@JohnDoe - I apologise if any of my remarks were interpreted by you as offensive. I did read all the posts in this topic & I do appreciate your (and other's) understanding attitude. However, I feel that
most broadband users (no generalisations intended) are concentrating on the wrong issue. I feel that the problem with
leeching is a priority!
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnDoe345
These users give users with valid reasons not to share a bad name.
|
Forgive my naivety, but what is a valid reason NOT to share? The only ones I can think of are :[list=A][*]Someone updating multimedia-rich (graphics intensive) sites or pages eg. a musician, graphic designer or web-site publisher, on a slow connection.[*]Someone uploading large files like .isos to distribute their applications eg.linux[*]Other costly business purposes.[/list=A]
As far as normal users are concerned, there shouldn't be options to disable sharing. The excuse that uploading slows downloads is unfounded. It doesn't affect my ultra-slow African dial-up connection, so why should it be an issue in countries with comparatively modern infrastructures? The "leeching phenomenon" seems to be equally spread amongst all users, regardless of connection speed, and is a major issue. I believe the solution lies in prioritising transfers (upload priority to FTP prog for example, then to p2p - like AGSat's 'Bandwidth Throttle' but more refined) & there should be some universal standard for reading 'caps' from either the ISP itself or your OS.
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnDoe345
Imag(in)e my surprise when they admit that their only reason to not share because they don't want to. Some users also admit that they simply get better speeds if they don't share, which I interpret as, "you do all the work and I'll take all the benefits".
|
Again the solution is to encourage sharing. It should be transparently complex ie. the program must be so easy to use that complete newbies don't need any other program or even know how to use windows explorer, yet intelligent enough to adapt to any changing conditions. AG is a good example. You need to share 25 songs before you can d/l more than 1 simultaneously. This model should be improved to encourage quality AND quantity, as well as even load distribution.
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnDoe345
What I've noticed is that p2p programs in general are pretty anonymous and most of them allow you to change your ID with the blink of the eye. Because of this there is almost no consequence to their actions meaning that they can pretty much get away with also anything. Most p2p programs don't have a way to ban a users or have any kind of punishment for users not sharing simply because they don't want to. Although, a system like that has to be used and implemented fairly.
|
I think that's a big problem with p2p. I don't see this changing in the forseeable future, as this is the very core design of the system (even to some extent on central-server systems like AG & Filetopia.) I forget which program has the 'karma' system, but this is a step in the right direction. However, a commercial approach is doomed to failure. Perhaps a system where quality-sharers have priority for rare files or zoom to the front of queues. This type of system is also flawed, as "quality" is subjective & quantity is a limited measure of "community worth." Some sort of compromise has to be made, something like DC yet less restrictive and elitist.
I hope I've made my opinions clear.
