[Wolves] Bit Torrent is rubbish

[Stuart Langridge]

On Apr 1, 2005 2:30 PM, Peter Cannon <peter at cannon-linux.co.uk> wrote:
> No, no, no. I'm not stupid I've used Kazaa and one or two others the principle
> is the same regardless of OS or Program used.
> 
> The first poor sap who sticks the file or ISO in the shared folder gets hooked
> into once two, three, four billion have it, and if they leave it in their
> folder, others can get it too.
> 
> The speed comes from two areas;
> 1. Availability i.e. lots of shared folders have it.
> 2. Upload speed.
> 
> Theres no magic Bit Torrent fairy

Not quite the case, if you can bring yourself to stop ranting for one
sec, Pete old boy. As soon as you've downloaded a little bit, that
little bit is shared. So if you've got one guy who puts an ISO into a
shared folder, he gets hit by downloader 1. But he won't necessarily
get hit by downloader 2; d2 will probably be getting the first bit of
the file from d1.
 
If something *is* directly FTP/HTTPable, *and you can get a
connection*, BT is better. It's not better if one guy wants to
download it; it's good if you need to spread the load when lots of
people want it. Your example above of the one guy with the ISO is
exactly correct for FTP; if you put up a popular file for FTP then you
have to handle all the bandwidth. If the file you want is FTPable,
don't use BitTorrent, unless you can't get at the FTP server because
it's *too* popular.

Aq.