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
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!) And
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--
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 distributed
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
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. If the nodes
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 news
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 are all
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] becomes hard if
] 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
--
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, zachary rosen wrote:
http
10 matches
Mail list logo
