Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Reinvents Bittorrent
Anon E. Muss writes "Microsoft has a new Secure Content Downloader tool that sounds an awful lot like a Bittorrent clone. It's described as a 'peer-assisted technology' where '[e]ach client downloads content by exchanging parts of the file they're interested in with other clients, in addition to downloading parts from the server.' Right now MSCD is just a time-limited preview, intended to support downloads of select Microsoft beta releases (e.g. Visual Studio 2008). If this test goes well, Microsoft will probably start using MSCD for all their large downloads. How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?"
People have no problem with this and blizzard. Expect the double standard to kick in in 3.. 2.. 1..
This will show that p2p/torrents have a legal use.
Any word on them trying to patent this?
I never get used to these constant resurrections
Microsoft, ripping off your ideas since the 80's, then repackaging them with prettier colors.
brian botkiller "Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance" - Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
BitTorrent didn't invent P2P. And the idea is used by many other applications including games. The last article with a premise this ridiculous I've seen was the "Hotmail drops 98.88% of all attachments, MS to be broken up and fined $10 billion dollars for fraud!" article.
Seriously, what is the point of this nonsense article, just to get the groupthink all riled up?
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?
/. run on BT before? 47 thousand? And how many have had a comment like this? Zero?
Exactly how many articles has
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's cost?
...
AWESOME! They're going to pass their savings onto me, right!?
Latewire
Indifferent, that's how. Is that question at the end of the summary supposed to imply that it's ok for linux distributions and WOW to use bittorrent to lower bandwidth costs, but it's not ok for Microsoft to do the same? Ah, but of course. This being slashdot, anything Microsoft does is subject to criticism.
Grow up for fuck sake!
like sugar and spice
I feel nice
like sugar and spice
so nice
so nice
I got you.
Microsoft developed BITS 3.0 many months ago and included it with Vista. It allows for what Microsoft calls "peer caching."
Rob
Aren't we already?
MS didn't reinvent Bittorrent. They built something better: Avalanche. It's more efficient and (I know this phrase is weird to use around MS, but...) more secure. Read the research papers (they touch on BT, its advantages and disadvantages). I imagine most of this stuff is on its way into standard BT, if it hasn't been worked in already.
"How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?"
Frankly I don't give 2 shits as long as they don't patent the hell out of it (and sue existing P2P solutions). But this came out of MS Research, so I doubt that'll happen (one of the only decent groups at MS).
By the way, MS has been messing around with P2P for years. How do you think Xbox Live works? Every time a game is played multiplayer, at least one Xbox/Xbox 360 is hosting. Not a single MS server hosts a game. Question this all you want (why pay $60 a year then?) but the fact of the matter is that from a technological standpoint, it works well.
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?
The same way I feel about Canonical's. Or Fedora's. Or Gentoo's. Or Blizzard's. Or Demonoid's. Or iPodNova's. Or the eDonkey network's. Or ThePirateBay's.
It's P2P, remember, the thing everyone here loves? And now there's more of it! Must be a good thing. Although I'm sure if Microsoft started handing out free chocolates and flowers, before going on to start selling Linux distributions and releasing the entire code of the Windows kernel under the BSD license, you'd find some reasons to kick up a fuss about that, as well.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
Since I downloaded the last MSDN library no less than 9 times and each time got a corrupted file (yes, a 1.9GB corrupted file), I would have welcomed an official MS P2P download route - one of the more useful feature of BitTorrent on large files is that each chunk is hashed, and thus has good integrity.
Instead, there was just an MD5 checksum buried in the small print on the page, which is no help at all. The checksum validation in the install routine can detect that the archive is corrupted. Ok, it's nice to be able to tell if you got a pirate zombie MSDN library (presumably with some pages containing subtle advice on how to implement code with security holes - now we know why Windows is so insecure....) But what I really needed was a download protocol that provides for more error correction than HTTP.
Go, I say. Even if everyone disables the ability to upload, and all the data still comes from MS, it's still an improvement.
Any chance MSCD has a Microsoft API? Microsoft loves those extentions. Maybe MSCD can be made to do BitTorrent too ...
Because no one else ever thought or developed a protocol with distributed file transfer. If MS is doing something they must have copied it from someone.
> How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?
