Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Auto-Seeding Torrent Server Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the making-life-easier dept.

240

ludwigvan968 writes "The University of Texas New Media Initiative in association with Google's Summer of Code program have been working on a project to make sharing files over the internet easier than ever before. Summer of Code intern Evan Wilson just released Project Snakebite, the first fully automatic BitTorrent server. Just as with a normal webserver, you drop files in a folder to share them. Snakebite takes care of generating torrent files and running a tracker and a seeder for each file. Additionally, it builds a user-customizable link page with all of your files. It will even register your Snakebite server with an easy to remember URL for people that can't remember their IP. Snakebite is free and open software and is currently released for Debian. It's fully portable to both Windows and OS X and the developers just need some help packaging it."

cancel ×

240 comments

taste my (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998814)

auto-seed, sucka!

OK, but is it anonymous? (2, Interesting)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998815)

Sharing files is almost a capitcal crime in the U.S.A.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Funny)

James McGuigan (852772) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998824)

When sharing is outlawed only outlaws will share

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (4, Funny)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998919)

You can have my warez when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

ThePengwin (934031) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999050)

The sheriff never stopped the outlaws in the old western movies, because the outlaws were always one step ahead :)

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (0, Troll)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998839)

Illegally obtaining files that are copyrighted is a crime NOT just in the USA. It's a crime everywhere.
Everyone knows that. Do you?

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Funny)

truedfx (802492) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998855)

Illegally doing anything is illegal. If it's not illegal, and you do it, you're not illegally doing it. Duh.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998874)

Actually, obtaining files that are copyrighted isn't a crime anywhere (that I know of) even the US. It's reproducing (ie: uploading) that's illegal, not the downloading.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

QMO (836285) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998925)

So...uploading makes copies of stuff, but downloading doesn't.

"Truly you have a dizzying intellect." -Dread Pirate Roberts

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (5, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998943)

The person who owns the original media is the one whose generating the copy. The downloader is receiving it. An analagous situation: a guy is selling ripped-off copies of DVDs from a market store. Someone buys a copy. It's the seller (the distributor, the one who reproduced it) that gets busted, not the buyer.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (2, Insightful)

MerrickStar (981213) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999138)

Hve you never heard of possesion of stolen property? I realize there are differences making the analogy difficult, but there are parrallels as well. Just because the law says the uploading is the crime, don't count yourself invincible because you only download.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999154)

Its not stolen, its copyright in... why do i even bother.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998968)

if some one walking down the street and hands you a cd that was copied.. can the cops walk by and get you for it????

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998973)

Who are you? Me?

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999196)

No.

It's the 'making available copies to others'

It's really just a way of figuring out who gets the finger pointed at them: he who provides the shares, or she who gets the shares.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998940)


So the MPAA/RIAA are only going after file sharing people? Not leeches. I thought they were hitting up everyone, but maybe they were just getting distributors.

So you would be totally safe if you only download stuff and never upload?

Except for child porn, which is not ok to download.

I think you have to assume they could know everything you do online.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998957)

We do. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (4, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998994)

So the MPAA/RIAA are only going after file sharing people? Not leeches.

Yep

So you would be totally safe if you only download stuff and never upload?
I think you have to assume they could know everything you do online.


It's easy to find the distributors - their IP has to be advertised in order for them to distribute stuff. It's harder to find just the leechers. Of course, in a swarming application like BitTorrent, everyone is an uploader as well as a downloader, so it's easy to get peer IPs once you connect to the swarm.

However, I believe it's currently only illegal to upload - after all, you can hardly be charged distributing X-Men 3 if you never actually had a copy of X-Men 3. Copyright is a prohibition against distributing, not copying - it was originally setup for the protection of publishing houses, so that if they bought the rights to a novel, a rival publishing house couldn't just run off it's own copies without the expense of buying the rights. In those days, publishing was a large and expensive business, and it wasn't really conceivable that the laws be used against individuals; individuals had no way practical ways to publish. In the mdoern era, however, individual publishing has become dead easy.

