Bittorrent

[Oren Beck]

Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
> A resent question here brings up something that's bugged me too.  
> 
> Bittorrent is a great concept.  It's community supported, and for files the 
> size of installation iso's it's a better way to download.
> 
> So why hasn't it replaced ftp completely?
> 
> Because bittorrent doesn't work.
> 
> When it does work, it works great.  It works so well and it's such a great 
> idea that people for whom it works often abandon conventional means of 
> distributing files, leaving their projects completely in limbo if the 
> torrents dry up, or if one of the many other overriding reasons bittorrent 
> doesn't work should take them down.
> 
> I don't want to get into a language war here.  I know that there can be no 
> growth without change.  Part of the problem with bittorrent is that it's 
> written in python, and python is an evolving language, so depending on what 
> platform you're on, you may or may not have access ot a version of python 
> that will run bittorrent.  (I don't.)
> 
> Although bittorrent pierces firewalls pretty well, it's not clear that it does 
> as well outbound as inbound.  This appears to stall the process in some 
> cases, as you are expected to share your resources if you're going to 
> participate in a torrent .
> 
> The other problem, and one that I think has probably been what kept me from 
> persuing bittorrent further, is that there are a lot of bad links to bad 
> torrents out there - streams that won't launch, won't connect, for whatever 
> reason.
> 
> So the problem is that if you have a project that has "discovered" bittorrent, 
> but has yet to discover all the potential problems it has, you end up with a 
> project that's inaccessible to a large portion of it's potential audience.  
> The standard OSS community response is to blame the users, and belittle their 
> skills and knowledge because they can't get bittorrent to run.
> 
> If anybody's listening, I have another idea.  The traditional protocol for 
> distributing software on the internet still works just fine.  For a 
> bittorrent project, it makes a great backup, and ensures that future torrents 
> can be launched, even if there's a problem that takes down the original 
> links.
> 
> </rant>
> _______________________________________________
> Kclug mailing list
> Kclug at kclug.org
> http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
> 
> .
> 
Sadly the concept of blaming the user is easier than making things 
simply work .
Making things work simply is the truly non-trivial part we often forget 
about .

Your idea of an alternate protocol is quite well advised .  If no other 
reason than to allow the early adopters some way to GET the Torrent 
software itself .

Even then alternate protocols are smart due to some of us not easily 
adopting Torrent for several reasons .   Forgetting * any*  software 
issues being the problem what then of us on connections totally 
unfriendly to Torrent.
For example Starband and other upload speed restricted users .
The core concept of Torrent was never in doubt , it's the deploying that 
needs work .

What is very disturbing to me is that certain un-named players seem to 
be profiteering on the altar of Torrent !
Charging someone $ 10 for a HTTP download but free as Torrent seems 
quite extreme .
  Not mentioning those who as above are disadvantaged in access to 
Torrent for whatever reason .

I could even understand a priority launch of Torrent seeding to FTP or 
HTTP sites on day zero
as Slashdot effect prevention  by load balancing thru redundancy in 
mirrors -THAT seems a good Torrent use .


I do wonder as an open query - if downloads were limited to 2 protocols 
per project what wold they be and why ?

Oren

www.campdownunder.com