"Adam L. Beberg" wrote:
> 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.
Of course it is --- I never said anything that would imply specialization of
function on either side of the wire, merely specialization of use. The latter's
ephemeral, circumstantial --- and doesn't imply *anything* about the
But then, I suppose you want to get off on a rant about the meaning of p2p.
Have fun, I don't care --- p2p simply means that all participants both initiate
and respond to (largely) the same set of messages.
> 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.
And that is EXACTLY my point. "Client" and "server" are ROLES --- roles that
happen to have been reified in the client-server model, but which for any given
interaction in a p2p world somebody *still* plays. Client: initiates requests
of some service. Server: responds to some request. We just described *every
single instance* of *any* kind of synchronous message-based [RI]PC, including
those that go on in a peer-to-peer communication.
> Open source and P2P are not related at all.
Sorry, that was a cut-n-paste error on my part. Voila! Capitalism facilitated
by open source.
> P2P is as you say a marketing name for a communications protocol at best.
Not even a protocol, just a pattern. Say it with me: p2p means no privileged,
reified roles: all components both initiate and respond to (largely) the same
set of messages.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:13:22 PDT