Copyright does include copying (4, Informative)

Kaseijin (766041) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999158)

Copyright is a prohibition against distributing, not copying

In the US, copyright is a limited monopoly over reproduction, distribution, public performance, public display, and the preparation of derivative works (17 USC 106). Reproduction is controlled for the same reason you claim it isn't: when it was inefficient and expensive, personal copying was virtually unthinkable.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (2, Informative)

skoaldipper (752281) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999053)

So the MPAA/RIAA are only going after file sharing people? Not leeches. I thought they were hitting up everyone, but maybe they were just getting distributors.
Good question. I presume MPAA/RIAA tactics are not that much different than typical law enforcement of the illegal narcotic smuggling trade; always set the bait for the big fish, but lob a few sticks of dynamite every so often at the little fishies swimming in the lake. Hopefully, the little fishies will get the message. Either way, the effect of such deterence by such means is still debatable for either the DEA or RIAA.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (4, Funny)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999096)

Yeah, it breaks down like this: okay, it's legal to buy it, it's legal to own it and, if you're the proprietor of a music or video store, it's legal to sell it. It's illegal to seed it, but, but - but that doesn't matter 'cause -- get a load of this, alright -- if you get stopped by a lawsuit, you can just claim it was someone else using your IP address.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999008)

downloading doesn't reproduce??? scuse me... but it seems like there's now more than one copy, the one on the server, and the one you've "downloaded" onto your computer...

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999048)

Oh, and where did the new copy came from? It was copied from the original. Where is the original? In the uploader's possession. Who duplicated the item? The uploader. Who sent the duplicate? The uploader. Who received the duplicate? The downloader. Which is illegal, duplicating and distributing a copyrighted work, or receiving it? Duplicating and distributing.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

denebian devil (944045) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999147)

Are you trying to argue that in receiving the information, you (via your computer) not complicit in the copying? Your computer is shouldering absolutely no part of the grunt work?

Not to mention the fact that when dealing with downloading music, I think it's harder for people to claim that they "didn't know" the music was ill-gotten. In the case of a burned DVD/CD being sold by a vendor, it can be more or less obvious that the DVD/CD is burned depending on how good their reproduction of the disc, label, packaging, etc are, and where they are selling it (e.g. in a store vs on the street). But have you ever seen those people give those discs away for free? Yet you can get music files online for free. If the music was being distributed legitimately, would you really expect them to just be giving it away by the thousands? (I'm setting aside for a second artists giving away single or limited quantity "promos" to advertise a new album. The sheer quantity of music available through torrents and download programs exceeds that kind of innocent giveaway scenario)

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Interesting)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999176)

No, I'm arguing that the person culpable (not necessarily the same as responsible) is the person who is offering the item for download. When you download something, your computer sends a request for data. The remote computer is the one that locates that data, and sends a duplicate down the wire to you. At the moment, asking someone for a illegal copy isn't illegal. Giving someone a copy is. That isn't to say it'll be that way forever; I expect the laws will be changed as soon as someone can be bothered prosecuting a downloader. For the most part, it's more efficient to sue and take down the uploaders - take the uploaders out of the picture and file-sharing dies. They're far fewer than the downloaders, it's easier to track them, and easier to prosecute them.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999017)

I hear this all the time but it strikes me as the same sort of "did you know that LSD has strychnine in it" conventional wisdom that drug users are fond of passing around. Not that I'm equating file sharing with drug abuse, I just think that what you're saying is accepted as truth only because it's been repeated so many times. I'd be interested in hearing what an expert has to say about it.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999049)

Actually, obtaining files that are copyrighted isn't a crime anywhere (that I know of) even the US. It's reproducing (ie: uploading) that's illegal, not the downloading.

Better read up again, the Napster case is a good example. Uploading violates the "distribution" right - like sending your own pirate radio broadcast (ignoring FCC and other issues). Downloading, i.e. taking that transient stream and making a permanent copy is a violation of the "reproduction" right. It is not fair use like your VCR because it's a copy of an illegal stream, and the taint follows the copy. You could argue you had good faith reason to believe that it was a legal stream you were copying, but I doubt it'll fly and in any case "good faith" copyright infringement also makes you liable.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

danpsmith (922127) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999064)

Actually, obtaining files that are copyrighted isn't a crime anywhere (that I know of) even the US. It's reproducing (ie: uploading) that's illegal, not the downloading.

