Jamie, Some comments below. Will come back here later.
2005/11/25, Jamie Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > b) Each client would have to push patches to every other > client, so the bandwidth available to each client becomes much more > significant (Darcs over BitTorrent anyone? :-). I am not quite sure. The P2P network would come in to solve this badwidth/sharing problem. One developer would just say 'Hey, I have finished a modification here and would like to make it available to others', and the system would insert the modification on the network. Bittorrent (as is) can't be used as I intend. It currently doesn't support dynamic content. This would be needed to inject the new patches on the network. > I can only see a > benefit if you know all users are on ADSL and there is no possibility > of a better-connected server. Any other configuration (some modem > users, a LAN, etc.) seems to favour the centralised setup. I would agree that on a LAN scenario the centralized architecture would be much easier to set up, manage and even more efficient. The main concern here wouldn't be usage over a LAN (although it is obviously possible to do), but over worse-connected hosts through the Internet, like the other ones you cited (DSL and the likes). This is actually a reality at my place. People can pay for a DSL or cable connection, greater bandwidth connections prices are prohibitive. > Incidentally, presumably most projects that can't manage to have a > well-connected server are open source? Yeah, they would undoubtly be the majority of users. I think such a setup would give more freedom to open-source developers, they wouldn't need to depend on a central (not always accessible or fast) host. With a reasonable number of developers/users/suporters for the project, the P2P network would be even more reliable than a central server. Regards, Thiago Arrais _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
