it seemed to me like those guys had placed emphasis on domains, but is it not possible that multiple domains may point to a single site?
for example, with suprnova.org's multitude of mirrors, it's really a single site that uses many domains, so it doesnt seem fair to me to say that 10% of the domains having over 90% of the files is a big deal, and is very skewed towards centralized locations.
i just burnt myself a cd of knoppix-3.8 the other day, for just this reason!
although i've had no reason to use it (yet), im hoping my system starts acting up soon so i finally have an excuse to use it:P
I think Wired purposefully lacked many details of the BT protocol for obvious reasons: their target audience.
I think Wired tried to dumb that article down (waaaaay down!) for the sake of moron's who cant understand what a tracker is, or the concept of optimistic (un)choking (but then again, do you really wanna read about all that stuff in a Wired article??)
seems like everybody's really picking on the little technical details (although I guess they should have reworded it to sound not-quite-as-WRONG).
I think that was done on purpose, in the article, as they were just trying to make a point (if you wan't video-on-demand, just click here) - they're not actually linking you to torrents.
if you were saying that out loud, it would make more sense:P
Slashdot Mirror
it seemed to me like those guys had placed emphasis on domains, but is it not possible that multiple domains may point to a single site?
for example, with suprnova.org's multitude of mirrors, it's really a single site that uses many domains, so it doesnt seem fair to me to say that 10% of the domains having over 90% of the files is a big deal, and is very skewed towards centralized locations.
so where can i get a nice 24-bit JPG? :)
i just burnt myself a cd of knoppix-3.8 the other day, for just this reason! although i've had no reason to use it (yet), im hoping my system starts acting up soon so i finally have an excuse to use it :P
I think Wired purposefully lacked many details of the BT protocol for obvious reasons: their target audience.
I think Wired tried to dumb that article down (waaaaay down!) for the sake of moron's who cant understand what a tracker is, or the concept of optimistic (un)choking (but then again, do you really wanna read about all that stuff in a Wired article??)
seems like everybody's really picking on the little technical details (although I guess they should have reworded it to sound not-quite-as-WRONG).
I think that was done on purpose, in the article, as they were just trying to make a point (if you wan't video-on-demand, just click here) - they're not actually linking you to torrents. if you were saying that out loud, it would make more sense :P
I read the article last night, and I'm an avid Wired reader, so I'm fairly certain it was published two days ago, at the most.
:P
In addition, the article is clearly marked January 2005, which isn't even a week old yet