Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants P2P Avalanche to Crush BitTorrent
pacopico writes "Microsoft seems to think it can be the better Bittorrent. You know faster and more well-behaved. The Register has a story on the P2P work being done by Microsoft's researchers in the UK. Redmond reckons its "Avalanche" technology will be 20 to 30 percent faster than BitTorrent. It's meant for legal downloads only, of course."
Besides BitTorrent might not be the most efficient P2P system any more, but it is one of the most widely used. I guess this is what Microsoft does best, copy other technology, add a little to it, then destroy it.
Ha!
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
...the knee-jerk reactions that this story will elicit? The original post really doesn't do TFA justice.
This is basically an improvement to the BitTorrent protocol that will overcome scheduling difficulties that really do exist today (I need piece X, but the person who has it is busy uploading piece Y).
What it is NOT:
1.) A Microsoft-proprietary application (at least nor yet).
2.) A production application that only runs on Windows.
3.) In any way (in theory, at least) tied to DRM'ing anything.
4.) A way for Microsoft to track your downloading.
Basically, Microsoft has suggested a way to make BitTorrent-like downloads better. Microsoft! Making P2P downloads of large files easier! Really!
This isn't MS search trying to overtake google, or some such. MS isn't trying to own the P2P market (at least not yet). They're suggesting improvements, and if you read TFA, the improvements make sense.
This is a Good Thing. Yeah, I'm suprised it came from M$ too.
The scary thing is that if you are a windows user, what's the stop M$ from requiring any updates and patches to come through this new P2P system, thus making it almost mandatory to install it on your system if you ever want to update your OS. Microsoft doesn't want to compete, they want to force.
The Technomancer
"Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's the thing. If you have a number of par files and all of the original segments, then there are many more pieces you could potentially download. If you need to download 500 of 500 segments, the number of sources you can download from begins to dwindle as you get on towards 400 or 450 pieces (I'm just making up these numbers, but you get the point). If instead, you need to download 500 of 1500 segments, chances are there won't be a scarcity of segments even at 499.
IMHO, this is actually a really good idea, since I for one would take the added CPU overhead of processing parity files in return for more sources to download from. I've got spare CPU cycles anyway.
How about the fact the current MS windows update is real slow because it is client-server and there are always going to be hundreds of millions of clients all wanting the same damn thing at the same damn time.
The patches ain't getting smaller either.
This is exactly the sort of problem BT was built to solve.
Even if they restrict it to only MS authorised updates it might still be a big win for them and, arguably, Joe windows user.
On the other hand, if they screw up on whatever verification they put in (and they haven't exactly got a good track record on crypto implementations) then you've got virus heaven...
Would I want to use the bandwith I paid for so other Windoze lusers can leech off the copy of Longhorn Service Pack 3 that I downloaded? Microsoft wants me to take part in some damn hippy-dippy bandwith commune? While they're world renowned for not playing nice with others?!!! Get the fuck out!!!! You can't have it both ways Microsoft!!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff