Peercast: Peer-to-Peer Streaming

Anonymous Coward writes "peercast is currently in beta for a new p2p client based on the Gnutella protocol. Seems to be alot easier to use than the current "streamers". Linux/Mac on its way."

Comments

Re:Interesting how slashdot posts this

[NanoGator]

I see why you feel that way, but I think the reason he didn't make it to Slashdot was that he committed suicide. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that there is a difference between 'died in his sleep' and 'died at his own hand'. I'm sure the people that knew the guy don't want to be reminded of it.

I'm a little puzzled as to why your post was modded off-topic. It's all related. As you pointed out, Gene has done a lot of work to make P2P what it is today.

Re:Play it right and p2p goes mainstream

[ImaLamer]

It is complicated.

AOL/TW owns the content people will publish, CARP free.

Nullsoft created the original Gnutella, yet abandoned it because of AOL/TW of course...

Nullsoft would attract mindshare, stealing from Windows Media Player, +1 for AOL/TW.

Nullsoft would attract mindshare to shoutcast, and further it's free alternatives such as Icecast, even more stealing mindshare from Windows Media Player.

Yet AOL/TW doesn't want people out there streaming their music without paying up - and other companies would very quickly object to AOL/TW's software allowing people to do the same to them.

The next Winamp "Eula" equivalent would prohibit this type of technology -or- AOL/TW locks down your ability to "copy" streams* by co-developing the technology and it's okay.

*I favor this approach. I would rather the client to not allow stream "ripping". It would make more sense than to charge money for something that isn't even been stolen yet.

Re:Play it right and p2p goes mainstream

[linzeal]

I don't listen to Top40 streams or many that have even any RIAA cartel member's songs on them at all. How would this effect the poor DJ who just wants to do a live stream from his home without paying 100's or even 1000's of dollars for bandwidth?

(OT) Source

[Anonymous Coward]

From the peercast homepage: The main reason for not releasing the source code so far is literally because we haven`t had the time yet. We`re doing this in our spare time (yes, we have proper jobs :) and want to have the chance to clean up the code, document it and put it CVS.

Not wishing to get into the old GPL debate, as their page implies it was all written from scratch rather than borrowing GPL code, but...

I really don't understand why people plan to put things into CVS after the code is writen and changed, etc... It makes sense to start with CVS from the outset.

Re:Play it right and p2p goes mainstream

[Jeremi]

For a 1 hour stream, a user in an NYC trading bank (I traced the IP) took 40GB to get the stream. The source file was about 4Mb.

I'm confused... why would ripping a stream take any more (or less) of the server's bandwidth than regular streaming-playback? Either way, you just need to download the contents of the stream once, whether you are saving the bytes to disk or just viewing them and then throwing them away shouldn't even be detectable by the server. Or am I missing something?

Now, imagine on a peer to peer network, some anti-social little sod stealing your stream. All your DSL bandwidth gone.

Exactly the opposite, I would think. Instead of every listener having to connect to your server to get the stream, now a good percentage of them are connecting to the "anti-social little sods'" peer-machines, and therefore not using bandwidth on your server. More likely you'd be sitting there with lots of bandwidth free, wondering where everybody went... ;^)