Andreas Kotes wrote:
> seems like they've implemented something similiar TCP on top of UDP
> which does a seriously better job (the information they provide points
> in that direction). Shame they don't give it to the public for free,
> like they got TCP, UDP, IP, DNS, SMTP, HTTP, ... ... ...
> 
>    Andreas
> 
> P.S: I think it's certainly legitimate to make money from your
> invention, but holding back the evolution of the internet like this
> (i.e. when you know we all could do better by what you did if you just
> made an RFC and allowed public use) is just a shame. see you in 70 years
> :(

It's not 70 years, it's 20-something years for a patent, in the US.
(Their patent is only in the US).

It seems unlikely to hold back the internet much, as there are free
alternatives which do a similar job.  If their implementation is
particularly good it can serve as a benchmark for other methods to be
compared with and aim to outperform; no matter how good, it's highly
unlikely that they stumbled across a uniquely magical heuristic.

Check out the "TCP: advanced congestion control" option in a 2.6 Linux
kernel, and there is plenty of research on the topic.  See SCTP and
DSCP (among others) for the more transaction oriented side.

-- Jamie
-- 
To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync
Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Reply via email to