Slashdot Mirror
Putting P2P To Work
An anonymous reader writes "Looks like some folks at IBM have had moderate success in getting P2P adopted within the corporate enterprise. One new paper on the site describes experiences in deploying a decentralized search network spanning machines in 43 countries. Another describes a system for peer-to-peer sharing of dynamic web applications instead of static files. The idea is to support development and distribution of simple modules that themselves form meta p2p networks. Neat."
The possibilities are endless! Except when isps start throttling these p2p ports..doh!
.[[erax0r]].
As the linked webpage says, we've already had a story on this here. All that is different is a new version (and name) of YouServ, and that the currently active users number has risen from 900 to 5,000. Good job to the guys at IBM, and keep up the good work!
So what. IBM is not going to control what files people share. They are supplying the technology only.
If it gets shut down, we might as well shut down the entire Internet and call it quits.
I was thinking of something like that, but you spoil the true peer-to-peer creamy goodness by relying a centralized server -- there's still a central point where failure can occur.
Baby steps. Slow and steady wins the race.
That's true, but it's also how DRM could become something much more menacing that what you invision it to be. Do you think Hillary Rosen shares your moderate viewpoint on DRM? You just build the tools, you don't get to decide how they are going to be used. Most people here are aware that succesful software oftentimes ends up being adopted to perform functions that the designer never even considered.
As well indended as your efforts may be to try and find a working compromise between content consumers/producers. You are laying a groundwork that could dramatically dis-empower millions of people.
The primary issue here is one of precedent. You're helping to bolster the notion that DRM is something that people will accept.
Right now marketing is being pressured into "selling" DRM without disrupting product sales. Which is very tricky in recessionary times like these. Companies need consumer dollars to stay afloat, so they can't be too hasty and scare them away with technologies like DRM. Once sales pick up again however, there will be much more leaway to completely transition to DRM based media distribution. Have you really considered what that would imply?
This isn't a comic book, and what you're doing could end up effecting real people in very negative ways. I'm just curious what is going through your mind as you're coding this stuff. Do you think you're some kind of hero? Would you please elaborate your point of view?
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Either that, or they'll be mad that you just wasted 15 minutes of their time and bandwidth. On top of that, you face the rest of the problems this kind of business model faces, the biggest of which being a large chunk of your target audience doesn't have a credit card. Sure, some will buy it, but not enough will to make it sucessful.
Baby steps. Slow and steady wins the race.
Baby steps don't mean much if you fall flat on your face every time you stand up, and slow and steady is still doomed when your opponent (in this case, the free P2Ps) has such a huge headstart.
live(free) || die;
" First academia starts contributing [slashdot.org] to peer to peer development, now it is being used as a business app. Looks like the folks who would love to see p2p dissapear are out of luck."
No it's the half-n-half rule. Those on the business half can do what they want because they have the money to do it. Those on the residential side (our side) will have to put up with bandwidth limits and download caps, as well as port blocks, because we DON'T have the money. Isn't it nice how the world DOESN'T work.