| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Mandriva to ship SkypeMandriva to ship SkypePosted Dec 21, 2005 20:48 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774)In reply to: Mandriva to ship Skype by job Parent article: Mandriva to ship Skype
> Their previous program contained spyware
Do you mind pointing to a reliable reference, not some rumors?
> This one apparently uses your bandwidth for some unknown purpose (relaying other peoples calls?)
Yes it must be doing this. How otherwise can you make a (kinda) p2p connection when both peers are behind the firewalls? It should use something unprotected in between, not? When both peers are within real p2p connectivity, nobody else gets involved, I believe. BTW, if you choose to participate in the Tor network (http://tor.eff.org/) - truly free/open protocol and implementation - someone else might be using your bandwidth as well. Of course, the openness in the later case greatly helps to ensure no bad use is made of your resources, but the very fact that (part of the) participants' bandwidth is shared shouldn't be a no-no factor. Or, if it is, no other software, free or closed, will help make you the VoIP calls today.
(Log in to post comments)
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 21:50 UTC (Wed) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] > Do you mind pointing to a reliable reference, not some rumors?
Wasn't Kazaa p2p software their doings, and included spyware? Not that I had used one, but it should be quite easy to check.
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 21, 2005 22:09 UTC (Wed) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Wasn't Kazaa p2p software their doings, and included spyware?
Hmm, I didn't realize that "previous program" meant Kazaa. I thought it was refering to a previous version of Skype (we do talk about Skype here... Mandriva is not going to pack Kazaa ;-)).
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 6:52 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] > BTW, if you choose to participate in the> Tor network (http://tor.eff.org/) - truly > free/open protocol and implementation - > someone else might be using your bandwidth > as well. Incorrect, if you just run a Tor client. Tor clients get access to the Tor network, but don't carry any additional traffic for it. Of course, in so doing, they lack that additional traffic to help camouflage any activity of their own, so it's not as "safe", but that's their choice. If you run a Tor server, then certainly, but that's sort of the purpose/point. The Tor servers, BTW, implement exit policies, such that the admin can choose what they wish to allow to exit from their server directly onto the web. In fact, many don't allow anything to exit directly onto the web, in which case the server becomes simply a Tor-relay server, relaying only internally to other Tor servers, which do have an exit policy allowing that type of TCP (by port, I believe) onto the net. (I happen to have recently spent several hours researching Tor. They have quite a lot of useful documentation, both on Tor, and on Internet anonymity in general. Thus, the detailed knowledge. Now if you had used freenet or gnunet or something similar as your example, I believe you'd have been correct. It's just not correct for Tor.) Duncan
Mandriva to ship Skype Posted Dec 22, 2005 8:46 UTC (Thu) by evgeny (guest, #774) [Link] > Incorrect, if you just run a Tor client.
You're right, I should have been more clear. However, I used the term "participate". Being a client doesn't really mean participate...
Anyway, let's be honest: either majority of Tor users run in the server mode or those who do (minority otherwise) need to carry on a lot of "foreign" traffic. The later case (which is the current situation with Tor, as far as I understand) might be ok for an experimental low-profile activities (again, that's what Tor today is), but once you're talking about millions of users, this becomes impractical and/or extremely expensive. The fact is even Microsoft can't afford it for their netmeeting stuff - anything except chat won't work unless you can establish a direct p2p connectivity.
> Now if you had used freenet or gnunet or something similar as your example, I believe you'd have been correct.
Agreed, freenet would be a more straightforward example.
|
|
||||||||||||