It's good that they are using their own protocol. That way those who have no use for anything from Microsoft will be in no danger of inadvertently doing them a favor.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
They will probably make their version proprietary. If lots of people start to use this (which I doubt) then we might have problems with the formatting that program uses and the people who do use it will deal with vendor lockins, fees, and DRM.
Personally I am not really worried about it. I hope it is a financial loss for them.
--kc2keo
How much secure ? I smell a new vector for adware / spyware / trojan infections here....
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Uh, let me see:
Microsoft treats paying customers like criminals with their recent (last five years or so) policies but it does nothing to curb professional pirates
Microsoft is one of the wealthiest companies in the world.
Microsoft can easily afford the bandwidth for hosting their product downloads.
How do I feel about it? Sorry, I won't be participating. If they make their policies more customer-friendly and open up the source for Windows, or at least become more friendly to open source, sure, I'd use it to download and I'd let it seed for a bit.
When I download SuSE or Kubuntu or CentOS I let the torrent seed for at least a few days.
This makes me want to download Microsoft patches several times when I need them just so I eat up more of their bandwidth.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
No, not at all. If you don't like a product, including the distribution system for patches, DON'T BUY IT.
Common sense.
Huh?
In bittorrent, no block is more important than any other.
And the only bottleneck in bittorrent is when a specific block is only available from a single seed with limited bandwidth. The moment that block is uploaded to another machine the bandwidth expands.
I'm not understanding that either. You need updates as to who has what. This will be changing constantly as different peers download different blocks.
Why would you need to? All the client has to do is connect to as many peers as necessary to find each block a minimum number of times. The only time there is a problem with this is when there is only one seed with limited bandwidth.
There is no way that a "globally rarest" will appear more often in your peer group than it does globally. This seems more of a seeder issue than a swarm issue. And it has been solved with the "super-seeder" enhancements. The seeder feeds more blocks to the guy who seems to share them the fastest.
Just imaging a huge P2P network of Microsoft software - and if someone figures out how to pervert it with trojans, viruses, keyloggers...
With Microsoft's lousy security track record, can you imagine the gold mine this will be for anyone that wants to mass distribute malwear? Nothing like lots of machines in the wild hosting "official" Microsoft software, patches, etc.
Think it can't happen? Think again.
I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.
"How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?""
Kinda dirty and used, but no different from how I felt after installing Vista.
brian botkiller "Condensing fact from the vapor of nuance" - Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Is the Bittorrent protocol a W3C standard yet?
Bram Cohen (Bittorrent inventor) commented on Avalanche on his blog two years ago and said that he thinks "the paper is complete garbarge."
However, the Wikipedia article on network coding lists a lot of fields where this techology might be useful, so I guess it's not really garbage after all, but neither the holy grail of p2p.
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?
Exactly the same way I feel about subsidizing anyone's bandwidth.
If its an open source project I have no problems with it, and do it all the time. I'm a Mandriva Club member and regularly host various forms of the Mandriva distributions on a server with a fat pipe.
If its a closed source project or something that costs money, then those companies who distribute it by leaching bandwidth from others are just that, leaches. Actually, I take that back...they aren't leaches, and I should find a new comparison. Even leaches have a use in the medical world...leaches in the bandwidth world have no use.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Seeing as there is clearly no prior art, will M$ patent this 'new' technology and charge users extra to use it?
-Tim Louden
And what on earth does that have to do with the issue at hand? They are coming out with their thing here, they arent "Embracing" bittorrent. It always amazed me how people will use the whole embrace extend extinguish thing when they are talking about a new MS product. Embrace, extend, and extinguish is meant to refer to a company embracing a standard they want to destroy for whatever reason. If they were extending the bittorrent protocol you would have a point.
But again, what on EARTH does any of this have to do with it being acceptable for one company to use your bandwidth when you are streaming files from them but when another does it they are 'stealing' your bandwidth or whatever?
Its like some people on here think that because MS was judged to legally be a monopoly that means they cant do things that are perfectly normal for other companies to do. I swear one day I will read on here that MS shouldnt be allowed to be registered in a phone book or something because they are a monopoly and should be held to a different standard. Utilizing a swarming protocol does not equate to abuse of monopoly powers.
I've been getting my M$ products from peer distribution for years!
