On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Jeff Bone wrote:
> Assume a fully P2P file-sharing facility. No privileged "servers." No
> way for anyone to make money, right? Wrong. I've got 50GB of files I'd
> like to store, but only 5GB of storage. You --- an individual, or
> whatever --- happen to have 500GB of storage. You're willing to let me
> use some of your space for some $amount / time period. Voila!
> Capitalism, facilitated by p2p technology.
But, then that's not P2P is it. That's me as a CLIENT, paying you MONEY to
be my SERVER. Which your ISP will let you do for about 30ms before they nuke
your ass right back to the pony express, because that's their gig.
> Similarly with open source. I've got this free software I'll give you,
> say a display server. What's that, it doesn't support your video card?
> You can fix that yourself, or I'll be happy to do it for you with
> quality guarantees and support for $amount. Voila! Capitalism.
> Facilitated by p2p technology.
Open source and P2P are not related at all. Open source ~= socialistic
software, everyone helps everyone else, which is not a bad thing unless you
give them guns or patents or zealots and it turns into a jihad (but it is
already). P2P is as you say a marketing name for a communications protocol
at best.
> I'm so sick of hearing about p2p I could puke. Folks! No! Let's not
> turn p2p into a bad word!
Too late! Anything the marketing guys come up with is always a bad word :)
- Adam L. "Duncan" Beberg
http://www.iit.edu/~beberg/
beberg@mithral.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:13:19 PDT