Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox Gets File Sharing Extension 337

Jonnty writes "Firefox finally has a good P2P extension.. "[It] incorporates peer-to-peer capabilities into the browser via a sidebar. AllPeers "combines the strength of Firefox and the efficiency of BitTorrent" to add media sharing to the long list of available extensions." "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox Gets File Sharing Extension

Comments Filter:
  • by InstinctVsLogic ( 920001 ) <harmonyofchaos&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @10:57AM (#14352066) Homepage
    Now you can view porn and download hentei at the same time!
    • Don't you mean view porn and download porn at the same time?
      • Its like watching cartoons or reading comic books. If any other nation in the world makes it, its a cartoon or a comic book. As soon as it comes from Japan though, it magically becomes high art and is called anime or manga. Same thing for erotic cartoons/comics. If it comes from japan (preferably with tentacles) its magically "hentai" instead of porn. This applies to fans of cartoons as well. If you like cartoons, well then you like cartoons. OTOH if you like cartoons from Japan then you are an Otaku or som
        • Re:The Amenities! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by calyphus ( 646665 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @02:05PM (#14353271) Journal
          Its not like we go around calling french movies "le films"
          Some do refer to French movies as French Cinema, but that is. When it's convenient or more informative a name will be coined, such as "Spaghetti Western" (an undeservidely derisive moniker); and there's Bollywood.

          Anime is a genre, just as film noire is; each an adjective expanding the precision of English.

          Anime = 3 sylables, Japanese Animation = 7 syllables: a greater than 50% increase in verbage to string it out. Some would have it be Japanime, but most who do know the word will know what one means by Anime. It adds to the utility of the language.

          If you really want to rail against a coined word, go after methodology(ies) whenever used to mean method(s). It's the best example of incorrectly inflating a word purely for pretention. Methodology should only mean the study of methods.

          ... but I digress. Anime is useful. Either switch to latin or French, if you don't want to expand your vocabulary.

          • Re:The Amenities! (Score:3, Informative)

            by mildgift ( 855983 )
            In the early 90s, some companies in Japan wanted it renamed to "Japanimation" to emphasize the national origins of anime. They failed (partly because it makes you say "jap", but mainly) because the fanboys prefered the shorter "anime", because it was the "real" term, and it signified transcultural reinterpretation ( disney style animation -> anime (japanese) -> anime (english)) and also happened to be nation-neutral. There's international anime today, and the aesthetic is international, so, the fanb
    • Re:The Amenities! (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:05AM (#14352126)
      It's spelled hentai, you insensitive clod!
    • by Anonymous Coward
      (tentacles not included)
    • Now you can view porn and download hentei at the same time!

      N-now? Really? Awll-riiight giggidygiggidy!
  • by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @10:58AM (#14352070) Homepage Journal
    This is interesting but I don't think that BitTorrent-style is the right way to go about it. The browser will definitely be the new "feel the pulse of society" provision, but what is going to be the best way to get that feel?

    There are other protocols that, in my opinion, are better that BT. I've seen a few that use other (third party) users to mask both the sender and receiver from one-another. I believe this is going to be important especially when it comes to government regulation and censorship. I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.

    I believe the next step beyond the protocol will be the need to find a way to properly packet-ize information better. I guess ZIP or RAR is fine, but it isn't enough. A sender of any media (website, file, e-mail, etc) would need to implement the data into a packet and set that packet as public or private. Public packets could be dropped into the "Sharing" folder, which replaces the temporary internet files folder completely. Users would instantly share the webpage packets, the image packets and even the music or programs they download.

    Popular files would be much easier to get, and the shortcomings of BitTorrent in terms of censorship would be greatly reduced. I could even see a future where we could do away with DNS in the long term as we could access webpages or other information through this network of shared temporary file folders. No need to host your own information on a server, just drop it into your share/temp folder and let others find it via whatever search engine or "torrent host" they use.
    • really? (Score:5, Funny)

      by ccozan ( 754085 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:02AM (#14352108) Homepage
      before you made this comment, what shape had the glass?
    • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:06AM (#14352138)
      There are other protocols that, in my opinion, are better that BT. I've seen a few that use other (third party) users to mask both the sender and receiver from one-another. I believe this is going to be important especially when it comes to government regulation and censorship. I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.

      Awesome, write the plugin and get into the browser. Perhaps if everyone has easy access to it (like they now will w/BT built in) then they will start to use it. The reason that HTTP and FTP are so popular is because support for those protocols were built into the browsers and you didn't need to have an external application fielding the transmissions.

      If Foo P2P protocol is made available to everyone easily via IE and Firefox then they will pick it up quickly.
    • by __aaxwdb6741 ( 884633 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:06AM (#14352141) Journal
      Whoa, that is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of.

      There are other protocols that, in my opinion, are better that BT. I've seen a few that use other (third party) users to mask both the sender and receiver from one-another. I believe this is going to be important especially when it comes to government regulation and censorship. I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.

      These protocols need one or more centralized server(s) to function properly.

      I could even see a future where we could do away with DNS in the long term as we could access webpages or other information through this network of shared temporary file folders.

      Another idiotic idea. Why the hell would I want to spend my time LOOKING for the website I want, instead of just plain visiting it? Yes, this WOULD require me to look for the website. Also, security (Login information, et cetera) is practically impossible in such situations.

      What you're basically saying, is that we should all go back to sharing plain-text ASCII, but in a new way.
      I say NO THANK YOU, please leave the internet as it is already.
      • by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:29AM (#14352300) Homepage Journal
        These protocols need one or more centralized server(s) to function properly.

        That isn't true at all. P2P is finding ways to de-centralize more and more every day.

        The idea of a third party intermediary is not unheard of -- in fact, there are numerous BitTorrent replacement protocols being developed right now that take advantage of another user on a network to mask the sender and receiver from one-another. You can go out and get the latest "pirate" MP3, but you have no idea who you're getting it from and they have no idea who they're sending it to. I find that this is a better way to keep over-regulation of the Internet down, and uphold the right to free expression.

        Another idiotic idea. Why the hell would I want to spend my time LOOKING for the website I want, instead of just plain visiting it? Yes, this WOULD require me to look for the website. Also, security (Login information, et cetera) is practically impossible in such situations.

        I'm an anarchocapitalist, and I hate knowing that DNS will likely be the control system our governments user to censor the information out there. I'm constantly trying to find theories in how we could use the Internet without central regulation (such as DNS), and I feel that networks are becoming more and more transparent to domain names as time goes on. Yes, google and other search engines rely on domain names but this is merely to keep things simple. Over time I believe we'll see search engines develop that completely ignore domain names -- although how we'd link to one another is another problem, but that is being worked on as well.
      • I could even see a future where we could do away with DNS in the long term as we could access webpages or other information through this network of shared temporary file folders.

        Another idiotic idea. Why the hell would I want to spend my time LOOKING for the website I want, instead of just plain visiting it? Yes, this WOULD require me to look for the website. Also, security (Login information, et cetera) is practically impossible in such situations.

        Why would you have to look for the site any more

    • What you propose with users "instantly sharing webpage packets, image packets, and even the music/programs they download" by means of a public portion of a "Temporary Internet Files" type folder is interesting, in theory. But realistically, I don't see it happening any time soon.

      Among other things, it makes the assumption that users have plenty of upstream bandwidth, so their Internet performance won't be drastically impacted by this process running in the background.

      In reality, the ISPs have *no* interest
      • What you propose with users "instantly sharing webpage packets, image packets, and even the music/programs they download" by means of a public portion of a "Temporary Internet Files" type folder is interesting, in theory. But realistically, I don't see it happening any time soon.

        We have it now. They are called servers -- FTP servers, web servers, etc. I can put an image up with one command and anybody in the world with internet access can see it with a simple text string called a URL. The same goes for

    • by frdmfghtr ( 603968 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:44AM (#14352380)
      I'm anti-copyright, so I couldn't care less about who owns what.


      I find this position slightly disturbing. Well, more than slightly.

      Has copyright law gotten out of hand? When work is copyrighted for the life of the creator plus 75 years, that is excessive. When copyrights keep getting extended and extended to protect works owned by companies, that is excessive.

      However, the basic premise behind copyright is sound. If you write a book or compose a symphony, you SHOULD have the exclusive copyright on that work. It's your creation to do with as you see fit, whether it's put it in the public domain right away, lock it in a drawer, perform it in public for a fee, publish it, etc. It is completely up to the copyright holder to decide what happens to the work.

      Your attitude, sir, carries a message of disrespect and contempt for copyright holders. Basically you're saying "F*** you and your rights, I'm going to take your creative work and do with it what I damn well please." Fair Use rights, you say? Why should I as a content provider respect your Fair Use rights if you don't respect my copyrights?

