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

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

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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

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

The real problem is that MS intends to turn this into a system totally encumbered by DRM.

Another expected build in, Microsoft will probably implement a way for "content owners" to remotely delete the metafile and all data if they so choose, regardless of how valid their claim is. I also fully expect traffic shaping to ignore this new protocol while throttling bittorrent.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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

helpful hint for those that get tagged by this FireFox 2.0 has a spelling checker builtin that can be set to check all input fields (and if you are not using FF 2.0 then you are
1 on an OLD system
2 using a Mac and have a system level spell checker

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

Let me end it.

You sir, are worse than Hitler!

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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

Microsoft does bad things: 5% of Slashdot articles
Microsoft does perfectly innocent things, but Slashdot declares them bad: 95% of Slashdot articles.

Made up figures don't mean anything. Having said that... it always seems to be a judgment call. There are plenty of screwy things that Microsoft does and always a contingent claiming double-standards, religious zeal, reality of business, ignorant-basement-dweller, and whatever other non-argument they can to justify or detract from the issue.

I don't buy your figures. But I do agree that there are certainly times when articles or comments are beyond the pale. Microsoft does occasionally get skewered over non-issues. I'm 100% behind calling those out. They detract from the real issues.

Which issues are "real" is probably the point where we would disagree.

Of course Microsoft does "bad things." The problem here is that, on Slashdot, the term "bad things" is basically defined as "Microsoft does it." It's self-fulfilling. Hell, when Microsoft gave a free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360s, somehow that was construed as a "bad thing" on Slashdot...

Great example. You say "free 3-year warranty on Xbox 360." The critics noted design flaws, a history of denying said flaws, and said "damage control." Is this one of your 95%?

The bashing here is entirely out of control. It makes the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field look tiny in comparison. All you need to do is type "embrace and extend" or "FUD" and you get an instant +5 insightful.

Sometimes. The bashing does need some sanity checking. However, it's not as simplistic as you claim.

By the way - cute use of colorful terminology while decrying other's over-use of catch phrases. Reality distortion field indeed.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

How is it a double standard if someone doesn't want to support Microsoft while wanting support a company they like, such as Blizzard? If MS were a better company with better practices, supported standards better and didn't abuse their monopoly position, I am sure there would be a lot more supporters on the side of Microsoft.

Me personally, I won't give any of my bandwidth to Microsoft. Let them pay for it. Now if Microsoft wanted to pay me to use my bandwidth, I would consider that option.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

"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"

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

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

Is mentioning "embrace and extend" alone worth an "insightful", even if it makes absolutely no sense in context?

When I receive the proper embrace, I extend. If all goes well, we extinguish the lights?

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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

0... ^>^ I actually have a huge problem with Blizzard's distribution system for patches. My ISP shapes their traffic and it can take hours for a small four megabyte patch to download. If I go directly to their site and download as a standalone file: about a minute. A distributed download system is a good idea both for Blizzard as it saves them bandwidth and for most of their customers as they get their patches faster (especially when it comes to large patches), but the standard download model has to be available for those who cannot use this type of system.

Re:bllizard, wow patcher

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).

Good for them

This will show that p2p/torrents have a legal use.

Re:Good for them

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

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.

Patent

Any word on them trying to patent this?

no surprise

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

Flamebait much?

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?

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?

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

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?

How do I feel?

Indifferent, that's how. Is that question at the end of the summary supposed to imply that it's ok for linux distributions and WOW to use bittorrent to lower bandwidth costs, but it's not ok for Microsoft to do the same? Ah, but of course. This being slashdot, anything Microsoft does is subject to criticism.

Grow up for fuck sake!

You want to know how I feel?

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

I feel nice
like sugar and spice
I feel nice
like sugar and spice
so nice
so nice
I got you.

Old news

Microsoft developed BITS 3.0 [wikipedia.org] many months ago and included it with Vista. It allows for what Microsoft calls "peer caching."

Rob

Subsidizing MS bandwidth?

Aren't we already? [thepiratebay.org]

It's not Bittorrent. It's better.

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.

Far be it for me to disagree with Microsoft.

From that article that you linked:

Peers do not need to find specific pieces in the system to complete, any subset encoded piece will suffice.

Huh?

Also, no peer becomes a bottleneck, since no block is more important than another.

In bittorrent, no block is more important than any other.

And the only bottleneck in bittorrent is when a specific block is only available from a single seed with limited bandwidth. The moment that block is uploaded to another machine the bandwidth expands.

Finally, network bandwidth is efficiently utilized since the same information does not travel multiple times over bottleneck links.

I'm not understanding that either. You need updates as to who has what. This will be changing constantly as different peers download different blocks.

One possible solution is to use a heuristic that prioritizes exchanges of "locally rarest" pieces. But such local-rarest policies often fail to identify the "globally rarest" piece when peers have a limited view of the network.

