Opera Embedding BitTorrent Client
Opera Watch writes "The next version of Opera, 8.02, will have an embedded BitTorrent client. Opera has released today a Technical Preview of this new version on its FTP directory, though they have made no official announcement as of yet."
Now we just need apache with an embedded torrent generation/serving (or at least just serving; it'd be simpler to configure, that's for sure) for bulk static content. :)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
This is something I'd also like to see built into the next version of iTunes or iPodderX for getting Podcasts and the like (so as to reduce the bandwidth on shows I'm interested in listening to).
Of course, to make sure that Opera doesn't get sued for having a P2P network built into their client that could be used for copyright infringements, they need to add a note into their EULA that says something akin to "Don't steal music, or movies, or - just don't steal, OK? If you do, don't blame us. Thanks." to that their intent in supplying the technology is clear.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Well, "milestone" is lofty, but this certainly does lend legtimacy to the software as a real tool just like, say, winzip or anything else that just does a job, and people use it for good and "bad".
Should make Opera look good too.
The underlying thing here that looks great for BT is that Opera must have done some due diligence and decided they were on good legal ground to embed the software... which may be seen as a green light for others to do the same.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I see the advantages here and in other ways I see the disadvantages. In one way I'm excited at the thought of not having to run a seperate program to download a file using torrents. I even see that it might force other browsers to do the same (I'm betting we see a firefox addon in about a week). I could even picture a time when all webpages are sped up via torrents.
At the same time I'm worried about a browser doing too many things. I'm not going to start using opera just because it can handle torrents but if IE or Firefox starting doing it I would be rather happy. It's kinda like the various PlayStations playing Dvds when competing with a dreamcast or 64.
This also begs the question, will this help make torrents more mainstream? I know plenty of average people who have no idea what a "torrent" is. If more of the general public starts picking it up who knows what will happen with things like piracery.
Meh, just my thoughts.
Firefox with BT support would be a good thing. For Opera too. It would move BT further into the mainstream, and that would benefit anyone who wants to use it. Opera probably has something in mind, such as distributing Opera through BitTorrent. Why else implement it?
Clever signature text goes here.
this is just one step closer to the dream of webpages being served as torrents. Imagine the benefit to mid level, and non commercial websites. http://www.4chan.org/ comes to mind as a major benefactor.
I can see two problems with this.
The first is that bittorrent is not really a stable protocol. By which I mean, the protocol itself is still under active development. I could imagine in-browser bittorrent being great for about two weeks, then all of a sudden Azureus will come up with some kind of funny extension or the main Bittorrent team will come up with a better multi-root-tracker swarming mechanism or some such and all of a sudden the in-browser client won't work with any of the new torrents out there. That would get obnoxious.
The second is that web browsers are not stable. I mean, web browsers crash a lot. I expect a torrent to be running for hours and hours, becuase if it won't be going that long, well, it makes less sense for it to be torrented in the first place. Even the most stable web browser I've ever used, I'd be a little cautious to run bittorrent inside it because some afternoon I could be reading a site it doesn't like or something and I could crash two or three times, getting booted out of my hypothetical torrent each time, before that torrent finishes. I'd hope or wish there was some way to move the actual bittorrent downloading into a separate process, one that isn't effected by browser crashes, even if it's transparently "part of" the web browser from a GUI perspective. (Come to think of it, I kind of wish at times someone could make a web browser where every window got its own process space, or something, so one browser window could lock up or crash without effecting the others. Web browsers are practically OSes now, they might as well start acting like it.)
Other than these things it seems like a good idea.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
your claim is just stupid.
:)
consider this.
the average torrent (i assume a movie or something) is being initially uploaded by one seed with, being generous, a max of 80 kBps. The person still manages to send all that information to everyone rather quickly (given a slower start to send 1-2 full copies out into the swarm).
Microsoft Pipes have like, what, 1000000 times the bandwidth? So yes, you usually download as fast as your connection can handle. So yes, you WILL download faster than a popular torrent at the beginning of it distribution cycle.. if the person hosting originally had a small pipe.
If Microsoft used torrents, their overall bandwidth would increase - they just dont need to.
But let dream of the day that every single dedicated 'fat pipe', 'home user', and business used torrents instead of http / ftp / other p2p:
we would see a HUGE increase in bandwidth across the internet.
The reason you beleive torrents are slower has nothing to do with the protocol, but rather the people who use it.
The only issue I have is that torrents die after some time, because people do not seed to 1:1, or people loose interest files that arent 'fresh'.
If Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera embeded bittorrent, forced 1:1 seed ratios, and seeded every file in your download folder out to whoever needed it most.. well..
wouldnt that be peachy?
problems i'd forsee arrive when the tracker needs to be responsible for seeding several files at once while still acting as a tracker... however, on the "fat pipes" we've been talking about, this should be less of an issue, and because of the nature of bittorrent, the tracker should only need to be a seed for a short amount of time, especially with a relatively popular file.