      While I have no solid facts to back it, my gut tells me that if the content providers' copyrights were respected, then DRM wouldn't come around. DRM R&D costs time and money, and if copyright was on the whole respected, then the costs would outweight the revenues thet it would protect, and as everybody knows, a business won't do something if it doesn't bring a profit.

      However, as long as there are enough visible attitudes like yours, DRM development will continue at the expense of Fair Use.

      (and yes, I live in a Utopian world where political correctness and DRM isn't needed because people just "get along.")
      • [...] if copyright was on the whole respected [...]

        You're exactly right! If only those companies who specialize in distributing shiny discs and losing money on lots of smaller acts so they don't have to pay taxes, respected copyrights, then we'd have more than 0 works entering the public domain since 1923.

      • by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tmsNO@SPAMinfamous.net> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @12:31PM (#14352716) Homepage
        However, the basic premise behind copyright is sound. If you write a book or compose a symphony, you SHOULD have the exclusive copyright on that work...It is completely up to the copyright holder to decide what happens to the work.

        Hmm. So if you memorize one of my poems and want to recite it to a friend, I should have the right to use force to stop you? "Shut up or I'll shoot!"

        No.

        Ideas are not property. If you recite my poem, you take nothing away from me. My poem is not "mine" in the same sense that my guitar is "mine"; it more "mine" in the sense of "that's my girlfriend" or "that's my father". To say "the poem is mine" expresses relationship, not ownership. Any artist knows that the work "comes from, but mostly through" [billyjonas.com].

        My ethical rights as a creator are to have that relationship recognized, and to get my cut of any money that someone makes with that work. I think the way songwriter royalties currently work is the closest thing to a a workable "rights" system: you can play my songs all you want, but if you cover them on a CD, or play them and get paid, you owe me a royalty.

        Why should I as a content provider respect your Fair Use rights if you don't respect my copyrights?

        A copyright is an artificial legal creation. A "fair use right" is not a right unto itself, but a limitation on those artificial legal creation - these "fair use rights" (and many more) would exist if all copyright laws were repealed.

        • Hmm. So if you memorize one of my poems and want to recite it to a friend, I should have the right to use force to stop you? "Shut up or I'll shoot!"

          No.


          I agree...that should come under Fair Use (and somebody should tell those creeps that decide to enforce copyright on scout troops that want to sing "Row Row Row Your Boat" around campfires) plus your means of enforcement breaks other laws (manslaughter, murder, etc.)

          But what if I don't recite it, rather I print it and sell the printed copy for a profit or r
      • by Surt ( 22457 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @02:40PM (#14353448) Homepage Journal
        Should implies a moral position. I completely disagree with your position. I think the world would be far better off if instead as soon as you released a work into the world, it became the property of the world to do with what it pleases. Create a derivative work. Share it with a friend. Shout it from the rooftops. The only copyright I think would be of real value would be to require fair attribution, so that we can reward those who are creative as we see fit (rather than as they think they deserve or can extort).
      • Your attitude, sir, carries a message of disrespect and contempt for copyright holders. Basically you're saying "F*** you and your rights, I'm going to take your creative work and do with it what I damn well please."

        You find that surprising? The copyright holders have sent a message of disrespect and contempt to their customers for decades now, and are getting more and more insane each passing second, they don't just say "F*** you and your rights", they got the power to fuck my rights themselves if they wis
      • While I agree with your sentiments, there are a few points you should consider:

        > Why should I as a content provider respect your Fair Use rights if you don't respect my copyrights?

        You're forgetting that copyright is not a right, it's a compromise. It basically says that in order to encourage the artist to publish his/her work, the artist is given a limitted monopoly on his work. If other people don't respect your copyright, you have three options (1) prosecute them under copyright law, (2) not release yo

    • I believe the next step beyond the protocol will be the need to find a way to properly packet-ize information better. I guess ZIP or RAR is fine, but it isn't enough. A sender of any media (website, file, e-mail, etc) would need to implement the data into a packet and set that packet as public or private. Public packets could be dropped into the "Sharing" folder, which replaces the temporary internet files folder completely. Users would instantly share the webpage packets, the image packets and even the mus
  • Brilliant! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @10:58AM (#14352073)
    Now Firefox can be sued by the RIAA! Seriously, won't this draw unneeded criticism of Firefox while it is still establishing its place in the browser market?
  • by zapp ( 201236 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @10:59AM (#14352080)
    Could this be expanded to create a mini-bittorrent type network where if the browser can't contact the server, it checks its peers to see if a cached copy exists, and download it from them?
    • damn good idea (Score:3, Interesting)

      That has to be one of the smartest ideas I've ever seen on slashdot. Obviously dynamic content won't work, and the developer would have to be _very_ careful not to make available personal information. But both these problems have been solved by caching proxies years ago.
    • by grub ( 11606 )

      Good idea, I'd like to see it make use of the various users' ISP caches, too. Much like what some eMule variations currently do.