As usual, there's no sensible reason in the world why Microsoft could not have used the open, existing, tested, commodity protocol.
you had me at #!
is, did MS write their P2P software to preclude people getting in on the downloads without WGAing first? Because that's the biggest reason why they wouldn't be able to use BT out of the box.
So far most of the comments on this story have been about the pros and cons of helping MS with their bandwidth. There have even been a couple talking about some technical differences. But for me, the biggest difference is none of that. The coolest thing about BitTorrent is that it is a known, open protocol. What this means is that there are something like 10 to 20 clients out there you can download, so we end up with great programs like Azureus and uTorrent. Of course I haven't read much about this new program from MS, but I imagine they won't be releasing the source code for it. (I may be wrong of course!) What this means is that to use their shiny new protocol, you have to use THEIR software. You will have _no_ choice, and there will be _no_ room for developing new features. I find this terribly limiting compared to what can be accomplished with something open and popular like BitTorrent. What will you do if the protocol is very efficient and useful, and yet you are forced to use a crap client that you don't like? Reverse engineer it? That's a pain in the ass compared to having a working, open protocol that is well-documented and there are several open-source solutions to reference. And I won't even begin to discuss the likelihood of seeing an OS X or Linux version of their client...
I think I'll be sticking to BT unless something better comes along that actually has a useful (i.e., open) license. One wonders about the motivation for developing this when they could have just used BT to distribute their patches and downloads. Is it just NIH, or something more?
Some consider network coding theory to be garbage as well, so maybe it's still garbage.
Microsoft is charging a lot of money for their software; there is absolutely no reason anybody but Microsoft should pay for the bandwidth related to their software updates.
From a practical point of view, no matter how "secure" the protocol may be, if this thing is running on a host as part of a P2P network, it is essentially broadcasting to the world that (1) the host is running Windows, and (2) that it's not up to date with its patches. That's not a smart thing to broadcast.
Man, I wish I had mod points.
Every time a double standard comes up when Microsoft is involved, I always start seeing "convicted monopolist" pop up frequently. Yeah, they are a convicted monopolist. What does that have to do with this issue? Nothing.
Microsoft is creating a new protocol for downloading products and patches from them, that sounds suspiciously like BitTorrent. Blizzard does the same thing, except they actually use BitTorrent.
People use the monopolist angle as demagoguery to justify hostility towards many things Microsoft does, which have nothing to do with "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", or even their monopoly status. This story is but one drop in a vast ocean.
- Scott
They've been working on this FOREVER. I remember seeing little wireless Shuttle cubes strewn all over the campus 3 or 4 years back. Good to see another Microsoft Research technology end up in a product.
Sounds like I will have a new port or something to block. Yippy!
The difference between a M$ fake-torrent client and a free P2P user is that a free P2P user has a choice about what to download. The M$ client will soon be used to download "patches" and other M$ cruft, which will pass that part of the cost of windows onto ISPs and subscribers. You will excuse me while I say that I don't want to subsidize M$'s lack of efficiency. Their client will also be "trusted" and refuse to download anything that could threaten the MAFIAA in any way - which is pretty much everything but what you can buy from M$ music services and squirt to your Zune.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?"
I don't feel against it at all. As opposed to certain ISP's that don't let you use the bandwidth you pay for freely and not setting stupid "limits", mine actually includes that in my regular flat monthly fee! *gasp* So if this makes them even faster, hey, it'll even be an advantage!
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
M$ has an date with the Wicker Man... There! Much better!
The game.
If we could legally download movies without having to install crap software really fast without using bittorrent, we would do it.
And if we're looking to download the latest Ubuntu iso, we don't need an MS alternative.
expandfairuse.org
No wonder the M$ trolls are saying bad things about them. No? oh now I see the difference.
When M$ integrates this trash into their OS to reduce costs, they will quickly move to eliminate all other "untrusted" P2P in the same way they have attacked other "competitors" on their platform. They will also look for legal assistance, claiming stupid stuff like "free computing" is for "pirates" and criminals. They have been telegraphing the message for years, so bend over if you are still using Windoze.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They have this great new program going on where they will pay you for forwarding email. They will pay you $245 for every person you forward an email to, and then another $243 for every person who forwards that email, and so on. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check!
"How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?""
Hello?