That's all fine and dandy, but the definition of "downloading" is blurred using Bittorrent. You are both downloading and uploading the file at the same time, in this respect it could be seen legally as both receiving and reproduction at the same time if you stretched the definition far enough, and therefore illegal.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (2, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999097)

Yep, I mention that here [slashdot.org] . There are currently swarming applications in production which guarantee that each person has only an incoherent part of the complete file. For example, you might have every 10th byte of a file. When somebody requests a copy, various arbitrary parts are copied from a list of seeds which combine into the actual file on the downloaders computer. The idea is that every 10th byte of a media file is fairly indistinguishable from noise, and is not copyrightable. Likewise, a list of seeds that contain which peers contain portions of a file would not be copyrightable. The idea is that nobody would be able to sue any of the uploaders for copyright violation.

That seems like a bit of a house of cards to me; I can imagine it wouldn't take too much work for a reasonable intelligent lawyer to demonstrate that the very existence of such a system indicates intent.

So if you only have "an incoherent part"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999163)

how do you actually use the file?

Re:So if you only have "an incoherent part"... (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999201)

I assume you'd have a complete file somewhere else on your computer. The thing is that you only have an incoherent part of the file on offer for download.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999110)

The downloaded illegally copies the data from his network hardware to his computer's RAM and hard disk.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (2, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998926)

Illegally obtaining files that are copyrighted is a crime NOT just in the USA. It's a crime everywhere.Everyone knows that. Do you?

I know the law quite well, and I have had to advise many engineers on the subject. My comment was not about performing an illegal act with intent, I am speaking about mere accusation and the damage that causes in this country. RIAA identifies you as a "file sharer," via bit torrent.

Make no mistake, jail is the least of your worries. Just being accused by RIAA or MPIAA is enough to bankrupt you and make sure your children don't go to collage.

The "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worray about" mind set is foolish. We *ALL* have something to worry about, and being anonymous is vital to maintain a free state. Which, IMHO, the U.S.A. is no longer.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998954)

That is fine, I would prefer my son go to college to get an education.

Anyway... I must agree, the U.S.A has not been a free state for the last five years. We are a country defined by fear, and let our goverment use that fear to push their own agenda. Unfortunatly, anonymity is not a reality on the internet, there is no such thing unless you use a dark net specifically designed for the purpose of hiding users from identificationwhich in and of itself draws suspucion. We (the U.S.A) have let the mentality of "If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" persist for far to long.

The only answer is to abondon this filed experiment in democracy adn move to a new, unspoiled land, kill all the natives, and try again.

Monsters love me.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998969)

Somehow I don't feel at all threatened by the MPAA, the RIAA and the like. I have nothing whatsoever to worry about from them. And I don't need bittorrent software in order to remain anonymous. And yes, things like this can potentially be used for honest purposes - but let's be honest, torrent and the like is primarily used for the illegal distribution of music, movies, and software.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998986)

Illegally obtaining files that are copyrighted is a crime NOT just in the USA. It's a crime everywhere.

Your statement has nothing at all to do with what the parent said, which was:

Sharing files is almost a capital crime in the U.S.A.

No mention of illegally obtained files. Get it?

People like you are at the root of the problem in USA, trying to criminalize an excellent transfer technology just because some people are using it for purposes which you don't like.

Well tough, people like to share things, and sharing itself is a socially positive thing, live with it.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1, Funny)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998862)

If you are suspected of filesharing you should be sent to Guantanamo.
----
http://world4.monstersgame.co.uk/?ac=vid&vid=47010 693 [monstersgame.co.uk]

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999152)

Actually, Guantanamo is soooo passé these days in the intelligence world. It's the detention facility for TOURISTS. There are dozens of much better, more secretive facilities to send them to now where the New York Times and Supreme Court will never find them. Only poseur intelligence agencies still disappear their detainees to Guantanamo.

-Eric

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (4, Informative)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998881)

BitTorrent as a basic client will never be truely anonymous by virtue of the technology involved. Only by using private VPNs (like The pirate party one [relakks.com] or by using additional software higher up the network stack like Tor [eff.org] can basic anonymity be enabled.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998889)

higher up the network stack

Or lower down the network stack if you are not standing on your head

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999072)

BitTorrent as a basic client will never be truely anonymous by virtue of the technology involved.