    • Could this be expanded to create a mini-bittorrent type network where if the browser can't contact the server, it checks its peers to see if a cached copy exists, and download it from them?

      Would it be easier to check and see if there was a Coral Cache [coralcdn.org]'d version and then serve that up instead? Why build a new network (which using BT for would be silly as small-sized content over BT is ridiculous) when you could just utilize something that already exists?
      • by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:25AM (#14352276) Homepage Journal
        Would it be easier to check and see if there was a Coral Cache'd version and then serve that up instead? Why build a new network (which using BT for would be silly as small-sized content over BT is ridiculous) when you could just utilize something that already exists?

        Because Coral Cache is an anonymous proxy, and a lot of corporate (and governmental) firewalls block anonymous proxies. Plus, if certain legislative bodies get what they want, you'll find ISPs being forced to block anonymous proxies as well.
    • Doesn't Coral cache [coralcdn.org] already do that? and the firefox extension [coralcdn.org] is available too.
    • by Call Me Black Cloud ( 616282 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:18AM (#14352223)

      That's a great idea. That way, when I log on to my bank's website and find my balance near zero, it can search other browsers for a version of the page with money. Let the wealth be distributed! Power to the people!
    • "Could this be expanded to create a mini-bittorrent type network where if the browser can't contact the server, it checks its peers to see if a cached copy exists, and download it from them?"

      Nope, I sure don't see any potential security issues with THIS idea...
    • Sounds like the browser would have to do a lot to make sure it's apparent to the user that this is not the "official" version of the page. Otherwise, we're opening up a whole other can of worms wrt security threats.
    • Speaking of the /. effect, I can't get to the Allpeers link [allpeers.com] in the story but the Coral link [nyud.net] is definitely working! The Coral FireFox extension [coralcdn.org] rocks!
    • There's already an extension for this, and unlike the subject of this article it's not vaporware. But there's no fancy-schmancy press release about it so damn if Slashdot's going to approve my article.

      Check it out: seeder-chan.sf.net [sourceforge.net]

      It's pretty close-minded (mainly for use with "imageboard" scripts) but it can be easily expanded into a full Coral cache system.
  • Free? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timrichardson ( 450256 ) * on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @10:59AM (#14352084) Homepage
    They call it free software but I suspect they mean "free beer". It sounds like nothing more than another bittorrent client.
    • There is the possibility that it is Free(speech), becuase Bittorrent is infact OSS. Although notably, most of the alt-clients don't contribute their code, beucase they tend to just use the protocal.

      It wouldn't surprise me if it was free(speech) as OSS P2P system + OSS Crazed FF Extension Developers could well = Open Source P2P Extension.

    • Actually, it doesn't sound like a BitTorrent client at all. It sounds kinda like AIMster if you remember that thing. You add buddies from some network to the sidebar and you can trade files with each other through that sidebar.

      It says "the power of BitTorrent" it says nothing about actually implementing the BitTorrent protocol. It sort of sounds like a "friends only" file trading network. However, since it doesn't actually exist yet, and the screenshots look faked (specifically this screenshot [nyud.net], the UI

  • Maybe Possibly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kernelpanicked ( 882802 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:05AM (#14352128)
    Since the allpeers site is just a bunch of pictures and promises, with no actual extension available, shouldn't the title be "Firefox MIGHT get file sharing extension"?
  • Nice Pre-Release PR (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:06AM (#14352139) Homepage Journal
    • It isn't even released yet. All there is are some easily dummied up screenshots.
    • It's basically BitTorrent in a sidebar. Why is this impressive, again? My browsing and file-sharing are completely separate tasks, and the integration is as logical as putting file system defragmenting in a sidebar.


    Color me cynical, and unimpressed.
    • by 1000StonedMonkeys ( 593519 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:19AM (#14352234)

      Why is this impressive, again? My browsing and file-sharing are completely separate tasks, and the integration is as logical as putting file system defragmenting in a sidebar.

      This would be a good analogy if the only way you could defragment your hard drive was by clicking on links in firefox. When I click on an ftp link in firefox, firefox doesn't launch my ftp client. Why should clicking a torrent link be any different? To the average user, they're both just download links.