Why would you need to? All the client has to do is connect to as many peers as necessary to find each block a minimum number of times. The only time there is a problem with this is when there is only one seed with limited bandwidth.

There is no way that a "globally rarest" will appear more often in your peer group than it does globally. This seems more of a seeder issue than a swarm issue. And it has been solved with the "super-seeder" enhancements. The seeder feeds more blocks to the guy who seems to share them the fastest.

Double standards?

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.

Better download integrity, yes please.

Since I downloaded the last MSDN library no less than 9 times and each time got a corrupted file (yes, a 1.9GB corrupted file), I would have welcomed an official MS P2P download route - one of the more useful feature of BitTorrent on large files is that each chunk is hashed, and thus has good integrity.

Instead, there was just an MD5 checksum buried in the small print on the page, which is no help at all. The checksum validation in the install routine can detect that the archive is corrupted. Ok, it's nice to be able to tell if you got a pirate zombie MSDN library (presumably with some pages containing subtle advice on how to implement code with security holes - now we know why Windows is so insecure....) But what I really needed was a download protocol that provides for more error correction than HTTP.

Go, I say. Even if everyone disables the ability to upload, and all the data still comes from MS, it's still an improvement.

Right...

Because no one else ever thought or developed a protocol with distributed file transfer. If MS is doing something they must have copied it from someone.

Microsoft Reinvents Bittorrent

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

It's good that they are using their own protocol. That way those who have no use for anything from Microsoft will be in no danger of inadvertently doing them a favor.

Secure ?

How much secure ? I smell a new vector for adware / spyware / trojan infections here....

I wonder if they'll patent this....

Reminds me of what Disney does...

1. Steal an idea.

2. Use it.

3. Patent it (so no onelelse can use it, INCLUDING the one you stole it from!

4. Profit!

How do I feel? How do I feel?

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

Uh, let me see:

Microsoft treats paying customers like criminals with their recent (last five years or so) policies but it does nothing to curb professional pirates

Microsoft is one of the wealthiest companies in the world.

Microsoft can easily afford the bandwidth for hosting their product downloads.

How do I feel about it? Sorry, I won't be participating. If they make their policies more customer-friendly and open up the source for Windows, or at least become more friendly to open source, sure, I'd use it to download and I'd let it seed for a bit.

When I download SuSE or Kubuntu or CentOS I let the torrent seed for at least a few days.

This makes me want to download Microsoft patches several times when I need them just so I eat up more of their bandwidth.

Wonderful. What If It Gets Hacked?

Just imaging a huge P2P network of Microsoft software - and if someone figures out how to pervert it with trojans, viruses, keyloggers...

With Microsoft's lousy security track record, can you imagine the gold mine this will be for anyone that wants to mass distribute malwear? Nothing like lots of machines in the wild hosting "official" Microsoft software, patches, etc.

Think it can't happen? Think again.

here's how I feel

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

Kinda dirty and used, but no different from how I felt after installing Vista.

W3C standard?

Is the Bittorrent protocol a W3C standard yet?

No difference here

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

Exactly the same way I feel about subsidizing anyone's bandwidth.

If its an open source project I have no problems with it, and do it all the time. I'm a Mandriva Club member and regularly host various forms of the Mandriva distributions on a server with a fat pipe.

If its a closed source project or something that costs money, then those companies who distribute it by leaching bandwidth from others are just that, leaches. Actually, I take that back...they aren't leaches, and I should find a new comparison. Even leaches have a use in the medical world...leaches in the bandwidth world have no use.

But will they patent it

Seeing as there is clearly no prior art, will M$ patent this 'new' technology and charge users extra to use it?

This isn't news!

I've been getting my M$ products from peer distribution for years!

Tag this "NIH" - it's textbook

As usual, there's no sensible reason in the world why Microsoft could not have used the open, existing, tested, commodity protocol.

I suppose the real question

is, did MS write their P2P software to preclude people getting in on the downloads without WGAing first? Because that's the biggest reason why they wouldn't be able to use BT out of the box.

BitTorrent promotes competition for clients

So far most of the comments on this story have been about the pros and cons of helping MS with their bandwidth. There have even been a couple talking about some technical differences. But for me, the biggest difference is none of that. The coolest thing about BitTorrent is that it is a known, open protocol. What this means is that there are something like 10 to 20 clients out there you can download, so we end up with great programs like Azureus and uTorrent. Of course I haven't read much about this new program from MS, but I imagine they won't be releasing the source code for it. (I may be wrong of course!) What this means is that to use their shiny new protocol, you have to use THEIR software. You will have _no_ choice, and there will be _no_ room for developing new features. I find this terribly limiting compared to what can be accomplished with something open and popular like BitTorrent. What will you do if the protocol is very efficient and useful, and yet you are forced to use a crap client that you don't like? Reverse engineer it? That's a pain in the ass compared to having a working, open protocol that is well-documented and there are several open-source solutions to reference. And I won't even begin to discuss the likelihood of seeing an OS X or Linux version of their client...

I think I'll be sticking to BT unless something better comes along that actually has a useful (i.e., open) license. One wonders about the motivation for developing this when they could have just used BT to distribute their patches and downloads. Is it just NIH, or something more?

not a "troll" at all

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.

Long overdue

They've been working on this FOREVER. I remember seeing little wireless Shuttle cubes strewn all over the campus 3 or 4 years back. Good to see another Microsoft Research technology end up in a product.

new port to block

Sounds like I will have a new port or something to block. Yippy!

Financing bandwidth costs?

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

I don't feel against it at all. As opposed to certain ISP's that don't let you use the bandwidth you pay for freely and not setting stupid "limits", mine actually includes that in my regular flat monthly fee! *gasp* So if this makes them even faster, hey, it'll even be an advantage!

As usual, MS misses the point

People don't use p2p because they like p2p--they use it to get what they want.

If we could legally download movies without having to install crap software really fast without using bittorrent, we would do it.

And if we're looking to download the latest Ubuntu iso, we don't need an MS alternative.

Subsidizing bandwidth costs?

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

Hello?
Many Slashdotters have been calling for Microsoft to embrace Bittorrent to distribute their software. If they did that, then you'd be "subsidizing Microsoft's bandwidth costs", so how is this any different? Anyway, the only ones "subsidizind Microsoft's bandwidth costs" are those that download the software.

Seems that the "subsidizing bandwidth" remark was tacked on to add some lame MS-bashing that would help ensure that slashdot accepted the story and/or score brownie points with those particular slashdotters on the low end of the intelligence bell curve. Pathetic.

I just hope...

that this kills all the stupid p2p-throttling that services providers do but deny.

Depends

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

I don't have a problem so long as they're passing along the savings to the consumer. I have a feeling they won't though. Even then, I've never bought any Microsoft software, and I don't think this is going to change my mind.

I think Mike Gunderloy said it best...

"In other words, Microsoft is reinventing BitTorrent because, you know, the open source version has cooties."

Patent?

So has MS patented bit torrent yet? As a company that continuously innovates, they really deserve one for this break-through...

Well....

As long as they don't try to go out and patent it, its fine by me. Also, I'm imagining some of the messages from it...You are downloading win_vista_dvd_rip.iso. Cancel/Allow?

So?

I'm not microsoft fan, but who cares?

Using torrent methods for distributing files over the internet is a good thing. The more people that need the file, the faster it goes for everyone. Hats off to the inventors because almost nothing else in the world works out that way.

If this makes it faster and easier for people to download the stuff they want, then what is the problem? Use the downloader until you're done downloading, then turn it off. If they don't allow that, then I'd be pissed.

I don't have a problem with this...

...but I sincerely hope they gave Bram Cohen a well-deserved bonus. He came up with a truly great invention that helps smaller companies and individuals host content (without BitTorrent, it would've cost way too much), and he decided to share his invention with the world for free.

MS doesn't have to pay him anything, but if they don't they lose a chance to gain a bit more respect from people. They're not struggling to pay their bills, and if they save money from his invention, they should toss him a bone.

fine with me

If I'm downloading something from anyone, then I have some sort of need for it, a.k.a. I have a use for it. If a new distributed download system reduces the cost and increases the speed at of fulfilling the need then I am all for it. I fail to see how anyone might have a problem with this, especially as it will most likely be an opt-in/out scheme.

lordy B !

wow this is insane.. sounds like a direct copy of bittorrent indeed.. is bandwidth really a problem for microsoft? are they running out? or not capable of getting the best and fastest? bandwidth does seem to be a precious thing nowadays.. and no i don't feel good about them using my bandwidth.. if i pay them money for an OS, then why the fuck are they trying to take more from me?

Anyone foolish enough

to purchase or use MS software is already used to getting screwed over by MS. Why should this be anything new?

You can choose to continue to do it the way MS wants you to, with little to no control over how your own computer operates, or you can ditch MS and their 'we-know-whats-good-for-you' attitude entirely, and use software that lets you control your own computer, that,incidentally, is often completely free of charge as well.

Metalink, anyone?

Sounds a lot like Metalink [metalinker.org], covered here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/25/144209 [slashdot.org]

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

How do you feel about subsidizing Microsoft's cost?

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

yes, they are!

They have this great new program going on where they will pay you for forwarding email. They will pay you $245 for every person you forward an email to, and then another $243 for every person who forwards that email, and so on. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check!

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

Neutral.

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

Let me explain the difference.

The difference between a M$ fake-torrent client and a free P2P user is that a free P2P user has a choice about what to download. The M$ client will soon be used to download "patches" and other M$ cruft, which will pass that part of the cost of windows onto ISPs and subscribers. You will excuse me while I say that I don't want to subsidize M$'s lack of efficiency. Their client will also be "trusted" and refuse to download anything that could threaten the MAFIAA in any way - which is pretty much everything but what you can buy from M$ music services and squirt to your Zune.