Jump to content
Comet Forums

wyuenho

Members
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About wyuenho

  • Rank
    Seeder
  1. Actually, according to this Wikipedia page, about 2/3 of the BT clients are open sourced, even if you only count the Windows clients. uTorrent is close sourced, but for reasons unspecified, unlike BitComet, which closed its source for security reasons; and Azereus is open sourced. C++ is a popular language, but not everyone knows how to deal with network protocols. In order to cheat, you must lie in the messages you send to other clients, but then if you lie, you must lie consistently or you can be caught and banned (basic theory of computation). So my point is, all you have to do is to force the client to lie all the way and eventually they'll get caught. For other so called cheats, like having fake upload slots that never uploads, or fake bandwidth reports... can all be solved by doing a few more simple arithmetic calculations when assigning scores and priorities in the scheduling algorithm. I don't see why security can be a reason for closing the source. For a client with a huge user base like BitComet, any cheat countermeasure algorithm will have an adverse effect on the whole community and makes cheating mods a lot less likely to succeed in whatever they are hoping to achieve. By using a open source development model, your accidental cheating feature could get a chance to be reviewed , bugs filed and avoided the whole "accidentally cheating" fiasco. So open source model actually improves the quality of the software. Same goes with the cheating mod, for everytime a new cheating mod comes out, someone else always will come up with a new countermeasure algorithm and that can be incorporated into the official client's source immediately, throw in an automatic update system like Azereus', noweveryone connected will get patched almost in no time, what's wrong with this?
  2. It's true that azereus and emule both have cheating mods, and shareza by nature is a hack and is banned by most other eDonkey2000 clients, but according to Wikipedia, "BitComet's upload slot limit is known not to work. BitComet has also been accused of favoring other BitComet users on uploads, hammering trackers, dropping piece requests, and other similar unfair techniques." It's also true that it took MS more then 5 years to come up with IE7 thats still at least 1 year behind current state of the art browser technology. My point is close source development model leads to slow security fix response time, and when it comes to defending against accusations, there really is very little you can do without opening up the source code for verification. You may publish data gathered from some network experiment, but people can always say you can manipulate data anyway you want, so you really have no way to prove otherwise. I'm curious tho, how do these cheats on BT clients generally work? Is it possible to build in some default counter measures against some of the popular cheating schemes?
  3. according to the download count on download.com, yes bitcomet does have millions of users. hacks? so u are saying azereus is full of hacks? emule, dc++, sheraza, gnutella and all other open source p2p programs are full of hacks? that's completely opposite to the reality. from the experience of so many open source projects out there, most contributers are only acting as testers and bug reviewers. most people are not developers and even if they are, in the case of a windows app, they don't necessarily have a copy of visual studio. those programmer who can understand and write the code for bitcomet are the real contributers to the code base. as experience has shown, for every exploit or hack discovered, there are always more fixes to patch the problem by the same community. by open sourcing the project, instead of having only a handful of developers working on the project, you suddenly have thousands of developers doing security auditing for you and other improvements. a closed source bitcomet has so many hacks. a hacker will go to any length to find security holes and exploits of the program, but if the program is closed source, good users can't help and the project developers don't have the time to fix it. so the result is slow response time to critical bugs and unhappy users. haven't we learnt enough from IE6?
  4. In the year of 2006, I don't understand why there are still sharewares that's free for personal use but closed source. The case of bitcomet is especially perplexing to me since bitcomet neither charges fees for personal use nor provides any support to business users. My guess would be that bitcomet's own revenue is commercial licensing. But then again, why can't you open source bitcomet and still charge business users licensing fees? In bitcomet's case, I can only see the advantages of making it open-sourced to improve bitcomet's features and stability, without losing anything. If you open up your bug tracker, millions of users will be potential testers and bug reporters. If you open up the source code, hundreds of thousands of developers/users will submit patches and enhancements to bitcomet. So there's really no reason to not open source bitcomet unless you absolutely have to use some proprietary library with very strict limitations on redistribution. But then again, what library could it be that you can't replace with an open sourced one? I'm an advocate of open source software and it's frustrating for me to not be able to contribute to a project which its product is something that I use on a daily basis. Therefore I am here petitioning for an open source bitcomet project.
×
×
  • Create New...