Microsoft Reinvents Bittorrent

Anon E. Muss writes "Microsoft has a new Secure Content Downloader tool that sounds an awful lot like a Bittorrent clone. It's described as a 'peer-assisted technology' where '[e]ach client downloads content by exchanging parts of the file they're interested in with other clients, in addition to downloading parts from the server.' Right now MSCD is just a time-limited preview, intended to support downloads of select Microsoft beta releases (e.g. Visual Studio 2008). If this test goes well, Microsoft will probably start using MSCD for all their large downloads. How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?"

bllizard, wow patcher

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

People have no problem with this and blizzard. Expect the double standard to kick in in 3.. 2.. 1..

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[secolactico (519805)]

People have no problem with this and blizzard. Expect the double standard to kick in in 3.. 2.. 1..

Are you kidding? Whenever a patch came out, the chief complaint in the forums was the bittorrent downloader. Blizzard even lists alternative (third party) download sites on their patch page because of this. Besides, they didn't re-invent bittorrent. They stated from the beginning what protocol they were using.

I see nothing wrong with MS doing this just like I see nothing wrong with bittorrent.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[pixelpusher220 (529617)]

I'd have no problem with MS *using* bittorrent either. Unfortunately MS is claiming this is their own home grown technology that they invented.

I surely hope Bram Cohen patented his little invention...

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622)]

Good, then P2P networks using that protocol can spring up and not be blocked by ISPs.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[schon (31600)]

Others have pointed out your straw man, but nobody has pointed you to this, [penny-arcade.com] so I thought I might.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[nakkenakuttaja (978938)]

For me personally the answer is simple: Nothing gives me more pleasure than reading serious Microsoft bashing. It's really one of the main reasons why I read Slashdot. And I'm 46 years old. Being anti-Microsoft is a universal feeling for all generations, genders, races etc. It really brings our minds and hearts together no matter if you are 15 or 46. And often saves my day and it makes me feel so good inside!

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[cromar (1103585)]

I work 40 hours a week doing .NET programming. The reason a lot of people hear dislike Microsoft is because of their horrible track record of stifling innovation, using their monopoly to crush opposition, and consistently releasing inferior products after their announced release date is long past. And that's merely the tip of the iceberg.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[Bender Unit 22 (216955)]

Let me end it.

You sir, are worse than Hitler!

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[jorghis (1000092)]

"How is it a double standard if someone doesn't want to support Microsoft while wanting support a company they like, such as Blizzard?"

The definition of a double standard is to apply one standard to judge two groups differently for the same infraction because of issues external to the matter at hand. In this instance you want to condemn MS and give Blizzard a free pass because of your stance on open standards. (this seems a bit dubious, every standard Blizzard has is closed, they have sued people in the past for trying to make servers that do the same thing as battle.net and so forth, but I digress) So what you are doing is prettymuch the classic example of a double standard, judging one group differently than another for the same infraction because you dont like them for whatever reason.

I am not sure if you were being sarcastic or not by asking how applying different standards to different groups based on whether or not you liked them constitutes a double standard. If you were joking then my bad. :)

Re:Three things about your "double standard"

[jorghis (1000092)]

And what on earth does that have to do with the issue at hand? They are coming out with their thing here, they arent "Embracing" bittorrent. It always amazed me how people will use the whole embrace extend extinguish thing when they are talking about a new MS product. Embrace, extend, and extinguish is meant to refer to a company embracing a standard they want to destroy for whatever reason. If they were extending the bittorrent protocol you would have a point.

But again, what on EARTH does any of this have to do with it being acceptable for one company to use your bandwidth when you are streaming files from them but when another does it they are 'stealing' your bandwidth or whatever?

Its like some people on here think that because MS was judged to legally be a monopoly that means they cant do things that are perfectly normal for other companies to do. I swear one day I will read on here that MS shouldnt be allowed to be registered in a phone book or something because they are a monopoly and should be held to a different standard. Utilizing a swarming protocol does not equate to abuse of monopoly powers.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[jorghis (1000092)]

It really is not logical to look at things that way though. You can make a case against any large organizations ethics.

What you are doing is kind of like a democrat proposing a policy and then someone yelling "Well your party used to support slavery so I dont think we should listen to anything you say."

Or when Google tries to get its way with net nuetrality the telecoms shouting "Well you guys are censoring content in China so I dont think anything you want with net nuetrality should be granted."

Or when Apple tries to sell you a sell phone you could say "You guys had that options scandal where you defrauded shareholders, if I buy this iPhone I will be supporting corruption!"

See? Can you find any organization of any size that you cant use that sort of logic against? This is why the legal system and just about everyone with common sense looks only at the issues at hand rather than using their preexisting biases and stereotypes.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

[Wildclaw (15718)]

Sounds like the real problem you are having is with your ISP and not with blizzard. Only evil packet (protocol) shaping would prevent you from downloading a mere 4 MB file in a few minutes, even if you aren't uploading anything. Fortunally blizzard has alternative ways of downloading patches, but it really shouldn't be nescessary. Bittorrent is not much different than a http/ftp download, except that it is also possible for clients to exchange parts of the file/files between themselves when the server is overloaded.

This is why real net neutrality is so important (and I am talking about real net neutrality, not the fake one that some are advocating that still allows packet shaping).

no surprise

[botkiller (181386)]

Microsoft, ripping off your ideas since the 80's, then repackaging them with prettier colors.

Flamebait much?

[RightSaidFred99 (874576)]

Wow. This is the worst kind of pandering.

BitTorrent didn't invent P2P. And the idea is used by many other applications including games. The last article with a premise this ridiculous I've seen was the "Hotmail drops 98.88% of all attachments, MS to be broken up and fined $10 billion dollars for fraud!" article.

Seriously, what is the point of this nonsense article, just to get the groupthink all riled up?

Re:Flamebait much?

[rm999 (775449)]

Also, the comment "How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?" is ridiculous. Yes, I know Slashdot is a biased source, but when they make it that blatant I get really annoyed.

No one is forcing anyone to use this p2p technology. If you have something against it, just don't download things from Microsoft. Common sense...

Re:Flamebait much?

[eonlabs (921625)]

Bittorrent did not come up with p2p. They did come up with swarming. The idea is if everyone downloads once and sends once, the net cost to the main server is 1 upload. Granted, it doesn't work to the theoretical limit, but it's pretty damn good at conserving bandwidth.

If bittorrent is patented... which it doesn't appear it ever can be, then this would be a problem. If Microsoft claims they invented it, that's pretty major BS, but that's it. If this stays visible as a variant of p2p file sharing, then it will hold some ground for the rest of the industry. Maybe the best thing to do is to use this to point out that p2p has solid legal uses and value.

Typical anti-MS /. bias

[EvanED (569694)]

How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?

Exactly how many articles has /. run on BT before? 47 thousand? And how many have had a comment like this? Zero?

Subsidizing MS bandwidth?

[poptones (653660)]

Aren't we already? [thepiratebay.org]

It's not Bittorrent. It's better.

[SilentChris (452960)]

MS didn't reinvent Bittorrent. They built something better: Avalanche [microsoft.com]. It's more efficient and (I know this phrase is weird to use around MS, but...) more secure. Read the research papers (they touch on BT, its advantages and disadvantages). I imagine most of this stuff is on its way into standard BT, if it hasn't been worked in already.

"How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?"

Frankly I don't give 2 shits as long as they don't patent the hell out of it (and sue existing P2P solutions). But this came out of MS Research, so I doubt that'll happen (one of the only decent groups at MS).

By the way, MS has been messing around with P2P for years. How do you think Xbox Live works? Every time a game is played multiplayer, at least one Xbox/Xbox 360 is hosting. Not a single MS server hosts a game. Question this all you want (why pay $60 a year then?) but the fact of the matter is that from a technological standpoint, it works well.

Double standards?

[jb.hl.com (782137)]

How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs?

The same way I feel about Canonical's. Or Fedora's. Or Gentoo's. Or Blizzard's. Or Demonoid's. Or iPodNova's. Or the eDonkey network's. Or ThePirateBay's.

It's P2P, remember, the thing everyone here loves? And now there's more of it! Must be a good thing. Although I'm sure if Microsoft started handing out free chocolates and flowers, before going on to start selling Linux distributions and releasing the entire code of the Windows kernel under the BSD license, you'd find some reasons to kick up a fuss about that, as well.

not a "troll" at all

[oohshiny (998054)]

Microsoft is charging a lot of money for their software; there is absolutely no reason anybody but Microsoft should pay for the bandwidth related to their software updates.

From a practical point of view, no matter how "secure" the protocol may be, if this thing is running on a host as part of a P2P network, it is essentially broadcasting to the world that (1) the host is running Windows, and (2) that it's not up to date with its patches. That's not a smart thing to broadcast.

Re:How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's c

[slughead (592713)]

How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's cost?

AWESOME! They're going to pass their savings onto me, right!? ...

Re:How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's c

[ricree (969643)]

Neutral.

I hate these filthy Neutrals, Kif. With enemies you know where they stand but with Neutrals, who knows? It sickens me.

Re:Good for them

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

Or, more likely, Microsoft will try to spin it such that it looks like Bittorrent == evil pirates whereas MSCD == fair and honest distribution system.

Re:Good for them

[Comatose51 (687974)]

Well at my last job, I wasn't allowed to install BitTorrent to download Linux ISOs because the more senior admins brought the FUD and said it's the same a Napster and all the other P2P clients. I argued that it was a protocol akin to FTP and it fell on deaf ears. I'm sure they will have no issues with this since it's officially sanctioned by Microsoft. SysAdmins can be just as bad as the PHBs.