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

[VirginSnow at vfemail.net]

> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:59:58 -0400
> From: "Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com>

> 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...

>   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

True.  However...!  P2P apps like BitTorrent put similar burdens on
the infrastructure to that which running ordinary "servers" would.  It
seems to me that Comcrap (which, BTW, is the correct spelling of the
company's name) should be equally prohibitive of P2P apps as of
"serving" up content.  This is particularly true on the legal point.