It never was... instead it's a very simple, effective way to share files. Everything from suprnova to the pirate bay hasn't been about anonymity or secrecy - it's about being doing it in so great numbers the risk is neglible. The users hav been distributed, the link sites and tracker sites not so much. This makes it a lot easier to set up a tracker site, meaning less centralization so they'll have to take down many more servers to make any significant impact.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999204)

Unless "(like" is a new emoticon I'm not aware of, you forgot the close parenthesis.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (4, Interesting)

Zigg (64962) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998917)

Actually, enabling people to easily share their own torrents could help promote legitimate use of BT.

I've been personally involved in several situations where large, legal files needed to be distributed among a small group of people--unfortunately several didn't have the know-how to set up a tracker, and others simply didn't have the time to figure it out. A tool like this could enable every one of us to start it up on our own.

The one thing that I think it needs to also have is at least minimal security against discoverability--a password on the torrent listing page, for example. Would also be cool if you could control who was using the server, but I gather BT isn't too well-adapted to that requirement? Not sure.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

dk-software-engineer (980441) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998984)

Bull. There is nothing wrong or illegal with sharing some files. (Unless there are special circumstances that makes it illegal, such as copyrights or some kind of legal agreement.)

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999010)

Sharing files is almost a capitcal crime in the U.S.A.

That's really the $1 million question. And it's pretty obviously not, as far as I can tell--a publicly accessible website is not the best way to hide your personal information. All the RIAA or MPAA needs is an IP address to file suit against you; this is like handing it to them on a silver platter. You'll be hard-pressed to claim you "didn't know you were uploading files" when you have a webpage that indexes the copyrighted material you chose to share.

However, this program has great implications. It's a much more efficient way of distributing content than setting up a download server, and it eliminates the normal hassle of configuring a server and tracker. Just imagine how much crappy talent is out there, waiting to be discovered but for lack of a cheap, simple distribution model. Future Jackass! stuntment, your grail has arrived.

Correction. (1)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999021)

Ok, because I'm a moron, the quoted text should read: "But is it anonymous?" and not "Sharing files..." My mistake.

Re:OK, but is it anonymous? (1)

telchine (719345) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999068)

>Sharing files is almost a capitcal crime in the U.S.A.

But for those of us that don't live in the Land of the Free, this is a great idea!

It could help to legitimize bitTorrent. It makes it far easier for the average webmaster to utilise bitTorrent downloads. I'm sick of servers that just don't have the bandwidth to provide large files (eg Game Demos, Video files), but do so anyway. It's very rare that I get speeds faster than 200KB/sec from a web server. If those servers provided bitTorrent downloads, it'd be better for the users.

first post? (-1, Offtopic)

StJohnsWort (260566) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998817)

wow, after all these years....

Re:first post? (0, Offtopic)

Kresh (32951) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998849)

Nope. Not even after all these years.

Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (4, Insightful)

thehunger (549253) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998821)

With an unattended, fully automatic, open torrent server, how are you going to stop it from being filled with trash (ie. pr0n, infected files, illegal material) etc?

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998831)

Trash? That's my gold!!!

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (1)

Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998833)

Why would remote uploading be enabled by default or even possible?

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (4, Informative)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998853)

Who said other users are going to be able to upload files to share? I think allowing all users to add files would be something that you would have to specifically set up in your own configuration if you wanted it. This is just an easier way for a user to share files on their own website using a torrent.

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (5, Informative)

SpacePirate20X6 (935718) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998866)

Exactly right. As opposed to maintaining a tracker on a server, and then separately seeding the files, this solves the problem for you, assuming you have sufficient bandwidth and disk space. This essentially combines the best of direct downloading and distributed downloading; ensuring content is always available, while minimizing the bandwidth used to distribute the content.

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (1)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998867)

A moderation system? Using the 'file' magic to determine and block file types? Virus detection software? Dedicated team of administrators?
I dont think there is a silver bullet answer, but a combination of the above would be fairly effective.

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (0, Offtopic)

teflaime (738532) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998939)

Porn is trash? Since when?

Re:Automatic + Open = Garbage in? (1)

b1ufox (987621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998946)

With an unattended, fully automatic, open torrent server, how are you going to stop it from being filled with trash (ie. pr0n, infected files, illegal material) etc?

install WinXpSP2/SP3 :).

It by default limits the amount of ports you can open for such clients... (duh :()

so that there is no communication at all with your client.