Many Slashdotters have been calling for Microsoft to embrace Bittorrent to distribute their software. If they did that, then you'd be "subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs", so how is this any different? Anyway, the only ones "subsidizind Microsoft's bandwidth costs" are those that download the software.
Seems that the "subsidizing bandwidth" remark was tacked on to add some lame MS-bashing that would help ensure that slashdot accepted the story and/or score brownie points with those particular slashdotters on the low end of the intelligence bell curve. Pathetic.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Isn't Microsoft Secure Content Downloader proprietary software? If so, how did you verify the security of the software? So long as this is proprietary, its security is unverifiable and the software is untrustworthy by default, quite unlike many BitTorrent programs.
Digital Citizen
It's P2P, remember, the thing everyone here loves? And now there's more of it!
No, now there's a crappy, non free M$ toy for all of those people M$ has scared away from P2P all these years. You can be sure it will do what M$ does, not what the user wants and that M$ crank up their message about dirty bad pirates and bittorrent. Remember the third E, Extinguish. M$ has not even bothered to embrace and extend this time, they have simply reinvented. You will soon have less of what you love not more of it. More obnoxiously, you will get to subsidize the cost of their anti-competitive and inefficient practices. When they switch over their "upgrading" software to this they will be shifting the vast cost to ISPs and you and other people who's choice will be Bill's way or the Highway.
Software is easy to judge when you have a clean set of principles, like the four software freedoms.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Many of you guys have been complaining about ISP traffic shapers cutting into the use of P2P applications. The more legitimate solutions that use P2P, the harder it would become for them to justify such actions.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
that this kills all the stupid p2p-throttling that services providers do but deny.
"Blocking" other P2P clients would involve restriction of ports at the network provider level, which pretty much ensures nothing that uses TCP/IP would work on Windows.
You must have missed this two days ago, where M$'s IE7 does something stupid to Firefox. That's a nice example of how they can make you not want to use an application, even before you buy into Visat's unsigned program nightmare. Combine the two methods, and your general PC is really just another network appliance.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"In other words, Microsoft is reinventing BitTorrent because, you know, the open source version has cooties."
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
So has MS patented bit torrent yet? As a company that continuously innovates, they really deserve one for this break-through...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
As long as they don't try to go out and patent it, its fine by me. Also, I'm imagining some of the messages from it...You are downloading win_vista_dvd_rip.iso. Cancel/Allow?
I'm not microsoft fan, but who cares?
Using torrent methods for distributing files over the internet is a good thing. The more people that need the file, the faster it goes for everyone. Hats off to the inventors because almost nothing else in the world works out that way.
If this makes it faster and easier for people to download the stuff they want, then what is the problem? Use the downloader until you're done downloading, then turn it off. If they don't allow that, then I'd be pissed.
Question everything
There are some differences between me and Microsoft, between Blizzard or Canonical and me as well. Besides the being given stuff for free angle.
Microsoft: Datacenters worldwide
Me: Just this computer.
Microsoft: Probably pays less than 5c per GB.
Me: Pays $2 per GB.
Microsoft: Previous yearly profits exceeding 100 million.
Me: Previous yearly profits exceeding 0 million.
With these discrepancies between us, you can see why I might feel bitter about being shanghaied into paying Microsoft's server costs. More to the point, I don't like Microsoft, it's no hypocritical to help people or companies you like and to feel ambivalent about being forced to help people or companies you don't.
How do you kill that which has no life?
I think that this is simple. Blizzard makes games that are bought and installed and it is pretty obvious that they are installing a bittorrent like client that will consume some of your band width at fairly predictable intervals. And you have the option of not letting blizzard use your bandwidth. Microsoft has a history of lying about what it is doing, or simply not acting with any regard to the user's good. Microsoft could very well add a bit of legal jargon to the EULA granting themselves permission to use your band width if you run their operating system. They are already doing this with automatic downloads and all of the talk between microsoft and the windows installations. It is a small stretch to simply help themselves to your bandwidth. And in this case, what can you do? Nothing. Windows is the dominant OS, not some cool game you can install. So if you are lucky enough to be running some non-microsoft operating system, then this is not your issue. But for many people, whose time is valuable and whose internet connection is limited by quirks of money or geography, having Microsoft help themselves to a portion of it is very bad. Bad in the road rage sense of the word. It feels like theft. What Blizzard has done which is almost identical, is ok because it is a choice.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
This time, Bill Gates is actually giving away money if you forward messages! I kid you not, they have to pay their customers (well, OK, their customers' favorite charities) to get people to use their software.