      • To the average user, they're both just download links.

        With the exception that one of them causes your computer to start uploading data to other people. The average user might be surprised when clicking on a link causes this to happen; complete Firefox-Bittorrent integration is possibly a bad idea because of this. (Although I have no problem with an extension. ^_^)

      • Because bittorrent transfers typically last longer than browsing sessions? A bittorrent download may take days if there are few (or no) seeds.
    • by Cruciform ( 42896 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:57AM (#14352499) Homepage
      Color me cynical, and unimpressed.

      The closest my box of crayons has is periwinkle and forest green. Will those do?
  • Coral Cache Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by FST ( 766202 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:07AM (#14352145) Journal
    Since the allpeers site is getting bombed, here is the coral cache link: http://www.allpeers.com.nyud.net:8090/index_f.htm [nyud.net]
  • If you share an mp3 file (you purchased) with your peer network, can you be sued?
    If you share a file, will your sharing habits be scrutinized by your IP and other outside organizations?
  • Yuck (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:09AM (#14352153)
    Why would I run code written by morons that can't even get a webpage right? Here is a version of their index that works without javascript, not exactly rocket science is it?

    <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transition al.dtd">

    <html>
    <head><title>AllPeers browser detection</title></head>
    <body>
    <script>
    if(navigator.userAgent.indexOf("Firefox") != -1)
    {
          window.location = "index_f.htm";
    }
    else
    {
          window.location = "index_nf.htm";
    }
    </script>
    <noscript>
    Firefox users, please <a href="/index_f.htm">click here.</a>
    Users of other web browsers, please <a href="/index_nf.htm">click here.</a>
    </noscript>
    </body>
    </html>
  • Incredible! (Score:5, Funny)

    by breckinshire ( 891764 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:09AM (#14352155) Homepage
    Now I can get sued by the RIAA AND use Firefox! Take that, Microsoft!
    • Why would adding BitTorrent support to Firefox mean you'll get sued by the RIAA? File Sharing isn't always illegal, BT is widely used to redistribute Linux distributions, game updates, and other large, legal, software downloads; and the bulk of illegal use actually appears to concern movies rather than music, with the MPAA going after the trackers and Bram Cohen, BT's inventor, being careful to cooperate with them and disuade people from using it illegally.
  • Implication (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Omnieiunium ( 872399 ) <canadiancanuck&gmail,com> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:09AM (#14352156) Journal
    Actually, this might not be such a bad idea and it sort of makes sense. For webpages that heavily depend upon video or audio, this would work perfectly if implemented well. It makes sense that if you downloaded the file and played it in a built-in player in Firefox or other. I can also see it saving a lot of bandwidth for sites. It also saves the need of having to get another client, like Azureus, and downloading the .torrent file and all that extra stuff to download something, while having it just download in Firefox. This may be a new interesting to way spread content, so I think it should be watched closely.
  • by Swamii ( 594522 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:12AM (#14352172) Homepage
    From the now-swamped allpeers.com site,

    "Coming soon!"


    So, Slashdot is reposting a short articled posted by an small tech news outlet about a non-existant plug-in for Firefox. Brilliant.

    This is why I come to Slashdot every day, folks. These are the big stories no one else has. All presented in a way that's both fair & balanced, giving clear, concise, accurate headlines. No prejudiced opinion pieces. Just pure, unadulterated tech news bliss, straight from the Cowboy's mouth!
    • You've been given a 'funny' mod too. It's not funny. This site is going down the tubes quickly. More and more we're seeing 'fluff' advertising 'stories' which are nothing more than shameless ad revenue grabs, generic 'soon to be released function x in program y', etc.

      Slashdot jumped the shark long ago (*I* think when they were bought by VA, however, the past year has been particularly bad). If digg.com can implement a decent commenting system, this site is finished (FWIW - I hate dropping names like that)
      • IMO slashdot officially jumped the shark when the karma kap was implemented. That took a lot of fun out of the whole thing.
      • by jonnythan ( 79727 )
        I essentially leave the site for a couple years, then come back to find nothing at all has changed! Even the "slashdot is dying.. are you listening, Taco?" comments are essentially copied and pasted anew to every single article!
  • by leomekenkamp ( 566309 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:14AM (#14352190)
    Looking at the url for that message we can see what will probably bee shared the most: www.webpronews.com
  • by ZeroExistenZ ( 721849 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:22AM (#14352251)
    could use some decentralized P2P technology.
  • I think that was one of the Opera 8 betas that had a BitTorrent client included, and now Firefox is getting a somewhat similar functionality.

