "core" who can be effective within any given community, but
                          the
                          healthiest communities I've seen are the ones where the barriers between
                          core and lurker are low, and you can have flow between them - not just
                          lurkers moving to core, but core moving to lurker when their interest
                          shifts.

                          I think this is true whether the community is sending emails, sending
                          IM's, or sharing files.

                          The best community-building tools, IMHO, are the ones that

                          a) make it easy to usefully keep pace as a lurker within a large number
                          of
                          communities

                          b) make it easy to cross from lurker status to something closer to core
                          as
                          time & interest permit, as well as go in the other direction

                          c) keep a solid and useful history of a project so someone who's new can
                          quickly grow into a core role without being a burden on the rest of
                          the
                          community.

                          My view to date is that most P2P systems, by themselves, don't really
                          address any of the points above. How is an IM system built on top of a
                          P2P infrastructure *any* different than IRC or AIM to the end user?
                          It's
                          not. Gnutella and BitTorrent have been great for optimizing searching
                          and
                          downloading for flat files distributed around the net, but I'm still
                          grasping for the connection between P2P and community-building that
                          people
                          seem agog over. Just because we can make a group of machines talk to
                          each
                          other more directly doesn't mean they (or their users) have become a
                          real
                          human community.

                          > http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/

                          404 Not Found, unfortunately.

                          Brian


                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          decentralization-unsubscribe@egroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Ian Holsman
                          I m using Yahoo s Instant messenger with a GPG encryption turned on between my friends. It s automatic and very user-friendly. sure.. yahoo can tell who I am
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 29, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I'm using Yahoo's Instant messenger with a GPG encryption turned on
                            between my friends.
                            It's automatic and very user-friendly.
                            sure.. yahoo can tell who I am communicating with, but they have no way
                            of telling what
                            I am saying.

                            I'm not exactly sure how much value 'WASTE' is to people.

                            --ian

                            In <BAFB93C1.89B0%clay@...> Clay Shirky wrote:
                            > Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2
                            > problem" is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small --
                            > Nullsoft has launched WASTE, about which they say:
                            >
                            > WASTE is a software product and protocol that enables secure
                            > distributed communication for small (on the order of 10-50 nodes)
                            > trusted groups of users.
                            >
                            > WASTE is designed to enable small companies and small teams within
                            > larger companies to easily communicate and collaborate in a secure
                            > and efficient fashion, independent of physical network topology.
                            >
                            > Runs on Windows, some server functionality for BSD (Free and Mac OS
                            > versions). Source is available under the GPL for porting.
                            >
                            > http://www.nullsoft.com/free/waste/
                            >
                            > -clay
                          • Julian Bond
                            ... I think there s a corollary here. If you keep N small, the community never attains the critical mass needed to become self perpetuating. My rule of thumb
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Brian Behlendorf <brian@...> wrote:
                              >On Thu, 29 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                              >> Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2 problem"
                              >> is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small
                              >
                              >Clay, do you have a reference to Ozzie's statement? I wanted to get the
                              >right context...

                              I think there's a corollary here. If you keep N small, the community
                              never attains the critical mass needed to become self perpetuating. My
                              rule of thumb is that you need 5 noisy frequent posters to keep a group
                              going. And the active-lurker ratio is usually about 10%. Hence a
                              community typically needs 50 people to be self perpetuating. The end
                              result (and my experience) with things like Groove is that most
                              sub-groups never reach 50 people and hence die out. I've also had
                              problems that Groove was reaching scalability problems at 50 people.
                              This could be better now as I haven't tried it again for 6 months or so.

                              This also relates to "Reed's Law" and group forming networks. Reed
                              suggested value grows as 2^N not N^2 in group forming networks. As well
                              as my 50 people argument, there also appear to be upper limits that it's
                              extremely rare for communities of >500 to stay stable for long before
                              they break up into smaller groups. Reed's 2^N is based on the number of
                              all possible groups from 2 to N in size. If possible groups are actually
                              only 50 to 500 in size then value will still grow faster than N^2 but
                              much less fast than 2^N.