Honey, Why are you buying a 5000 doll on my Credit card number?
Why am I getting all this F&^%ing spams?
What do you mean that I gave you disease? A Virus? What the H*&L are you talking about?
Why do I have to reboot? I just installed a simple program.
Another F*&^ing 1000 to fix this computer?
Why does Microsoft charge me 500 for the same thing that they charge chinese $3 and give away to illegal aliens and Al Qaeda?
Oh, What the F*&K? I have this Pretty blue screen, but I can not get anything to move.
Who me? Yeah, MS makes me VERY productive and at a cheap price. I would suggest that you check out their web site that explains why I spend all this money. What is the URL? Well, just google for it. Currently, my computer is on the fritz. It must be all those Linux hackers that cause this to me.
And you can even compress that above 2 hour issue down to 5 minutes and replay it. Same Stuff, new day.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nice FUD. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they ever have or ever will do that with windows updates. You are just making wild speculation. I suggest you read the article to see where this is actually being used. Just like in the Blizzard example they are using it for some products that noone "needs" to use the way they need to use windows. So it is essentially the same thing.
...but I sincerely hope they gave Bram Cohen a well-deserved bonus. He came up with a truly great invention that helps smaller companies and individuals host content (without BitTorrent, it would've cost way too much), and he decided to share his invention with the world for free.
MS doesn't have to pay him anything, but if they don't they lose a chance to gain a bit more respect from people. They're not struggling to pay their bills, and if they save money from his invention, they should toss him a bone.
I didn't read the grand parent, so I could be speaking in some ignorance here, but here's why I would gladly donate some bandwidth to Blizzard but not Microsoft. Disclaimer: I don't use any blizzard products, so I'm really not a fanboy. Promise. Blizzard hasn't been very nice about open standards, true. But I've no knowledge of them destroying existing standards by "embrace, extend, extinguish". I have not researched this, so I speak in some ignorance here, but there's only so much time in a day and I can only do the best I can with the knowledge I have. If I decided I wanted to play WoW or (insert blizzard game here) I'd probably research a bit on their credibility before I made a call of that nature. Since I'm sure far more people on /. have had to use Microsoft stuff than Blizzard stuff, I have no doubt more people have been exposed to their selfish and destructive tactics, so it's no surprise to me at all that people on /. would be hesitant to help Microsoft by donating bandwidth.
Most of us have paid the MS tax on numerous times unjustly - I won't bother boring you with my experience on that. Needless to say in my opinion they have plenty of money for bandwidth and have, through "the system" obtained some of my money without my really wanting or needing their stuff. I have no interest in subsidizing their bandwidth bills, given that.
An additional distinction - Microsoft made their own version of bit torrent in this case. Bit torrent already exists - why not just contribute any improvements they have, instead of trying to push their own product to compete? If it's inferior or equal, they may as well have just used Bit Torrent. If it's better, they could have helped the rest of the world out by contributing their changes. If that's the case, we're all missing out because they have once again shown no interest in the benefit of John Q. Public. That kind of thing always happens with Microsoft, and it's a great reason to laugh every time they claim to have contributed to the quality and progress of technology and seem like a philanthropist.
In short Blizzard may be no different from Microsoft - I couldn't tell you, but maybe they aren't. Most of the people on /. know a lot of Microsoft's dirt and have every right to bash Microsoft because of that. Crying for poor Microsoft because everyone here is less informed of a less important company is an exercise of the obvious and melodramatic.
I forgot there's no autoformat on /. comments. I meant to say:
/. have had to use Microsoft stuff than Blizzard stuff, I have no doubt more people have been exposed to their selfish and destructive tactics, so it's no surprise to me at all that people on /. would be hesitant to help Microsoft by donating bandwidth.
/. know a lot of Microsoft's dirt and have every right to bash Microsoft because of that. Crying for poor Microsoft because everyone here is less informed of a less important company is an exercise of the obvious and melodramatic.
I didn't read the grand parent, so I could be speaking in some ignorance here, but here's why I would gladly donate some bandwidth to Blizzard but not Microsoft.
