|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:36:45 -0500 From: "R. Sami" <rms2176@columbia.edu> To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> In-Reply-To: <2758121.3371.1329492792776.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org When I bring up Linux ISOs to the believers of this misconception, =20 they generally argue that Linux ISOs can be obtained without =20 BitTorrent as well so blocking BT is okay. But I believe it is up to =20 the user to decide which protocol to use to obtain the data and if the =20 user wants to use BT but the network prevents this, the network is at =20 fault. Other valid uses of BitTorrent include content intentionally =20 distributed via BT for free by Hollywood studios, television =20 broadcasters, and artists of Creative Commons works. There's also =20 Blizzard patches and other game patches. Some companies like Twitter =20 apparently use BitTorrent internally (https://github.com/lg/murder). Quoting Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ridwan Sami" <rms2176@columbia.edu> > >> There is no legitimate reason for a user to use BitTorrent (someone >> will probably disagree with this). > > Yeah, no. > > You've clearly never tried to download a Linux installer DVD. > > Cheers, > -- jr 'among dozens of other legitimate uses' a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |