C
cavjay
why is it that so many p2p are so slow,it takes ages to download.what d
you recomend to use and why
you recomend to use and why
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
T
Ted Zieglar
Most of the P2P networks on the internet are engaged in illegal file
sharing, so there is little motivation to provide an optimal customer
experience. In addition, most P2P networks are overrun with viruses, spyware
and poorly coded software, all of which cause problems on the network. To
avoid these issues, purchase your content legally.
sharing, so there is little motivation to provide an optimal customer
experience. In addition, most P2P networks are overrun with viruses, spyware
and poorly coded software, all of which cause problems on the network. To
avoid these issues, purchase your content legally.
J
Jim
Because most people have severe upload restrictions. Most cable/dsl
companies don't permit more than 128-256k on the upload side. So no matter
how much download bandwidth is provided, whenever you're dealing with peers
who have the same upload restrictions as you (which is most ppl), well...,
as you can imagine, this makes the entire P2P network highly inefficient.
And worse, most people are allowing multiple, concurrent uploads, so that
128-256k is shared. And dial-up is even worse, everyone's sharing a measly
5k or less. There's also a danger in permitting too much upload traffic --
your ISP is almost certainly monitoring bandwidth usage and *may* conclude
you are offering a web service, which is usually a violation of your terms
of use for residential customers. Most cable/dsl ISP's will require an
upgrade to a commercial grade service if you wish to provide web services,
which of course means substantially increased costs to you.
Bottomline -- p2p networks are inherently inefficient, but usually NOT due
to technological hurdles or bad software, but almost entirely policy-driven
reasons.
Jim
companies don't permit more than 128-256k on the upload side. So no matter
how much download bandwidth is provided, whenever you're dealing with peers
who have the same upload restrictions as you (which is most ppl), well...,
as you can imagine, this makes the entire P2P network highly inefficient.
And worse, most people are allowing multiple, concurrent uploads, so that
128-256k is shared. And dial-up is even worse, everyone's sharing a measly
5k or less. There's also a danger in permitting too much upload traffic --
your ISP is almost certainly monitoring bandwidth usage and *may* conclude
you are offering a web service, which is usually a violation of your terms
of use for residential customers. Most cable/dsl ISP's will require an
upgrade to a commercial grade service if you wish to provide web services,
which of course means substantially increased costs to you.
Bottomline -- p2p networks are inherently inefficient, but usually NOT due
to technological hurdles or bad software, but almost entirely policy-driven
reasons.
Jim
T
Triffid
Ted said:Most of the P2P networks on the internet are engaged in illegal file
sharing, so there is little motivation to provide an optimal customer
experience. In addition, most P2P networks are overrun with viruses, spyware
and poorly coded software, all of which cause problems on the network. To
avoid these issues, purchase your content legally.
Certainly one could reasonably expect to avoid these issues by
purchasing content legally, but that's not the case.
Recently my son asked me to type the admin password on his XP system so
he could install P2P software and download music he wanted. I refused,
informed him of the malware risks and legal implications - and suggested
he buy the CD.
He bought the CD, which attempted to install a poorly coded rootkit on
his system without asking. Not only could he not play the music he had
purchased, XP could no longer access his CD drive at all.
I repaired his system by restoring a recent Ghost image, and used Unix
tools to extract his music and burn it to a standard CDDA format disc.
We then returned the original disc to the store and demanded a refund
because it had been sold as an audio CD, but was not.
Needless to say, all this wasted several hours of my time - and my son
is now sceptical of the values I have attempted to instill regarding
intellectual property rights as a direct result.
Triffid
T
Ted Zieglar
Taking your post at face value, your son's experience is one of many he will
have as he grows older that will teach him that not everything works the way
it's supposed to, but that the exception does not destroy the rule.
Your son is fortunate to have a father who understands this and will no
doubt lead him in the right direction.
have as he grows older that will teach him that not everything works the way
it's supposed to, but that the exception does not destroy the rule.
Your son is fortunate to have a father who understands this and will no
doubt lead him in the right direction.
T
Triffid
Taking your post at face value, your son's experience is one of many he will
The flack Sony is receiving in the press this week for their DRM Rootkit
certainly helps.
Modifying the Windows APIs to hide files and registry keys really is
going too far. I suspect Microsoft would have serious concerns about it
- consider the implications if a security vulnerability were discovered
in one of the API DLLs hacked by the DRM Rootkit. Microsoft would
release an update, but it would either fail to install (because the
installer couldn't recognise the current DLL version), or install with
unpredictable results (because it hadn't been validated on a hacked system).
This won't happen to us again - the rule now is that all new audio CDs
are checked on a Unix system first. If they aren't in standard CDDA
format, they will be converted and burned in CDDA, and the original disc
sealed with a warning sticker. This is a viable solution unless you are
subject to DCMA or similar legislation.
BTW the offending disc in our case was published by EMI - so the issue
is wider than "less than 20 titles" from Sony as reported in the press.
Triffid
have as he grows older that will teach him that not everything works the way
it's supposed to, but that the exception does not destroy the rule.
Your son is fortunate to have a father who understands this and will no
doubt lead him in the right direction.
The flack Sony is receiving in the press this week for their DRM Rootkit
certainly helps.
Modifying the Windows APIs to hide files and registry keys really is
going too far. I suspect Microsoft would have serious concerns about it
- consider the implications if a security vulnerability were discovered
in one of the API DLLs hacked by the DRM Rootkit. Microsoft would
release an update, but it would either fail to install (because the
installer couldn't recognise the current DLL version), or install with
unpredictable results (because it hadn't been validated on a hacked system).
This won't happen to us again - the rule now is that all new audio CDs
are checked on a Unix system first. If they aren't in standard CDDA
format, they will be converted and burned in CDDA, and the original disc
sealed with a warning sticker. This is a viable solution unless you are
subject to DCMA or similar legislation.
BTW the offending disc in our case was published by EMI - so the issue
is wider than "less than 20 titles" from Sony as reported in the press.
Triffid
T
Triffid
Triffid said:The flack Sony is receiving in the press this week for their DRM Rootkit
certainly helps.
Modifying the Windows APIs to hide files and registry keys really is
going too far. I suspect Microsoft would have serious concerns about it
It seems Microsoft has determined that Sony's DRM software is malicious,
and they plan to remove it. I am in full agreement with them!
http://blogs.technet.com/antimalware/archive/2005/11/12/414299.aspx
Triffid