1 edit | Isn't this an obvious situation where P2P would benefit? I don't get it - why are companies like Mozilla still stuck in the stone age, trying to serve these huge downloads with giant brute-force servers? It ALWAYS ends up falling over and crashing, and even when it works, it's expensive as hell to do. Isn't this why BitTorrent was created in the first place? Why didn't Mozilla just publish a few BitTorrent seeds and let the rest take care of itself? This seems like a textbook "legitimate" use of BitTorrent that would have saved the Mozilla foundation a LOT in bandwidth costs. It's almost like the MPAA and RIAA got in touch with Mozilla and said, "hey, don't use BitTorrent, we don't want to see it used in any sort of legitimate way while we're trying to sue all P2P out of existance", and Mozilla timidly replied, "OK".
(And if your answer is "because everyone hates BitTorrent and/or can't use it behind their NAT/firewall/etc", then how about Mozilla reaches agreement with some mirrors to server the files to the die-hard downloaders the old-fashioned way? As Samwise said to Frodo, "Share the load!") |
|
 C_Kill The SocialistsPremium
join:2001-03-19
kudos:3 | if some second rate organization wants to use my bandwidth to distribute their product they better damn well compensate me 
--
"and no matter how drunk you get .. don't lick the wall socket to test polarity..." |
|
 firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
 ·Frontier Communi..
| reply to SierraRob
You'd also think with Google being their main source of revenue that Google could serve up some mirrors for them but maybe that would draw too much attention since most people have forgotten about the millions in cash they get because the search bar says "Google".  |
|
| reply to C_
said by C_:if some second rate organization wants to use my bandwidth to distribute their product they better damn well compensate me Sounds like a new "get rich scheme" in the making...
Get Rich in your Underwear!
Make Torrents O' Cash without Lifting a Finger!
Let your PC Share Torrents for Extra Income! |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | reply to SierraRob
said by SierraRob:I don't get it - why are companies like Mozilla still stuck in the stone age, trying to serve these huge downloads with giant brute-force servers? It ALWAYS ends up falling over and crashing, and even when it works, it's expensive as hell to do. Isn't this why BitTorrent was created in the first place? Why didn't Mozilla just publish a few BitTorrent seeds and let the rest take care of itself? This seems like a textbook "legitimate" use of BitTorrent that would have saved the Mozilla foundation a LOT in bandwidth costs. It's almost like the MPAA and RIAA got in touch with Mozilla and said, "hey, don't use BitTorrent, we don't want to see it used in any sort of legitimate way while we're trying to sue all P2P out of existance", and Mozilla timidly replied, "OK". (And if your answer is "because everyone hates BitTorrent and/or can't use it behind their NAT/firewall/etc", then how about Mozilla reaches agreement with some mirrors to server the files to the die-hard downloaders the old-fashioned way? As Samwise said to Frodo, "Share the load!") It's because you can't track all the downloads this way as each client communicates with the next and seeding server isn't the all seeing eye in this case. It would require a change to BT and others to have a "phone home" option about the download, which we all know wouldn't be taken well.
Yes, BT is the best solution, but in this case, they needed to keep track of each IP that downloads, you just can't do that with 100% certainly in BT because one client may download the file from 10 others that aren't even close to being the seeding server.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
| reply to SierraRob
said by SierraRob:[...] Isn't this why BitTorrent was created in the first place? Why didn't Mozilla just publish a few BitTorrent seeds and let the rest take care of itself? This seems like a textbook "legitimate" use of BitTorrent that would have saved the Mozilla foundation a LOT in bandwidth costs. It's almost like the MPAA and RIAA got in touch with Mozilla and said, "hey, don't use BitTorrent, we don't want to see it used in any sort of legitimate way while we're trying to sue all P2P out of existance", and Mozilla timidly replied, "OK". (And if your answer is "because everyone hates BitTorrent and/or can't use it behind their NAT/firewall/etc", then how about Mozilla reaches agreement with some mirrors to server the files to the die-hard downloaders the old-fashioned way? As Samwise said to Frodo, "Share the load!") OUTSTANDING question. ++5 |
|
| reply to knightmb
said by knightmb:It's because you can't track all the downloads this way as each client communicates with the next and seeding server isn't the all seeing eye in this case. It would require a change to BT and others to have a "phone home" option about the download, which we all know wouldn't be taken well. Regardless, this latest version from Mozilla (the allegedly open-source advocate extraordinaire) represented a golden opportunity to showcase P2P and demonstrate to the mainstream media bothering to cover the story that P2P is not the exclusive domain of (say it with me) pirates and thieves. Intead they chose to stick with a now antiquated distribution system in favor of download counts. And while the number of downloads for this particular version may be an ego booster, the fact remains, Mozilla shit the bed. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to knightmb
said by knightmb:said by SierraRob:I don't get it - why are companies like Mozilla still stuck in the stone age, trying to serve these huge downloads with giant brute-force servers? It ALWAYS ends up falling over and crashing, and even when it works, it's expensive as hell to do. Isn't this why BitTorrent was created in the first place? Why didn't Mozilla just publish a few BitTorrent seeds and let the rest take care of itself? This seems like a textbook "legitimate" use of BitTorrent that would have saved the Mozilla foundation a LOT in bandwidth costs. It's almost like the MPAA and RIAA got in touch with Mozilla and said, "hey, don't use BitTorrent, we don't want to see it used in any sort of legitimate way while we're trying to sue all P2P out of existance", and Mozilla timidly replied, "OK". (And if your answer is "because everyone hates BitTorrent and/or can't use it behind their NAT/firewall/etc", then how about Mozilla reaches agreement with some mirrors to server the files to the die-hard downloaders the old-fashioned way? As Samwise said to Frodo, "Share the load!") It's because you can't track all the downloads this way as each client communicates with the next and seeding server isn't the all seeing eye in this case. It would require a change to BT and others to have a "phone home" option about the download, which we all know wouldn't be taken well. Yes, BT is the best solution, but in this case, they needed to keep track of each IP that downloads, you just can't do that with 100% certainly in BT because one client may download the file from 10 others that aren't even close to being the seeding server. That depends on how (and what) you are counting. For a BT Client to download a file, it must start with a .torrent file which is (usually) supplied by a Torrent Server. You count the number of .torrent Files served and you have a number of attempts to download. The problem with this count is that there is no second contact with the server that states "I've completed my download and can now seed" but only periodic contacts to say "I have at least some of the file and am willing to send it to others". There is also the issue of how do you count if you get the original .torrent file from a location other than the Server. What this means is that since the idea was the count the downloads of the FF Client, using P2P would not allow the needed monitoring and counting. |
|
| reply to SierraRob
Torrents Suck
End of story. |
|
 FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | reply to C_
lol...
BT client open= sharing your bandwidth. But then again I could be retarded to your 'scarcasm'. |
|
|
|
FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | reply to yolarry
My 1.5 megs per sec .tor beg to differ... or are you a 733+ usenet'er? |
|
