"Adam L. Beberg" wrote:
> > "With P2P, all these different components are equal peers
> > communicating over the Web, and the network effect goes up
> > exponentially."
> wild idea - isn't it more realistic to say it goes up to:
> benefit = users * [avg users "buddy list" size on protocol]
> My "buddy list" is about 1-2k people - friends, associates, and lists -
> spread across about a dozen protocols - aim, icq, email, majordomo, etc.
> My benefit is limited to the number of people in my world using the product,
> certainly not exponential. Of course, if you consider the protocol TCP...
They typically measure network effects, not by actual connections
but *potential* actual connections. You're just assigning a chance value.
I bet you don't believe the 6 degrees theory either. 8-)
> > "You're using the distribution power of the network without losing
> > control,"
> Ah, the holy grail... *chuckles*
It's all a matter of what you centralize and what users
allow to be centralized willingly. The holy grail is
decentralized distribution with centralized payments.
> Not conceiveable, provable possible and usually easy. Why is everyone
> treating this like it's a solveable problem? Oh wait, i'm not supposed to
> say that am I...
> Has anyone? Everyone is too busy trying to lock everyone into their
> proprietary protocol and namespace because THAT is how you make money.
You smell that? That gasoline smell of Adam torching P2P. Throwing
a match on the whole industry. Smells like...
victory. Someday this infrastructure war's gonna end...
> > P2P could gain immeasurably from having a company such as software
> > giant Microsoft, with its limitless customer base, include P2P
> > software in its Windows package.
> Hrm, Microsoft was and is real big on the whole making money idea, why would
> they do this? They are adding more and more rights management stuff in every
IBM too--in their hard drives even. Doesn't mean it'll get used.
> Did someone suddenly remove all the NATs and firewalls and not tell me? Last
> I checked the net is becoming MORE one-directional every day.
Nothing wrong with piggybacking information, content, whatever
on the incoming status of an outgoing HTTP call. Show me a NAT
or firewall that doesn't allow outgoing HTTP traffic and I'll
show you a really paranoid enterprise. Firewalls are a joke
for security--a last resort and side effect from not being
able to put sufficient controls on a MS desktop. I never ran
a firewall on my SGI machine at home. It *was* the firewall.
> Gotta love the fictional world the press lives in :)
> - Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
-- Gregory Alan Bolcer | firstname.lastname@example.org | work: 949.833.2800 Chief Technology Officer | http://www.endtech.com | cell: 714.928.5476 Endeavors Technology, Inc. | efax: 603.994.0516 | wap: 949.278.2805
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:18 PDT