The more relevent question is whether you can have a peer-to-peer network without central servers that *can* scale. And the answer is "no".
I hate to be a stickler, but the relevant question would be: Can a peer-to-peer network scale by solely relying on search packets to be propigated? No...
However, in your next paragraph you open the window to the solution.
However, the REAL question is whether you can have a peer-to-peer network with decentralized servers, i.e., with clients that automatically establish a heirarchy among all the clients, and certain clients become more "server like".
Why do only certain clients limited to being more "server like". Every client could index some of the content of other machines. The question is: How can clients efficiently catalog the contents of other machines? Catalog segmentation (where peers only index files of a specified criteria) comes to mind as well as a number of other methods.
The current scenerio is does nothing like this. As soon as I connect to GNUTella, I'm flooded with tons of requests that I don't have,
and all my client can say is Yes or No?
This is WHY GNUTella sucks! If clients could answer back, "I don't have it, but this guy does."
we'd have a lot less search packets and a much more scalable network.
I have the upmost respect for those who have
deicated thier free time to supporting GNU
software, but I hope this sort of post rings
the bell.
While Linux and other GNU projects have provided
viable alternatives to running a host of
applications and services there is still a lot
of gaps to be filled in.
I don't want to discourage anyone who advocates Linux of free software in general. Just keep in mind that Linux still needs to grow.
I can't really say I agree or disagree with Raskin. I do think he makes a good point about how a normal user shouldn't have to deal with the irrelivant details of the OS, however I'm not quite sure if I follow or agree with his method to address the issue.
I was always under the assumption that a well designed OS should be intuitively layered in a way that allows different users and developers to take advantage of the services it provides in different ways.
This approach has always allowed a third-party to address an issue with the kernal, operating system, and design a solution without having to break the underline operating system, which usually results in an operating system that is designed around components which are the best of thier breed (A Darwinian Approach).
I think as long as we layer the underline technologies (kernal, filesystems, drivers, etc.) elegantly, the rest should eventually fall into place.
Slashdot Mirror
The more relevent question is whether you can have a peer-to-peer network without central servers that *can* scale. And the answer is "no".
I hate to be a stickler, but the relevant question would be: Can a peer-to-peer network scale by solely relying on search packets to be propigated? No... However, in your next paragraph you open the window to the solution.
However, the REAL question is whether you can have a peer-to-peer network with decentralized servers, i.e., with clients that automatically establish a heirarchy among all the clients, and certain clients become more "server like".
Why do only certain clients limited to being more "server like". Every client could index some of the content of other machines. The question is: How can clients efficiently catalog the contents of other machines? Catalog segmentation (where peers only index files of a specified criteria) comes to mind as well as a number of other methods.
The current scenerio is does nothing like this. As soon as I connect to GNUTella, I'm flooded with tons of requests that I don't have, and all my client can say is Yes or No?
This is WHY GNUTella sucks! If clients could answer back, "I don't have it, but this guy does." we'd have a lot less search packets and a much more scalable network.
I have the upmost respect for those who have
deicated thier free time to supporting GNU
software, but I hope this sort of post rings
the bell.
While Linux and other GNU projects have provided
viable alternatives to running a host of
applications and services there is still a lot
of gaps to be filled in.
I don't want to discourage anyone who advocates Linux of free software in general. Just keep in mind that Linux still needs to grow.
http://www.despair.com/connot.html
I can't really say I agree or disagree with Raskin. I do think he makes a good point about how a normal user shouldn't have to deal with the irrelivant details of the OS, however I'm not quite sure if I follow or agree with his method to address the issue.
I was always under the assumption that a well designed OS should be intuitively layered in a way that allows different users and developers to take advantage of the services it provides in different ways.
This approach has always allowed a third-party to address an issue with the kernal, operating system, and design a solution without having to break the underline operating system, which usually results in an operating system that is designed around components which are the best of thier breed (A Darwinian Approach).
I think as long as we layer the underline technologies (kernal, filesystems, drivers, etc.) elegantly, the rest should eventually fall into place.
Thanks Darwin!