I wonder who gave Win Developers such a bright idea of block most of the ports...gigz :D

try improving the not so impressive design smart guys ...:)

Python's don't bite (-1, Flamebait)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998823)

The reason they don't have Windows releases yet is because they decided to use Python as their implementation language. This prevents them from loading on most Windows systems, since users typically don't install Python (or Perl or Cygwin or .Net 2.0). They expect that py2exe should help, but that's like expecting a broken down jalopy to make the drive up to Anchorage in a week. Sure, you'll make it if you're already near Fairbanks, but if you're starting from Quito, you're pretty much SOL.

However, that aside, I think this is absolutely the best thing that the file-sharing community could do with respect to the international IP community at large. What I mean is that BitTorrent is seen primarily as a means of transferring large files (Thomas Friedman's opinion notwithstanding) (btw, did you know his daughter's name is ORLY? YARLY!). So making tools for mere mortals to upload files of significant size on BitTorrent makes it more likely to be used for distributing non-music data. It may be more likely to distribute movie data, but that is still just a drop in the bucket compared to easily upload/downloadable small music files.

I look forward to seeing their port and wish to see it brought to a superior language like C++ or Java which is guaranteed to be on any normal OS (except for Debian, but I did say 'normal').

Re:Python's don't bite (1)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998834)

Actually i've noticed alot of OEM Compaq's here in the UK have Python runtimes preinstalled on arrival...I suspect some of their help and support software is written in it but I never bothered to invenstigate

Re:Python's don't bite (0, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998846)

Bullshit.

The original bittorrent client is written in python and lots more are as well.
take a look here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Python's don't bite (0, Offtopic)

Brando_Calrisean (755640) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998892)

Oh my, you really are a bad analogy guy!

Source (5, Interesting)

baadger (764884) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998826)

For those wondering where the source code is (the website isnt really your typical open source project breed), this app is written in Python. Something quite interesting the article failed to mention.

Re:Source (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998863)

For those wondering where the source code is (the website isnt really your typical open source project breed), this app is written in Python. Something quite interesting the article failed to mention.

Your post isn't for those wondering where the source code is, it's for those wondering in what language the app is written.

An answer for those wondering where the source code is would state where the source code is.

Re:Source (1)

XMyth (266414) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998977)

The app IS the source code......or did I just blow your fucking mind?

(Sorry, just got done reading my America the book calendar)

Re:Source (0, Redundant)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998995)

Python is interpreted, not compiled. When you distribute a python app, you are distributing its source.

Re:Source (1)

houseofzeus (836938) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999013)

He did both. Python is an interpreted language.

Re:Source (2, Insightful)

painQuin (626852) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998991)

It seems that Python is the language of BitTorrent...

Re:Source (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999057)

But they fail to mention where to download those files/app/source code for those who don't use Debian and here is the url: http://sourceforge.net/projects/tristero/ [sourceforge.net]

first? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998828)

Hrm... Hurricane Electric (and probably many other hosting companies have been doing this for a while now.)

http://www.he.net/faq/bittorrent.html [he.net]
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/24/232622 8 [slashdot.org]

I think the linked url should say that it's the first OpenSource fully automatic BitTorrent server ?

I guess (1)

szembek (948327) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998843)

I guess this might be good for people who want to distribute legal products through a torrent. I've used bit torrent, but only for leeching. It just doesn't seem like enough people are setting up their own torrent servers to make this software that worth while.

Re:I guess (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998851)

As the linked page says, the major problem with setting up a torrent server is actually setting up a torrent server. This software will essentially eliminate that hurdle and becoming your own server/seeder is as easy as dropping files into a specific directory.

What is needed, of course, is more people interested in sharing their work, but SnakeBite should at least get a few people to crawl out of the woodwork.

Great automatic folder sharing (5, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998856)

How long until people start seeding "Inbox.dbx" or "Outlook.pst" and other fun files we all remember from p2p days?

sharing and shaving (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998858)

sorry i just finished shaving my wifes pussy

Re:sharing and shaving (-1, Flamebait)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998901)

ACs don't have wives, and your right hand doesn't have a pussy

Re:sharing and shaving (0, Offtopic)

bcattwoo (737354) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998932)

I assumed he was talking about his wife's cat. Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever seen a sheep with a pet cat though.

