"Adam L. Beberg" <email@example.com> writes:
> There is something else larger below the surface here... the "let someone
> else pay for it" is becoming more and more of a theme. From file-"sharing"
> with it's "let AT&T (or other DSL/Cable) provide the bandwidth for our app
> so we dont have to pay" to this latest "let the user do what we want with
> their cycles" (which means BSOD@Home). P2P "companies" are desperately
> working to make someone else pick up the tab.
I don't get it. When does napster/gnutella/mojo use bandwidth that
isn't paid for by the user that's applying it to the app? I've fired
up all thre, and watched my pipe fill up with nonsense. Usually it
was worth it for the content I was able to get, and when it wasn't,
well, everyone was prospecting using resources that they paid for.
Discounting people sneaking servers onto their nets in violation of
their user agreements, of course :)
Regarding Juno, I dunno. The contract sucks, but it could be done
better. Two BSOD a day on average rather than one isn't a big deal
for the average luser, it might be worth it.
> is the only one to benefit. In other words, capitalism and P2P do not mix
> because P2P is a socialist construct, just like open source.
Just like those commies giving out free samples on the corner
-- Karl Anderson firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.monkey.org/~kra/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:13:19 PDT