Disclaimer: I don't use any blizzard products, so I'm really not a fanboy. Promise.
Blizzard hasn't been very nice about open standards, true. But I've no knowledge of them destroying existing standards by "embrace, extend, extinguish". I have not researched this, so I speak in some ignorance here, but there's only so much time in a day and I can only do the best I can with the knowledge I have.
If I decided I wanted to play WoW or (insert blizzard game here) I'd probably research a bit on their credibility before I made a call of that nature. Since I'm sure far more people on
Most of us have paid the MS tax on numerous times unjustly - I won't bother boring you with my experience on that. Needless to say in my opinion they have plenty of money for bandwidth and have, through "the system" obtained some of my money without my really wanting or needing their stuff. I have no interest in subsidizing their bandwidth bills, given that.
An additional distinction - Microsoft made their own version of bit torrent in this case. Bit torrent already exists - why not just contribute any improvements they have, instead of trying to push their own product to compete? If it's inferior or equal, they may as well have just used Bit Torrent. If it's better, they could have helped the rest of the world out by contributing their changes. If that's the case, we're all missing out because they have once again shown no interest in the benefit of John Q. Public. That kind of thing always happens with Microsoft, and it's a great reason to laugh every time they claim to have contributed to the quality and progress of technology and seem like a philanthropist.
In short Blizzard may be no different from Microsoft - I couldn't tell you, but maybe they aren't. Most of the people on
I'll simplify it the way I see it.
Microsoft has proven time and time again not to care at all about my needs or my well-being. Honestly they've cost me a lot of money not just by their lack of interest in my needs but the way they've crushed the products that actually did serve my needs, and they did so illegally.
So while the anti-competitive practices may seem unrelated, they really are. I have personally suffered on multiple accounts directly because of Microsoft, be it their neglect or their business practices. Since they don't care about my best interest, I have no interest in theirs.
If Microsoft takes my money but blatantly ignores my needs, I don't want to help them in any way at all, and that includes bandwidth. I'll give them the same attitude they've given me: you want to distribute your software? You muscle up and pay to get it distributed. Don't ask me for help unless you're paying me for it.
Nice FUD. There is absolutely no reason to believe that they ever have or ever will do that with windows updates.
Just like 640k of ram should be enough for anybody... Now I know that's a flamebait remark that is unrelated at first glance, but it's meant to remind us that the future holds many surprises.
The GP doesn't strike me as FUD because he mentions specifically that it's "quite possible" -- which it is, remember what the word "possible" means -- that Microsoft could do that. I am willing to upgrade possible to plausible, and watch the FUD accusations fly. Just look at it this way - Microsoft has thrown some pretty crazy stuff into their EULA in the past and people have, without reading it, just hit "I agree" because they (think that they) need Windows so "yeah, whatever, I agree, next, next..."
You are just making wild speculation. I suggest you read the article to see where this is actually being used.
Where it is being used now has nothing to do with where it will be used in the future. That's what makes moves like this strategic. If Microsoft were to do what the GP said (and I'm not saying they will... calm down), they could site this move and say "see? See how acceptable it was then?". When you do something drastic like forcing customers to use their bandwidth to distribute updates (which once again I'm not saying will happen, but defending that the GP is NOT FUD), you ease into it step by step. You use technologies and practices that have already been accepted so it doesn't seem like a big step.
I'm not trying to validate the GP's claim, but I'm very much invalidating your claim that it's FUD. Microsoft has never acted in the best interests of its customers and because of that any move it makes should be met with speculation about what comes next. Failure to do so will result in losing yet more money and freedom. At this point far too many people have erred on the side of trusting Microsoft, and the results have been very bad for the technology economy world-wide. I say we lend credibility to voices critiquing and suspecting Microsoft's motives. They were right in the past, and we failed to listen.
I get a free product from Canonical or Fedora that they paid millions to develop. The least I can do is contribute bandwidth.
I have no feelings on Blizzard because I don't use their stuff.
As far as Demonoid or eDonkey or ThePirateBay - Once again I'm paying nothing for a product that's worth something, the least I can do is help others get it.
Now we get to Microsoft. They have raped the market for decades, and I've been forced to contribute to their profit on many accounts despite the fact I don't use any of their stuff, ever.