Look out Google (5, Interesting)

Goodgerster (904325) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998865)

Next case: RIAA versus Google; Google is accused of funding piracy
Next case: Google versus the United Kingdom; Google is accused of funding the manufacture of items useful to terrorism (as the Federation Against Copyright Theft tells us, piracy funds terrorism)
Next case: RIAA versus Canonical; Canonical is accused of supplying Azureus, a piracy tool, to people
Next case: RIAA versus GNOME Foundation; the GNOME Foundation is accused of supplying a GUI library to piracy tools

WHEN DOES IT END?

Re:Look out Google (1)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998952)

Next case: RIAA versus Google; Google is accused of funding piracy
Next case: Google versus the United Kingdom; Google is accused of funding the manufacture of items useful to terrorism (as the Federation Against Copyright Theft tells us, piracy funds terrorism)
Next case: RIAA versus Canonical; Canonical is accused of supplying Azureus, a piracy tool, to people
Next case: RIAA versus GNOME Foundation; the GNOME Foundation is accused of supplying a GUI library to piracy tools

WHEN DOES IT END?
Right about the time you get off that slippery slope fallacy.

Re:Look out Google (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998998)

It probably ends when we stop inventing lawsuits that haven't happened/won't happen.

CIA (1)

rockytriton (896444) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998877)

It also indexes all your personal files secretly, only to be accessed by the CIA and FBI.

Google and Piracy (1, Offtopic)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998887)

I might be eligable for a tinfoil hat at this point, but I wonder how big Google's interest in piracy is. Yes, I know, BT is has legal uses, but they're sure not taking any steps to make the illegal sharing of information harder.
Piracy is a tough enemy for companies who make money off there software, and seeing how Google does not fall into this category, raising the ease of piracy-related actions might be a way to fight their opponents on a level they themselves can't be fought at...

Re:Google and Piracy (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998958)

Please, mod this troll down.

Re:Google and Piracy (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998979)

Piracy is a tough enemy for companies who make money off there software,

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Incorrect. Piracy is irrelevant for the majority of companies that make money from software. (Most software written is single use, business logic type custom apps).

and seeing how Google does not fall into this category,

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Incorrect again. Google makes a hell of a lot of money off their software - just not by selling it.

Re:Google and Piracy (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999038)

Next time, try to actually reply to the point made instead of picking on poor choice of words. It sounds pretty logical to me that when talking about Google's competitors, I'm not talking about line of business applications and the likes.
Actually, don't bother to reply. It was just an idea that came to me and I thought it might make for an interesting discussion on the possibility of such practices. Your trolling isn't helping too much.

Re:Google and Piracy (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999074)

Your trolling isn't helping too much.

Let me spell it out for you. A post suggesting Google sponsored this project to indirectly make money from piracy is a troll. A reply rudely slapping that post down is not.

Re:Google and Piracy (0, Troll)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999112)

So any suggestion that goes against Google is a troll now? Sounds like you're more than just a Mac fanboy, fanboy!

Re:Google and Piracy (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999149)

So any suggestion that goes against Google is a troll now?

Let me spell it out for you. A post suggesting any large company with bo history of encouraging piracy sponsored a project to indirectly make money from piracy is a troll.

For Sale (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998922)

Toyota Corolla, 1988 model. yellow, good condition, blows a bit of smoke, offers over $4,500 please email morse@email.com

caveat emptor (0, Offtopic)

QMO (836285) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998961)

FYI: morse@email.com is a test. If you fail, the men in white coats will come and get you.

selection (1)

Captain Murdock (906610) | more than 7 years ago | (#15998930)

And the selection is going to be about nothing until somebody makes an entirely user friendly Windows client. I'll stick to my current methods.

I won't be using it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15998999)

I don't like sharing. I don't even share my ice-cream with my little sister. I am dead against it. I like to leech though, and usually download 5GB per week

Anti-Slashdot Effect for large content? (4, Interesting)

BrynM (217883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999002)

Despite the posts trying to paint this into the next Napster/Limewire/P2P, I think it would be great for distributing large files that might get slashdotted/dug/whatever. I think it's a good way to have a sudden rush of trafic pay for it's own bandwidth. Sure, not everyone is at risk of a slashdotting, but it makes a good precaution. Since it's just some Python, I bet there wouldn't be too much trouble getting it up in a hury as the server starts to get hit (if you're lucky enough to notice). A bonus of planning ahead is that there's always at least one seed (the server) transferring at about the same rate a normal download would have for a single user in the first place. Scalable content rather than scalable servers. Interesting...

Frankly (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999054)

Frankly, I blame the Muslims for this. File-sharing is just a natural extension of all the wars and terrorism they start.

More and more like Gnutella (3, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999058)

The more Bittorrent adds features, the more it becomes like gnutella. Fortunately, I have been able to just use Gnutella for the last couple of years ;-)

Bittorrent is great for very large, very popular files, but when you start dealing with small or unpopular files, I've never found an example where BT got me what I needed faster. Searching Gnutella takes longer than searching for a torrent on the Web, of course, but in the end, download times on very large files that aren't well seeded is radically different, mostly because of the larger chunk size and contingous second-block fetch in Gnutella.

Re:More and more like Gnutella (1)

ram4 (636018) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999119)

I welcome your informed opinion. I seldom encounter someone who actually knows that much about Gnutella.

Yes, Gnutella's architecture makes it a better sharing system than pure BitTorrent, for the simple reason that BT creates torrents for a single file, whereas Gnutella servents have been maintaining download meshes (the name of "torrrents" in Gnutella-speak) for many files at once.

One point that perhaps is not known by the general public is that Gnutella is going to have a Distributed Hash Table soon. Something that BT has for some time now, but the addition of a DHT to Gnutella will make magnet URIs finally work right.

The question is then: will it be faster to locate a torrent file or get your hands on a magnet URI that can be fed to any serious Gnutella servent to start a download?

I think Gnutella and BT have much more in common that what a superficial comparison could tell. The architecture is different, the technical implementation radically different, but in the end, both systems will be ultimately converging to something similar. BT will become searchable and Gnutella will have full magnet support, further blurring the distinction.

The only difference is that in Gnutella, you cannot just download a file via a command-line client the way you can do that in BT. But it's just that servent authors never bothered to implement it, and I believe this would be much like emacs/emacsclient: if you have a running Gnutella servent, it is easy to create a command-line tool that will contact that servent to initiate the download, the output being fed to the command-line tool instead of being written to disk, the command-line tool being in charge of writing the data to the disk.

In a sense, BT is simply a re-invention of the Gnutella idea from another angle.

Raphael

Great idea for legal torrents! (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999143)

I will definitely use this myself. I have some large video files that I want to occasionally want to backup from one computer to another. Home movies and stuff like that. Between the problems in filesystems (what filesystem has full read/write support on Linux, Win2K, and OS X?) and size, this is the best way for me to transfer files.

Though a nice tutorial on setting up a vpn among computers with dynamic IP addresses (I don't have a static IP) would be appreciated.

Re:Great idea for legal torrents! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15999162)

CIFS

One small step for Bram (0, Redundant)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999161)

This is a cool bundle of torrent utilities but it's really not anything groundbreaking. Azureus has had the ability to automatically start downloading when .torrent files are in a specified directory for some time now. Still, every increment of functionality means that many more people sharing their content so that's nice for everyone!

Great for Home Videos? (5, Interesting)

friedmud (512466) | more than 7 years ago | (#15999166)

I've been thinking about setting up my own tracker to allow my family to download home videos from me...

I know that sites like YouTube are popular right now... but I really don't like the quality restrictions... and would rather family members could just download a nice sized full copy themselves so they could burn it to DVD if they like or whatever.

Bittorrent would be ideal for doing this... and this software sounds like just the ticket. All I would have to do is point my family at the page it generates... and when I finish editing a home movie drop it in the "upload" folder and wham... it goes out to everyone.

All it needs now is an "auto client" that you just give it the URL of the automatically created website and it will automatically download anything new that arrives (that's a lot of "auto" going on ;-) That way I could go around to all of my families computers and set them up with the software and then just leave it alone. Every once in a while they can look in the "Home Videos" folder for new videos....

I think it's funny that people around here always cry "Bittorrent doesn't have to be for illegal purposes" and then any time a bittorrent story comes up all they can do is argue the finer points of what would/wouldn't be illegal/enforceable if you use the new tech... sigh.

Friedmud
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...