[bittorrent] Open letter to the BBC
arachnid at notdot.net
Sun Jun 19 16:51:08 EDT 2005
On 20/06/2005, at 7:11 AM, larytet.8708132 at bloglines.com wrote:
> Why bittorrent and not Rodi ?
> no need for tracker, signed packets, UDP undrelrying
> protocol, can stream data in future, ability to mutlicast, indexing
> of the
> content in case of text files, etc.
Because BitTorrent is established, has many clients written for it,
is well tested and well known.
'Rodi', on the other hand, isn't known to anyone as anything except
your pet project, as far as I know.
> if you do not want Rodi, why just not
> any of tens other existing protocols ?
Because BitTorrent meets criteria that all the other protocols fail
> BT creates up to 50% overhead.
> This is probably one of the most expensive protocols in terms of
> the badnwidth
This is the first claim I've seen of overhead anything like this.
Have you got anything to back it up with?
Not to mention, this is the BitTorrent list. If you believe BT is
such a poor protocol and shouldn't be used, what are you doing here?
More information about the BitTorrent