                              Not sure what all this has to do with Waste...

                              One other comment here on NAT, IM, Jabber etc. Right now we have Jabber
                              based XMPP going head to head with SIP/SIMPLE. Neither of these cover
                              all possible content transfers and the approach of both is to use the
                              core protocol to set up the connection and then to use out of band
                              transfers for the actual content where the content type doesn't fit. But
                              even with this we still have a NAT problem for each content type. So I
                              might well use MSN or Jabber to set up a voice call, but I still can't
                              get the voice connection through the NAT without a relay. The point here
                              is that just because Jabber doesn't lend itself to rich binary streams
                              over the native XML link, that doesn't mean that it isn't a good
                              protocol to make the connection.

                              --
                              Julian Bond Email&MSM: julian.bond@...
                              Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/
                              Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/
                              M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173 T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                            • Clay Shirky
                              ... It s the Gnutella pattern, except this time they made a point of promoting the source code at the same time. -clay
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, 29 May 2003, Jeffrey Kay wrote:

                                > FWIW, the link just disappeared from the NullSoft site.

                                It's the Gnutella pattern, except this time they made a point of promoting
                                the source code at the same time.

                                -clay
                              • Clay Shirky
                                ... It was in conversation a couple of years ago (it was one of the conversations that steered me away from thinking about decentralization as a way of
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  > On Thu, 29 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                                  >> Following the Ray Ozzie intuition about human groups -- the "N^ 2 problem"
                                  >> is only a problem when N is large, so keep N small
                                  >
                                  > Clay, do you have a reference to Ozzie's statement? I wanted to get the
                                  > right context...

                                  It was in conversation a couple of years ago (it was one of the
                                  conversations that steered me away from thinking about decentralization as a
                                  way of handling cycles and disk and towards social patterns.)

                                  I was looking at Groove with Napster in the back of my mind, and by that
                                  point Napster had already hit 20 million or so users with no signs of
                                  slowing. When I understood that in a Groove space, every file from every
                                  user would be pushed to every other user, I asked Ray about the scaling
                                  problem, to which his reply was, approximately, "What problem?"

                                  Groove's design center is 2-25 users (though Ray reports Groove spaces of up
                                  to 250 users, and there are lots of people who use Groove solo, as a synch
                                  tool between machines.) Though my memory of the conversation was "N^2 is
                                  only a problem when N is large, when he explains Groove now, he talks about
                                  a "users x update frequency" issue -- you can have lots of users, or you can
                                  have lots of updates. The problem sets in when you have both.

                                  So the design center is the workgroup -- the small team working in a
                                  heterogeneous environment that needs to assemble quickly, with no
                                  "infrastructure" and no help (soi-disant) from IT.

                                  > In my experience, the size vs. quality argument runs slightly differently,
                                  > and more like your power law concept. Most online communities I've been a
                                  > part of (while probably more email-based than most people here - I just
                                  > can't stand the UI and usability of every web-based forum I've tried) have
                                  > had concentric circles of participation, ranging from core participant to
                                  > lurker.

                                  This was Julian's critique as well. The other design center Groove has is
                                  limited time engagements. Most Groove spaces are project-oriented, not
                                  community oriented -- get in, gather some docs, discuss them, re-write them
                                  or write new ones, publish the results out of the space, and get out.

                                  I share your (and Julian's) preference for info-compression and lurker
                                  friendliness, but that wasn't Ray's goal, probably because he was targeting
                                  people obsessed about trade secrets, so Groove has strong instead of weak
                                  membranes, discourages lurking, and in particular disallows the kind of hubs
                                  or connectors pattern of the weblog world (the one that leads to small
                                  worlds network patterns and power law distributions of connectivity), which
                                  means that Groove provides no social mesh and no weak signal amplification.

