[Smaug] Zero tolerance for P2P?

CERisE...mass consumer of bazooka gum cerise at littlegreenmen.armory.com
Sun, 12 May 2002 01:47:18 -0700 (PDT)

On Sat, 11 May 2002, Josh Neal wrote:

> Phil -
> Put down the crack pipe, and open a window to disperse the fumes.

   I don't know, Josh.  Someone attempting to claim that a protocol
obviously involving a definite server and a definite client as
peer-to-peer sounds more bongworthy to me.  It sounds like his feeble
attempt at a defense eliminates the term server-client because a client
can also be a server.  I can't think of any exchanges where the client is
forced into never being a server, can you?
   Let's calm down our conspiracy theories and superfluous doses of Rick's
hot air on the topic.
   Obviously, the point of the letter is that UCSC feels its bandwidth is
in scarcity.  For all we know, it may well be the case.  They have the
right to administer their network as they see fit.
   Attacking it by claiming freedom of speech issues about P2P software
being used for piracy is tangential.  Attacking it on the grounds of
freedom of use is a different story.
   Simply put, if there's a lot of bandwidth being used, they should be
happy.  That means they're getting the most for their money.  You
shouldn't take heavy load to imply that a few people are hogging the
network for everyone (even if you were, it should imply that you ought to
apply some sort of bandwidth throttle), rather you should take heavy load
to imply heavy usage and a need to add more resources.
   Either way, I'm in utter disbelief that someone could state that a well
defined server-client exchange is a peer to peer protocol.  That's the
worst blunder I've heard since Gerald Ford said that Poland is *not* under
Soviet dominion.