BitTorrent + INDUCE Act + Linspire 5.0

[Brian Densmore]

Well if you want to be 100% technically correct,
one doesn't ride a subway. One rides a subway "car".
Or if one is clever, one can ride two subway cars,
but it's not very comfortable. 
Good points though on p2p and c2s.

p2p <> c2s

Although it's really a bit arbitrary if you ask me, and
probably not entirely correct. In order to make something
p2p there has to be some application that "advertises" the
availability of the peer data. That application "could"
be considered a server. No way can I see cp, dd and
tar considered as p2p or client-to-server, although I can
see the point made.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Wiles
> 
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:29:58 -0500
> Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins at tarcanfel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Monday 11 October 2004 11:17 am, Frank Wiles wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > That would include P2P software like ftp, scp, cp, dd, tar,
> > > > > > copy, etc.?
> > 
> ...
> 
>   What I'm saying is that while Bittorrent is by definition P2P, the
>   others you listed are not.  Yes, they are used to transfer files.
>   Yes, they can be used to transfer files without DRM. 
> However, FTP and
>   SCP are server to client not peer to peer.
> 
>   My definition of local is "not leaving the same server". I forgot
>   about the possibility of using cp, tar, etc on a mapped drive, NFS, 
>   etc.  But this still does not make them P2P, it makes them a method
>   of transferring files over a networked drive. 
> 
>   All I ask is that you use the terminology correctly.  Much like we
>   don't call trucks, buses, and subways "cars" despite the 
> fact they are
>   all methods of transportation.  
>