[Wolves] Bit Torrent is rubbish

[Peter Cannon]

On Friday 01 April 2005 18:52, Stuart Langridge wrote:

> 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.

Chilled out Pete responds;

I'm still not overly impressed, HOWEVER (For those hard of reading) 

Now I have a beer in my hand I'm a bit calmer I'm just a bit pissed off I was 
looking forward to playing with it over the weekend plus it would have been a 
double project in respect of using Bit Torrent (This is the first download 
I've done using that method) I understand, understood fully how it works I 
was rantinting out of pure looooooooooong delay frustration.

You've got to admit 4 days is diabolical.

> 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.

Yep but thats from the file owner, ftp siteproviders perspective.

Downloaders don't give a toss if they are hammering a provider they just want 
the download and fast.

Any way you've found a new vocation Aq me old son your soothing words have 
shocked me, your the last guy I would have expected that from.

Good on ya.

-- 
Regards
Peter Cannon
peter at cannon-linux.co.uk

"There is every excuse for not knowing"
"There is no excuse for not asking"