<!--QuoteBegin-http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5751857.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5751857.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The coding system used by Avalanche, which is based on network coding, is 20 percent more efficient with downloading, according to the research paper.
[/quote]
<!--QuoteBegin-http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5751857.html+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5751857.html)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Microsoft's spokesman said there are currently no official plans to release the technology or include it in any products.
[/quote]
oh, ok then.
I can totally see it, if ms were to release such a thing it would probably blocked all non-signed software, DRM encode your videos and music, etc.
ms p2p
This is total vaporware scare tactic by M$. They will never release this. If they do - two things will happen:
1. they lock it tightly with DRM - and no one will use it
2. they will not use DRM and people will use it to download illegal stuff - and RIAA and MPAA lawsuit rampages might indirectly cause them bad PR or even financial losses.
3. Tinfoil Hat Theory: they will bundle spyware with it which will track illegal downloads and quietly report it to RIAA and MPAA and alot of people will get screwed over.
Either way - who would even want to use it?
The efficiency is also a total BS. This thing is not implemented yet in any meaningful way. They only did some simulations for the paper, but nothing concrete. I will believe this if I see a real benchmark done by an impartial 3rd party - which is of course impossible because this thing only exists on paper now.
1. they lock it tightly with DRM - and no one will use it
2. they will not use DRM and people will use it to download illegal stuff - and RIAA and MPAA lawsuit rampages might indirectly cause them bad PR or even financial losses.
3. Tinfoil Hat Theory: they will bundle spyware with it which will track illegal downloads and quietly report it to RIAA and MPAA and alot of people will get screwed over.
Either way - who would even want to use it?
The efficiency is also a total BS. This thing is not implemented yet in any meaningful way. They only did some simulations for the paper, but nothing concrete. I will believe this if I see a real benchmark done by an impartial 3rd party - which is of course impossible because this thing only exists on paper now.
i think active directory does just that, well something similar. You can install "updates" to a bunch of clients in your network, dunno the specifics, never really bothered to do some reading.
vaporware, <a href='http://slashdot.org/articles/05/06/21/1 ... 109&tid=95' target='_blank'>says</a> Bram Cohen
vaporware, <a href='http://slashdot.org/articles/05/06/21/1 ... 109&tid=95' target='_blank'>says</a> Bram Cohen
Yeah but 2 things.vhw wrote:i think active directory does just that, well something similar. You can install "updates" to a bunch of clients in your network, dunno the specifics, never really bothered to do some reading.
1) MS never really propagated that feature of their software.
2) While I don't know the spicifics, I think that there would be a major difference between the two be it ons is just an updating program or that the newer will be for the longhorn systems.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests