Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

RSS And BitTorrent, Together At Last

Posted by timothy on Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:34 PM
from the oh-calculon dept.
eoyount writes "Wired has an interesting story about a really simple idea I wish I had thought of. Transferring large files across the Internet isn't easy for your average joe, but a combination of RSS and BitTorrent technology might just make it easier - Slashdot ran a previous story on the theoretical blending last year." (LegalTorrents is run by the strangely familiar simoniker, who wrote a short piece on the O'Reilly Network about how it was set up, and offers observations on how well the combination fares.) Update: 03/17 21:45 GMT by T : Ernest Miller submits two related postings he's written on RSS+BitTorrent, a combination he calls "broadcatching."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by The Importance of (529734) * on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:35PM (#8589907) Homepage
    I've been writing extensively on Corante about RSS + BitTorrent, which I call "Broadcatching" here: Broadcatching Archives [corante.com] See, for example, RSS + BitTorrent Roundup - Broadcatching Isn't MS Active Channels [corante.com] and First Broadcatching App Available! (And Related News) [corante.com].
    • by cryptochrome (303529) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:54PM (#8590688) Homepage Journal
      The way I figure it, with this bittorrent-RSS combination and a slight modification of torrent watching sites like animesuki [animesuki.com] we will essentially have a fansubbed anime online tivo at our disposal. Actually, you could have probably done that even without RSS, though it does simplify matters. The only limitations are our bandwidth and hard drives. Which actually are pretty limiting these days, especially with p2p being frequently capped.

      Hell, you could modify an actual TiVo with broadband for exactly this sort of thing, and it needn't be limited solely to anime either. I'm sure it'll be popular with overseas watchers of American TV as well.

      The international media and internet companies need to face facts and realize that Video On Demand is a reality and is already extremely popular - but that the shows people are demanding are not the ones the companies have been providing through their own limited, misfocused, and (most importantly) redundant services. Until we see simultaneous worldwide release of all media (including DVDs released simultaneously with the theatrical release) they will find themselves losing what should have been their easiest sales - those to impatiently eager fans.
        • by cryptochrome (303529) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @02:57PM (#8591317) Homepage Journal
          Large amounts?

          Can someone is can make subtitles near to or exceeding professional quality ones for free? Translating, editing, timing, and typesetting? They can and they do. That is why fansubs exist. Do they bother with sound? No, because dubs are very difficult to get even close to comparable with the original language, if at all, but subs are easy and require only a little quality control. In fact, the original producers would be wise to cultivate and sponsor these international volunteers to do the the translations and editing for them (because timing and typesetting are the most technical parts but can be applied to all the translations). Plus, unlike sound subtitles require a negligible amount of bytes compared to the video.

          Can someone distribute content for essentially no cost to the producer? Perhaps you ought to read the article again. Obviously the answer is yes. This is why digital fansubs are far more widespread and popular than the old VHS variety ever was. This is why the parent of this thread was referring to articles that describe how indy bands and movies can make themselves known and spread their work.

          Are international menus hard/expensive to make? No, unless you make it difficult for yourself in the first place. Frankly, I'm really only interested in watching the show, and a lot of the overly flashy and slow menus out there only make things annoying. Do you even need menus for online distribution? No, since generally it's just a single movie/song/album/file. How about packaging? No.

          What about when electronic distribution is not available, i.e. poor countries? Well, those guys on the blankets on the sidewalks seem to be able to manage. Certainly I've seen a few bootlegs from Hong Kong in my time with laugably bad english but probably decent chinese, and they manage. In both cases they seem to be catering to people who are priced completely out of the legitimate market rather than simply unable to access it due to a lack of translation. Which is where black markets have always taken over.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:38PM (#8589949)
    ...combining RSS and torrents is not going to solve the problem. This is the most complicated solution to a non-problem that I've seen since someone paid me to design something.
    • It may seem complicated but its not really.

      The main problem people have using bittorrent is regressive internet connections. (Until IPv6 becomes ubiquitous this is going to be a problem for many of the internet's designed uses, not just swarming media.)

      Im not so hot about RSS, but for things such a multicast or bittorrent- it really helps to get the content when everyone else is. So having a running subscription to a show you like, then have the download automatically kick-in as soon as it becomes availab
  • OK, newbie question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nplugd (662449) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:38PM (#8589951) Homepage
    where can I find clear info regarding what is RSS exactly ? Isn't it somehow like what microsoft tried to do a couple years ago with their "Active Desktop" (c) TM concept ? Or am I completely way off ?
    • by dealsites (746817) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:43PM (#8590008) Homepage
      RSS feeds are an easy way to move news from site to site. For example, here is Slashdot's RSS feed [slashdot.org]

      You can find more information here [harvard.edu]

      --
      Real-time deal updates, over 400 a day! [dealsites.net]
    • by LostCluster (625375) * on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:51PM (#8590104) Homepage
      RSS is "Really Simple Syndication" and it's best thought of as a spinoff to XML. It's a language under which blog-type news-channels can publish their content using, and then the user can use an RSS client that can group stories together into whatever sequence the user wants to see.

      It's also seen as a effective way to replace e-mail mailing lists. Instead of getting your newsletters in your e-mail client, open them up in your RSS client which works on a pull basis rather than a push basis, but can still present the content to the user just like an e-mail program might.

      It's very different than Active Desktop... that was just the idea of letting IE browser windows be part of the Windows Desktop level so that users could have a frequently-refreshed mini-page of content on their desktop.
        • RSS is completely different from usenet. Usenet is very email centric (each post is akin to an email, and the newsgroup is akin to a mailing list, and this is all served up by a dedicated news daemon), whereas RSS is web centric (you download over http from the site that you're viewing syndication of).

          Go read Slashdot's RSS feed [slashdot.org] if you still don't get it. Basically it's just an XML document that defines story "ITEM"s as having a title, link, description and other fields.
  • by Gunsmithy (554829) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:41PM (#8589988) Homepage
    Although it's cool that companies are finding legit uses for BT (I believe the Worlds of Warcraft beta is being distributed this way), I'm not sure the legal departments are up to speed yet. To quote one of the fellows in my IRC chat:

    "Hrm, WoW is bing distributed by Bittorrent. Meanwhile, I get angry phonecalls from Vivendi to shut down Bittorrent."

    Yay for technical advances, but can commercial interests fully embrace it without killing the "evils" of it?
  • by anti11es (167289) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:41PM (#8589991) Homepage
    The problem with bittorrent is that a lot of users disconnect as soon as their download is finished. Won't this be an even bigger problem with game downloads (specifically multiplayer games) since even if the users knows they should stay connected afterwards, they might not since it would lag their game?
    • Arguably, yes... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:49PM (#8590072) Homepage
      ...but in that case, you're no worse off than before. And realistically, if there's some huge download I'll usually just start it before I head to bed. Of course, if you're sitting there counting down the seconds until it's done, that's different...

      Kjella
    • by Mojojojo Monkey Inc. (174471) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:51PM (#8590101)
      No, because if someone downloading a 100MB patch uploads even 10 MB during their BT session and closes it right after it's downloaded, that's still 10 MB the main servers don't have to send. Take Blizzard for example. Right now, their company's servers have to send 100% of the patch files. With BT, if they can cut that to 50% or even 80%, that's a huge benefit.

      When you don't think of it in terms of people uploading movie files, and think in terms of companies using the technology to ease load on their web servers, now you're looking at BT the way the author intended!
      • by cryptochrome (303529) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:29PM (#8590478) Homepage Journal
        Since data sent equals data recieved within a BT swarm, and some people will act as seeders and continue to send more data than they recieved, you will always have people who will simply not have the opportunity to contribute to the swarm, mostly at the tail end. And of course many folks have their uploads limited or even completely cut off.

        The real problem with bittorrent is that by enabling efficient transfer of large files, people are transferring larger files. And the service providers simply do not have the capacity for everyone to be sending those large files. They may advertise unlimited access but kids they really aren't set up for it. To say nothing of the fact that the way the internet is structured now is no longer geared towards everyone being as able to send as well as they are to recieve.

        Really, the internet and its billing structure should be geared towards billing by amount received, and not amount served, and widespread implementation of load-sharing protocols like bittorrent. It would be far more efficient and fair, and would encourage people to limit their consumption rather than penalizing inadvertently popular unsupported sites.
    • by Uggy (99326) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:00PM (#8590186) Homepage
      That's okay, if only one person is downloading, then that person will get it from original source, right? I believe this is how it works.

      If the download is not popular, than the orginator of the content can handle the bandwidth. Bittorrent's benefits kick in when something is popular, where there are simultaneous downloads at any given moment. If demand trickles back to one request every hour, than obviously the originator can handle it. Once it is no longer relevant, the orginator of the content can disable the tracker.

      Bittorrent is a p2p network that works BETTER the more people are using it. Once everyone disconnects, then you revert to the worst case scenario, which is just straight downloading.

      So don't worry, disconnecting after you finish is okay. You did your civic duty by sharing the bits while your download was in process. Enjoy your game guilt free.

      I believe this is how bittorrent works. If I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll be corrected within - 3 - 2 -1 NOW

      • by Ggggeo (163895) <ggggeo&gmail,com> on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:35PM (#8590530) Homepage
        So don't worry, disconnecting after you finish is okay. You did your civic duty by sharing the bits while your download was in process. Enjoy your game guilt free.

        Maybe...although it is much nicer if you let your u/l to d/l ratio is at least 50% - 100% is even nicer. You can can quit right after you finish, but it would be like only sharing 10% or so of your files on P2P networks that you downloaded. A step up from a true leech but not sharing completely.

    • There's a big difference between a manual BitTorrent download (which is what you are talking about) and an automated download in the middle of the night. If your RSS reader is doing the download then it can simply be coded to not stop sharing as soon as the download is finished; voila, no more problem.
      • Nice attempt at a troll, but by using BitTorrent at all, you are uploading. (Either that, or you want us to believe that you use a hacked client that will download at a screaming rate of 0.1k per second, max.) P.S. You take a greater risk of death every time you step in a car than you run a risk of being sued when you upload a file in Kazaa.
      • BT is non-linear as you suggest. The n'th person gets the n'th chunk. This still allows for (randomly-caused) relative scarcity of certain chunks (although they are not the last ones!), and that is the problem you notice up around 98%.

        No, seriously, try playing a partially complete BT download of an AVI with a player that doesn't look for the index (mplayer, DivX, etc.). The file is missing random chunks, not the end.
  • Uphill battle? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:42PM (#8589994) Homepage Journal

    Many ISPs and college campuses block P2P ports, BitTorrent included. I'm not sure that 'news' is a compelling enough reason to have many (or any) of them change their policies.
  • by molo (94384) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:42PM (#8589995) Journal
    This sounds like exactly what SuprNova.org needs. It would relieve some of the server load on their main pages and would enable them to serve more .torrent files.

    -molo
    • Re:SuprNova.org ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by easyfrag (210329) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:06PM (#8590250)
      You can already subscribe to SuprNova feeds right here. [varchars.com] Half way down.
    • Re:SuprNova.org ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cybermace5 (446439) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:15PM (#8590328) Homepage Journal
      Suprnova is pretty much the major culprit in associating Bittorrent with illegal file trading. Full movies, warez, etc make up the bulk of their content. It's making things difficult for legit uses of Bittorrent, of there are many. Beware if you download anything off Suprnova, the RIAA and MPAA are watching those torrents and gathering some nice logs of IP addresses and times. Remember that by participating in a Bittorrent you are uploading.

      Too many good uses for Bittorrent to let the warez kiddies spoil it for us.
  • Bah. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:43PM (#8590018)
    People keep trying to make BitTorrent something it isn't. And really, we should be fighting its corporate adoption in any form, as it's simply an attempt to shift server bandwidth costs to the client. ISPs eat that right now, but we're going to metered access if this keeps up.

    Which is effectively getting us to pay for website access/services, but instead of giving the money to the content creators we'll be giving it to ISPs instead and paying in bandwidth besides. So this is a bad idea.
    • Re:Bah. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Smallpond (221300) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:32PM (#8590506) Homepage Journal
      You seem to believe that 'corporations' should pay whatever it takes to upgrade their servers and bandwidth in order to give you decent download times for free. Heh. If BT lets me get fast download times at the cost of using some of my mostly idle upload bandwidth, I think its a great idea.

      As for ISPs metering bandwidth, guess what, you have to pay for what you use anyway, otherwise the ISP doesn't stay in business. It doesn't matter whether its metered or a fixed $30 or $60 / month. It has to cover their costs. If you're complaining that your cost would go up with metering, its because you think that you use a lot more bandwidth then everyone else. So you're just trying to shift the costs to the people that don't use as much. Pot, meet kettle.

  • by qbert911 (751066) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:49PM (#8590071) Homepage Journal
    This sounds like a wonderful melding of two current technologies...
    However, remember when cable gained enough steam to warrant not one but many 24hr cable news networks? We are now blessed with an overabundance of crappy sensationalist "reporting". I do NOT want cnn/msnbc/fuxnews/etc. landing on my HD.

    If an individual set up a feed for say, a favorite game or movie alone, I would subscribe. But most webpages I read, I gloss over quickly then am done with.
    If I, and everyone else had subscribtions to all of the media content of their favorite websites delivered autonomously, the majority of it getting thrown out quickly...

    think of the bandwith, the poor helpless bandwith, won't somebody please think of the child., er bandwidth!?

  • by pragma_x (644215) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:52PM (#8590113) Journal
    BitTorrent's weak spot has always been thedistribution of the torrent files in the first place. If there isn't a torrent file on the conent provider's page, where do you look?

    RSS+BitTorrent, is a step closer to a better web. It almost answers the problem of pointing your client at an actively downloaded torrent by steering users twoard a slimmer and more flexible protocol.

    IMO, maybe some kind of 'standard' torrent directory/lookup that is guarnteed to be traded by all torrent clients is the right ticket; kind of like a DNS for media. The RSS+Torrent scheme is good, but all it does is displace the complexity of the matter onto a new protocol and rely on everyone hitting the same feed to begin (the problem Torrent is trying to eliminate).

    It does however, make it easy to make distributing torrents a lot more dynamic. Neat stuff.
  • by Hard_Code (49548) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:53PM (#8590128)
    Isn't this just Konspire2b? Konspire2b was designed specifically for this purpose:

    Konspire2b [sourceforge.net]

    Essentially you subscribe to channels which push content instead of pulling.

    Compared to Bittorrent [sourceforge.net]

    This is an exhaustive analysis (with pretty charts) why under the above scenario (pushing content, as opposed to pulling), Konspire2b is much more efficient.
    • by Mark J Tilford (186) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:48PM (#8590642)
      Unfortunately, one assumption at the beginning, that the cascading model is best-case performance for BitTorrent, is completely wrong. It's actually worst-case performance.

      A scattered model gives BT as taking O(log(number of people)/(number of chunks) + 1) time for everyone to download the whole file instead of O(sqrt(number people)) as claimed in the article.
  • How long before ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PhiltheeG (688063) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:06PM (#8590252)
    1. spammers learn how to tap into channels to use everybody else's bandwidth to deliver ads as content
    2. it grinds to a halt from massive amounts of pr0n, warez, divx;), mp3 music, etc.
    3. it is used to send virii to people, eroding trust of it

    ???

    Sorry if I seem like I'm trolling but these questions will be asked at some point

    • by Jeremi (14640) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @02:05PM (#8590775) Homepage
      I think the problems you ask about are all problems inherent to a push medium (e.g. email) -- which AFAIK RSS is not. That is, the end user decides which RSS feeds to poll, and when to poll them. Therefore, if an RSS feed starts sending viruses or otherwise being malevolent, people will just stop using it and move on to other RSS feeds.


      (Someone correct me if I'm wrong about this)

  • What a great idea! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thurn und Taxis (411165) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:07PM (#8590255) Homepage
    The best thing about this idea is that it plays right into the strength of bittorrent - namely, having a large number of people trying to get the same content at the same time. Since everyone will get the RSS feed at roughly the same time, there will be a large number of peers to share the load for bittorrent.

    The funny thing is, I ran into Andrew the other day, and he was just gushing about this new idea he had! I had no idea what he was talking about at the time. Guess I missed my chance to post a story on slashdot.
  • One step closer to Nirvana. Bittorrent + RSS + gentoo emerge --update world. Or how about something that uses software-suspend to automagically hot-swap in the latest bleeding edge kernel? Maybe the Hurd allows on-the-fly kernel upgrades.
  • by ikewillis (586793) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:33PM (#8590514) Homepage
    Distribution of RSS isn't so much a problem as is the fact that web servers are hammered by RSS connections as RSS syndicators must continue polling the web server to identify when the RSS document updates.

    This problem is easily addressed with multicasting. All a server need do is send a multicast datagram to notify all RSS syndicators that the RSS document has been updated, at which time the syndicators can fetch the new document.

  • by Googol (63685) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:41PM (#8590584)
    In the left hand corner: BitTorrent+RSS is good for News

    In the right hand corner: Hackers Embrace P2P [yahoo.com]

  • by Awptimus Prime (695459) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:41PM (#8590585)
    "I could wake up in the morning and find the latest recordings from my favorite band loaded into my portable MP3 player, and just pick it up and go."

    I don't understand where they are coming from here. If I am going to pay to download music, which consists of relatively small files, I am not going to run a BT to help out an online music store.

    When they start mentioning uses so far off the base of reality, the whole article starts to smell of BS. Especially since the slowest part of the MP3 experience tends to be copying music from the PC to the player.

    Typically, I load new tracks on my ipod before leaving in the morning. I'll tag the stuff, then transfer it before I hop into the shower. As far as downloading goes, I can download a whole CD of music in ~10 minutes. The only way the article's method would be worth doing would be if you invested in huge libraries of online music purchases daily.

    On that note: Please quit looking to solve problems that don't exist.

    • by jared_hanson (514797) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @02:06PM (#8590782) Homepage Journal
      Hey, quit bitching and open your mind a little bit.

      Let's say your favorite band just went on tour and as part of a promotion they decided to post a few songs and videos "bootlegged" from each concert.

      Now, it might get kinda anoying to load up their page every couple of days and click on each link to download the media. However, they could post an RSS feed with BitTorrent links that you subscribe to just once. Everytime a new bootleg goes online, the RSS feed gets updated, and the content gets downloaded to your computer automatically.

      Where would we be if everytime the Internet was mentioned 50 years ago, people ranted and raved about how the postal service already solved the problem of distributing content?

      This is seriously cool stuff, you are just too closed minded to realise it.
  • by jameshowison (162886) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:50PM (#8590656) Homepage

    A million years ago (1998?) Wired published a whole edition on Push as the Next Big Thing. It was the first time I was really aware of them being totally wrong. Or perhaps just a bit ahead of their time.

    While I think this is a neater solution, there is another product that does exactly the same thing, allow you to subscribe to channels and received pushed content via incentive compatible (you get faster speeds if you upload more) swarms.

    It's called kast [sf.net].

  • by mveloso (325617) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @02:21PM (#8590933)
    Realistically speaking, the biggest problem with Bittorrent is seeding. I think this is how bittorrent works:

    * a file is seeded, and a .torrent file generated
    * that .torrent file is uploaded to a tracker
    * clients who want to download the file download the .torrent from the tracker
    * the user opens the .torrent file, which causes the the bittorrent client asks the tracker for the machines/locations of the seeds and people downloading the file(s) pointed to by the .torrent
    * the client downloads various chunks of the files from both the seeds and the other downloaders

    The more people download a file, the better bittorrent is able to spread the bandwidth.

    The downside is that if a file isn't seeded, it's no longer available. If a .torrent goes missing, the file is inaccessible. If the tracker goes away, the file is inaccessible.

    Bittorrent's main problem right now, which is a client problem, is its upstream usage can easily swamp a home connection. That's just dumb client design.

    Upload limiting works, but limits your download speed. The client develoeprs have to recognize that yes, sharing is nice and leeching is bad, but disrupting the users' connection is a Very Bad Thing.
    • by SFBwian (744032) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @03:20PM (#8591555)
      Personally, I think that having to use a file to launch an application to join the torrent network is a bit convoluted.

      I think that ideally, the most a user should see is bt://sitename.domain/file.zip, or something similar. The OS/browser should be able to handle that sort of protocol, and send it to the right application or use an integrated bit torrent client to get the file.

      Correct me if I'm really wrong on this, or if it already exists. This would also be a welcome addition to Mozilla, I think.

    • by Ziviyr (95582) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @03:20PM (#8591556) Homepage
      Upload limiting works, but limits your download speed. The client develoeprs have to recognize that yes, sharing is nice and leeching is bad, but disrupting the users' connection is a Very Bad Thing.

      A decent client, of which there are many, will let you throttle your outbound.

      Note that the way torrent works, if noone uploads, noone downloads. And the faster everyone pushes, the faster everyone gets. Its not so much an artificial thing as it is an economy of bandwidth.

      And again, if you don't like sending full tilt, find a better client.
    • Re:BitTorrent (Score:5, Informative)

      by frazzydee (731240) * on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:37PM (#8589940)
      BitTorrent is basically another p2p service, except it's different (yes, i'm trying to be very specific here)
      It allows for people to take advantage of bandwith by downloding bits of a large file from different users hosting a 'torrent.' At the end, all these pieces are put together. Yes, it is pretty good.
    • Re:Neato (Score:5, Informative)

      by keyshawn632 (726102) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @12:49PM (#8590075) Journal

      No new browser protocol is needed.

      The technology is already available at http://freecache.org/ [from the peeps @ archive.org]

      I don't why many others have jumped on the bandwagon yet.
      • Re:Neato (Score:5, Informative)

        by robslimo (587196) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:00PM (#8590193) Homepage Journal
        Wow! You're right, with one smallish exception:

        Please note that you cannot submit a whole site to FreeCache as in http://freecache.org/http://www.rocklobsters.com/ This will not work as only index.html will be cached. You have to prefix every item that you want to have cached seperately.

        Using the last THG article as an example, either the Slashdot story would need to point to each page individually via freecache redirection or Tom's Hardware would need to do it.

        Not quite as transparent as incorporating BitTorrent into the browser.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Please provide proof that BitTorrent is 'based' on KaZaA sourcecode. Of course, you can't.

      I do know that Bram talked with the authors of Furthur [slashdot.org], an open-source JAVA P2P for legal content. A few members of the Furthur dev team also work for a company that once did buisness with Sharman Networks, so if anything, KaZaA source may be based on already GPL-ed software... but don't tell anyone that :)

      Of course, all modern P2P is 'based' on Napster or Gnutella (take your pick), so it's all a mute point anyway
    • by nestler (201193) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:02PM (#8590213)
      The previous poster is incorrect. BitTorrent has nothing to do with Kazaa (0 lines of code in common).

      BitTorrent is open source (MIT license) and written in Python.

      Kazaa is closed source, spyware-ridden dreck that was probably written in C++.
    • by ExtraT (704420) on Wednesday March 17 2004, @01:05PM (#8590241)
      Bittorrent protocol has nothing in common with the protocol used by Kazaa (FastTrack). Even their basic P2P topologies are different.

      Also, Kazaa is in trouble not for it's protocol, but for running servers that allow piracy, it's just in Kazaa's case one automatically means the other, since the protocol is closed source. Of course, Bittorrent trackers that host pirated material are also susceptable to such troubles - but this has nothing to do with Bittorrent protocol itself.
    • The RSS file itself is not distributed over BitTorrent. As you say, no gain for small files.

      (I've noodled around trying to distribute RSS loads but it's hard to make it worthwhile.)

      The .torrent file is distributed in the RSS file, and your BitTorrent+RSS enabled feed-reader downloads the file the torrent represents, which may be of course huge. The idea is that this allows normal folks like you and me to distribute honkin' files with the best of them.

      Other comments in the replies decrying corporate invol