                                  Whether this is a Good Thing<tm> or not is left as an exercise for the
                                  customer, I suppose.

                                  And whether WASTE provides any alternative to managing social clusters is,
                                  in my mind, the interesting open question 9well, that and "Where did the
                                  code go, and can we mirror it?")

                                  -clay
                                • Clay Shirky
                                  ... They made a big deal about group security, though I can t quote the claims since the page is gone. Did/do you see any contribution there? -clay
                                  Message 16 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > But anyway, as Brandon said there's no new ground here on a technical
                                    > level. The contribution is that it's lightweight.

                                    They made a big deal about group security, though I can't quote the claims
                                    since the page is gone. Did/do you see any contribution there?

                                    -clay
                                  • Rich Persaud
                                    IM security: http://www.infosecuritymag.com/2002/aug/cover.shtml Trillian risks: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=65797&cid=6066102&threshold=-1&mode=nested
                                    Message 17 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                    • Lucas Gonze
                                      ... Nope. There s no contribution to group security on the level of abstractions, anyway. But on the level of practical usage there s something, because this
                                      Message 18 of 24 , May 30, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Fri, 30 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                                        > They made a big deal about group security, though I can't quote the claims
                                        > since the page is gone. Did/do you see any contribution there?

                                        Nope.

                                        There's no contribution to group security on the level of abstractions,
                                        anyway. But on the level of practical usage there's something, because
                                        this is a really usable implementation of ideas that have been attached to
                                        packages with low usability.

                                        - Lucas
                                      • Lucas Gonze
                                        Comments on WASTE after a couple days of continuous use -- * Always-on out of necessity and practicality. Low resource usage. * Connections are established
                                        Message 19 of 24 , May 31, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Comments on WASTE after a couple days of continuous use --

                                          * Always-on out of necessity and practicality. Low resource usage.

                                          * Connections are established out of band, in email, external IM or IRC.

                                          * A connection is a high level of trust.

                                          * Feels like a friendnet, and in fact I've been using it as an extension
                                          of my existing friendnet. Clusters form slowly and last for a long
                                          time.

                                          * There's no need to have your connectivity vetted by jerks at AIM or
                                          elsewhere. Per Machiavelli and Stallman, once you taste freedom you
                                          can never go back.

                                          * Lurking doesn't make sense. Lurkers are the same phenomenon as having
                                          one guy in a conversation who never says anything.

                                          Wishlist --

                                          * A majordomo kind of interface for ad-hoc email lists.

                                          * Better support for transitive relationships. The way it works right now
                                          is that a connection gets brokered by a friend, then is managed one to
                                          one. There needs to be transitive naming, byte passing, file sharing,
                                          etc.

                                          - Lucas

                                          (NB to anybody trying to establish a connection via the information I've
                                          published: you have to send me your key out of band, and I have to import
                                          it, before my node admits to seeing yours).

                                          (NB 2 to anybody else needing a connection -- if I don't know you, I won't
                                          do it. Sorry).
                                        • Lucas Gonze
                                          ... The interesting difference is in the tristero analogy. We re all used to open communities on the ultramassive WAN of the internet. Pynchon s secret
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jun 1, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Fri, 30 May 2003, Clay Shirky wrote:
                                            > And whether WASTE provides any alternative to managing social clusters is,
                                            > in my mind, the interesting open question 9well, that and "Where did the
                                            > code go, and can we mirror it?")

                                            The interesting difference is in the tristero analogy. We're all used to
                                            open communities on the ultramassive WAN of the internet. Pynchon's
                                            secret postal conspiracy should have slightly different dynamics. Brian's
                                            point about lurkability as an essential feature would be less applicable
                                            in groups too small to support it.

                                            You'd expect, for example, that such groups would be dark matter. They'd
                                            influence the whole without being directly observable.

                                            ...need to re-read "The Crying of Lot 49" when there's time.

                                            - Lucas
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.