[Smaug] Zero tolerance for P2P?
josh at unixmercenary.net
Mon, 13 May 2002 06:06:25 -0700
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 02:56:03PM -0700, CERisE...mass consumer of bazooka gum wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2002, Josh Neal wrote:
> The point being that it involves a separate process. True P2P software
> handles both sides of the transaction internally. Win file sharing
> handles one side. It just so happens that you can run it the reverse
> route as well. There is a definite server and a definite client for each
Hmmm. I have trouble with this definition; the term "peer to peer networking" was commonly used to describe ad-hoc file sharing ala Windows File Sharing / AppleShare well before Napster and its poorer cousins appeared.
> Why do I get the feeling that Word.hqx became Hot_Monkey_Sex.hqx? ; )
Probably so. But: a) bandwidth usage by student file servers dropped like a dot-com stock, and b) the college's lawyers were satisfied that we were making best effort to stop unauthorized redistribution of software by way of college-supplied means.
> Let's say that I'm an art student and I do this nice 30 second film
> presentation in raw, uncompressed video. That could be equally as much of
> a bandwidth hog. Does that mean it's wrong to share it?
No, that's not misuse. That's a legitimate use of an academic network. (Though I might be tempted to have a gentle talk with the Art Department about the virtue of MPEG video.)
> I suppose the only true solution is to annihilate all sharing
> altogether. That of course is impossible.
It's an issue of assuring the proper use of college-owned resources.
> Partial restriction just
> makes people work a little harder to get what they want. 8)
Darwinism at work, thinning the herd.
"I would kill everyone in this room for a drop of sweet beer."
-- Homer Simpson