Stupid server semantic argument (was: Non Linux but network tech question)

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 15:59:58 EDT 2007


On 6/19/07, Thomas Charron <twaffle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For about the brazilianth time, it's not about listening on a
>>> particular port, it's about acting as server rather than a consumer.
>>
>> Bittorrent isn't a server?
>
> No, it isn't.  It isn't a client either.  It's a 'collaborative' application...

  That's a pretty good take on it, actually.  It didn't occur to me to
say "None of the above", but that's the most accurate answer.  Good
one.

  That said, for most people, BitTorrent is a traditional "client".
They aren't interested in sharing with other people; the just want
their software/movie/music/porn/whatever.  The fact that BitTorrent
enables them to get said stuff via distributed, peer-to-peer sharing
network is an accident; they just want a download.  And that's
generally the market Comcast is going after.

  I'm not a big fan of Comcast's "no servers" policy either, but I do
understand it.  Even if someone thinks Comcast is the Great Satan,
"Know thy enemy" would seem to be a good strategy.  Setting up
straw-man arguments about how "FTP listens for connections, so it's a
server too, and they allow that" is just bogus.  That's not what they
mean, and just about everybody understands that.

  Comcast does not want people providing content and services on their
feeds.  They don't want to build their network to support it, they
don't want the tech support burden, and they don't want the legal
complications.  Comcast wants people sucking down mass content like
good little drones.  Preferably broadcast and pay-per-view (best
profit margin).  It's that frelling simple.  The direction of the TCP
SYN packets is irrelevant.

  Stop fighting the wrong battle.

-- Ben


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list