TED]> wrote:
> Subject: [hackers] Re: Edge-to-Edge Principal / Reed's Law
>
>
> Hi, Zack.
>
> Thanks for the pointers. I'm copying the list on this so we can all
> have the same context in this discussion.
>
>
> 1. THE END-TO-END ARGUMENT
> --
It seems to me this relates to the classic napster vs gnutella
achitecture
evaluation(?). The selling point of the distrubuted, decentralized
nature of
gnutella was, in the main, user privacy. Performance though, in my
personal
experience and from a system logistics point of view, was in napste
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > 1] Nodes should be able to vett the media in their repositories
> > 2] The central aggregator should be able to vett the media accessible in
> > the central repository.
> >
> > With the central solution [1] becom
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > This is exactly the reason I am so opposed to this solution. It is a
> > basic question: who do you trust more to vett / prune media on the system
> > that comes from nodes? DMT - or the nodes themselves?
>
> We
> A quick note - the decentralized system that is being proposed is NOT peer
> to peer. At the top, at the aggregator, it functions just the same as the
> centralized solution: One database, searchable and acessable by all - ie
> napster.
>
Think I got it; so the "aggregator" functions like the
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:32:53PM -0500, zachary rosen wrote:
> > On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > > The only real
> > > difference between centralized and decentralized in terms of admin work
> > > required then becomes the mundane maintenance tasks: pruning and
> > > organization. I
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > The only real
> > difference between centralized and decentralized in terms of admin work
> > required then becomes the mundane maintenance tasks: pruning and
> > organization. If the nodes are empowered to maintain their own local
> > repository then
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> > A quick note - the decentralized system that is being proposed is NOT peer
> > to peer. At the top, at the aggregator, it functions just the same as the
> > centralized solution: One database, searchable and ac
A quick note - the decentralized system that is being proposed is NOT peer
to peer. At the top, at the aggregator, it functions just the same as the
centralized solution: One database, searchable and acessable by all - ie
napster.
The difference is how the metada gets to the central DB. Either i
> > "Granted, the feasibility of an in place, functional and reliable
> > distributed system may well prove the best argument for the
> > centralized option in the end."
>
> Hi CMR,
>
> I'm sorry -- i'm still having trouble figuring out this statement.
> Did you mean that the *infeasibility* of a d
Statement edited for clarity:
"Granted, the feasibility of an in place, functional and reliable
distributed
system may well prove the best argument for the centralized option in the
end."
CMR
<--enter gratuitous quotation that implies my profundity here-->
> Giving people and media items a fixed address at one location vastly
> simplifies the problem of forming these groups and collections. It's
> much harder to find other users and media items scattered across many
> different sites than at one central site. (This is why we are building
> VV!) A
Hi, Zack.
Thanks for the pointers. I'm copying the list on this so we can all
have the same context in this discussion.
1. THE END-TO-END ARGUMENT
--
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_argument
[...]
> A lot more can be
13 matches
Mail list logo