    Mixing the web with BT could have nice implications, could be interesting to have i.e. the bt:// protocol, embed into pages images or files that goes to the bt network (a la img src=bt://whatever.jpg, with good implications for people that want to publish things but dont have huge bandwidth. But for now, the mix is not going too far from just a protocol specific down

  • by PapaZit ( 33585 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:25AM (#14352272)
    Here's the Coral Cache of the AllPeers web site [nyud.net] since the original seems to be a smoking hole in the ground.
  • What? (Score:5, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:27AM (#14352289)
    Firefox and Bittorrent teaming up? That might produce a black hole of memory suck that would tear a hole in the fabric of the universe and destroy the space-time continuum!
  • So, now will all those mysterious icoo:// movie links work in Firefox?
  • TFA dot zip (Score:3, Funny)

    by Doomedsnowball ( 921841 ) <doomedsnowballs@yahoo.com> on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @11:47AM (#14352402)
    Uh... could someone download and share the article via another P2P system? I'm having trouble downloading the new extention due to the Slashdot effect. Thanks.
  • by bill_kress ( 99356 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @12:00PM (#14352521)
    This could be really useful if the protocol was NOT BT.

    It would make great sense to have a p2p protocol that sucked down the first part of the file first, allowing the user to stream straight into the browser.

    BT has two attributes that make it a very poor choice for browser integration--the order of downloaded packets is random and BT should stay up long after the file has finished downloading--it's lifetime should not be bound by the lifetime of the browser.

    But good concept, but just not quite worth it.
    • the order of downloaded packets is random and BT should stay up long after the file has finished downloading--it's lifetime should not be bound by the lifetime of the browser.

      The order of downloaded packets is not necessarily random. There are clients which prioritize early packets. However, this is harmful to the network in that if all the seeds go away, and everyone is prioritizing early packets, then the file will not be completable by anyone.

      As for the lifetime of the BT process, generally spea

  • Hoping not to start a flame war, but what is the security implications of installing various FF extensions? Isn't this a bit like IE's ActiveX security problems waiting to happen? Or are extensions sandboxed or protected in some way (beyond just not running as root/admin, still a lot malicious software you install can do). I know it's not "drive-by" install, but IMHO most IE/ActiveX problems aren't either, users willingly install a lot of the stuff. Like we do with FF extensions..? :)
    • ActiveX pollutes your registry, slowing everything else down. It also creates versioning nightmares. Also, I believe most of the malicious AX controls in EI are silently installed.

      See, with Mozilla at least you have the choice of what level of fuckitude you are willing to put on yourself.
  • MozTorrent (Score:5, Informative)

    by nurmr ( 773394 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @12:03PM (#14352537) Homepage
    For something that is already in development, check out http://moztorrent.mozdev.org/screenshots.html [mozdev.org]
  • by camperslo ( 704715 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @12:09PM (#14352580)
    I don't see any mention of this being open-source, and some features will not be free:

    "How can it be free? There must be a catch.
    Nope. Because we're using P2P technology, we don't need to maintain a large server farm for managing huge files collections as our network grows. On top of that, we don't think people should have to pay to share with friends. Of course, we are still a company and we need to make money to pay for the luxurious lifestyle of our development team. That's why we will be deploying new services on AllPeers, some of which will require payment."

    If they had the idea for this in 2003 or earlier, it's a bit odd it isn't wasn't shipping some time ago.

    Domain Name: ALLPEERS.COM, Record created on 15-Mar-2003
    Administrative Contact : RWCM LTD SAINT TROPEZ, 83990 FR (I edited out other details)
  • Tried doing a "Whois" of the website. Got nothin, though it is registered. Googled the CEO, Cedric Maloux. Found some interesting things about him and his past web activities, but nothing that gives insight to this new "allpeer" extension for Firefox. I'm just not sure how he plans to make money off of this because extensions are "usually" free. *cough*advertising*cough*
  • by Gumber ( 17306 )
    Unless this is bundled with Firefox, and I've seen no indication that it will be, this changes nothing. Users will still have to download and install this plugin before they can download bittorrent content, just like they need to download and install a bittorrent client before they can download bittorrent content today.
  • Damnit (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bert Peers ( 120166 ) on Wednesday December 28, 2005 @01:17PM (#14353004) Homepage
    What a stupid name. Can't they call it AllPerens instead ? :\

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...