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@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