I see a marked distinction. On a few counts, I get something I didn't pay for. On Microsoft's, I pay for something I don't use at all.
Ha ha! My wife had just finished crowing about how much better Windows was than linux, (I forgot to load some stupid codec I never use.) hopped on her laptop and did a virus scan. Yep, virus and trojans. I said nothing as I am a reasonably smart man.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
You can download the MSDN documentation gratis. Since I don't pay for a subscription, this is the only legal avenue open for me to get it. The online documentation just isn't as slick in terms of search, and of course, if the server or my network connection have any problems I can still refer to the material.
.NET Framework). If you wanted, you could develop .NET code with notepad and a command line. The only thing the paid-for editions of Visual Studio add are shortcuts - all the stuff that used to be obfuscated behind cryptic formats (like VB6 forms) is now produced by the IDE auto-authoring source code, which means it's nothing you can't do by hand (if you're mad enough). If I was writing for a major enterprise? Sure, the $1800 would be worth it if it saved me a little time.
Access to a full MSDN media set is indeed very useful. Or at least, it was in the past. Since I now avoid most of Microsofts infrastructure products (database servers, that sort of thing), I have no need to pay for it. You can get an acceptable IDE for free (either Express or SharpDevelop), and you don't have to pay for the compiler (it comes with the base install of the
If I'm downloading something from anyone, then I have some sort of need for it, a.k.a. I have a use for it. If a new distributed download system reduces the cost and increases the speed at of fulfilling the need then I am all for it. I fail to see how anyone might have a problem with this, especially as it will most likely be an opt-in/out scheme.
wow this is insane.. sounds like a direct copy of bittorrent indeed.. is bandwidth really a problem for microsoft? are they running out? or not capable of getting the best and fastest? bandwidth does seem to be a precious thing nowadays.. and no i don't feel good about them using my bandwidth.. if i pay them money for an OS, then why the fuck are they trying to take more from me?
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
This doesn't help if you have already bought it, and then they change the service later.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
to purchase or use MS software is already used to getting screwed over by MS. Why should this be anything new?
You can choose to continue to do it the way MS wants you to, with little to no control over how your own computer operates, or you can ditch MS and their 'we-know-whats-good-for-you' attitude entirely, and use software that lets you control your own computer, that,incidentally, is often completely free of charge as well.
That attitude combined with the complete lack of any argument based on factual reality is the reason why the Human Race hasn't been back to the Moon since 1972.
We live in a twilight world of pointy-haired arrogance, ignorance and misinformation.
Stick Men
There's no substitute for source code analysis and proprietary software doesn't magically become more trustworthy over time. Programs can be made to run different branches of code on different criteria, including different dates and times (a time you can't know to test for) or on some cue from a remote site (which you can't predict). Running a program in a sandbox will not necessarily let you execute all the code nor will running a program in a sandbox somehow reduce the chances untrustworthy code will execute. Only source code analysis can produce a verifiable claim of safety.
Digital Citizen
Sounds a lot like Metalink, covered here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/144209
A popular torrent, even if you restrict the settings on your client, and put a hurt on the average cablemodem connection. I have to turn bittorrent off during the day, otherwise even very low data rates hose the latency on the VPN to work.
How soon until you're required to seed a new patch for X hours in order to download it in the first place, sucking up your bandwidth that you paid for.
Blar.
For C++, it's like developing in 1990.
So allow me to summarize your post:
Even though they're not doing it right now, and the documentation on the system says differently, there exists the possibility that Microsoft might attempt to use this in an unethical way in the future.
So even though its not happening now, its theoretically possible it could happen.
So you're going to assume it IS happening, and base your actions on this (faulty) assumption, with no regard to the reality of the situation.
Is that about right?
Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
That doesn't sound right to me... that would largely create segregated clusters of peers that don't talk to each other. That would likely hurt the swarm rather than help it.
That's why I said by preference
From what I understand, the bittorrent protocol tries to create a complete 'mini-swarm' in a given network segment, but sharing still happens between segments.
If part X is already on the network segment, it gets a lower priority to be sent to a different computer on that segment as compared to segment Y, which isn't on that segment. Clients, by preference, connect many or most of their connections within that segment.
These are all preferences and tendencies, not hard rules.
I don't read AC A human right