Opera Embedding BitTorrent Client 542
Opera Watch writes "The next version of Opera, 8.02, will have an embedded BitTorrent client. Opera has released today a Technical Preview of this new version on its FTP directory, though they have made no official announcement as of yet."
Fine, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Apache (Score:5, Interesting)
Good feature (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, to make sure that Opera doesn't get sued for having a P2P network built into their client that could be used for copyright infringements, they need to add a note into their EULA that says something akin to "Don't steal music, or movies, or - just don't steal, OK? If you do, don't blame us. Thanks." to that their intent in supplying the technology is clear.
A milestone for BT... and a green light. (Score:4, Interesting)
Should make Opera look good too.
The underlying thing here that looks great for BT is that Opera must have done some due diligence and decided they were on good legal ground to embed the software... which may be seen as a green light for others to do the same.
Another prediction (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I guess (Score:4, Interesting)
At the same time I'm worried about a browser doing too many things. I'm not going to start using opera just because it can handle torrents but if IE or Firefox starting doing it I would be rather happy. It's kinda like the various PlayStations playing Dvds when competing with a dreamcast or 64.
This also begs the question, will this help make torrents more mainstream? I know plenty of average people who have no idea what a "torrent" is. If more of the general public starts picking it up who knows what will happen with things like piracery.
Meh, just my thoughts.
Re:Apache (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually I had this same good idea a couple of years ago. It could effectly wipe out the slashdot effect. What if, each time server load went over a preset amount, it served a torrrent containing the HTML and image files instead of the HTML file itself. When the browser sees the torrent with special HTTP headers, it automagically unpacks the torrent after completing the download and displays the HTML locally. An apache plugin for this was started and never completed. The problem was getting the browser/torrent client to do the right thing once it got the HTML so the fact that you downloaded a torrent instead of the HTML directly was transparent to the user. Once torrent clients are embedded into the browser, competition will force the other browsers to include this feature. Then no more slashdot effect, yea!!!
Is this necessary? (Score:2, Interesting)
This seems to be an unnecessary feature. I don't see myself using it over Azureus.
BitTorrent clients also tend to use up a lot of memory because of the nature of BitTorrent. Would this impact Opera's preformance as well?
Re:The new "vi vs emacs"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:5, Interesting)
Firefox with BT support would be a good thing. For Opera too. It would move BT further into the mainstream, and that would benefit anyone who wants to use it. Opera probably has something in mind, such as distributing Opera through BitTorrent. Why else implement it?
Re:Apache (Score:3, Interesting)
I just used mod_rewrite to parse the URL and append
OT: The site is a video project called Channel 102 based in New York City where people make 5 minute video "pilots" which are screened at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater [ucbtheater.com] for an audience who then votes on which ones they want to see return next month. Many of them have some serious [nyud.net] geek [nyud.net] appeal [nyud.net].
Re:Apache (Score:5, Interesting)
Our world is changing, and I?m concerned. By way of explanation, three anecdotes.
Anecdote the first: In one of his books, Frank Herbert, author of Dune, told me how he had once been approached by a friend who claimed he (the friend) had a killer idea for a SF story, and offered to tell it to Herbert. In return, Herbert had to agree that if he used the idea in a story, he'd split the money from the story with this fellow. Herbert's response was that ideas were a dime a dozen; he had more story ideas than he could ever write in a lifetime. The hard part was the writing, not the ideas.
Anecdote the second: I've been programming micros for 15 years, and been writing about tyhem for more than a decade and, until about a year ago, I had never-not once!- had anyone offer to sell me a technical idea. In the last year, it?s happened multiple times, generally via unsolicited email along the lines of Herbert?s tale.
This trend toward selling ideas is one symptom of an attitude that I?ve noticed more and more among programmers over the past few years-an attitude of which software patents are the most obvious manifestation-a desire to think something up without breaking a sweat, then let someone else?s hard work make you money. Its an attitude that says, ?I?m so smart that my ideas alone set me apart.? Sorry, it doesn't work that way in the real world. Ideas are a dime a dozen in programming, too; I have a lifetime?s worth of article and software ideas written neatly in a notebook, and I know several truly original thinkers who have far more yet. Folks, it?s not the ideas; it?s design, implementation, and especially hard work that make the difference.
Virtually every idea I?ve encountered in 3-D graphics was invented decades ago. You think you have a clever graphics idea? Sutherland, Sproull, Schumacker, Catmull,
Smith, Blinn, Glassner, Kajiya, Heckbert, or Teller probably thought of your idea
years ago. (I?m serious-spend a few weeks reading through the literature on 3-D
graphics, and you?ll be amazed at what?s already been invented and published.) If
they thought it was important enough, they wrote a paper about it, or tried to commercialize it, but what they didn?t do was try to charge people for the idea itself.
A closely related point is the astonishing lack of gratitude some programmers show for the hard work and sense of community that went into building the knowledge base with which they work. How about this? Anyone who thinks they have a unique idea that they want to?own?and milk for money can do so-but first they have to track down and appropriately compensate all the people who made possible the compilers, algorithms, programming courses, books, hardware, and so forth that put them in a position to have their brainstorm.
Put that way, it sounds like a silly idea, but the idea behind software patents is precisely that eventually everyone will own parts of our communal knowledge base, and that programming will become in large part a process of properly identifylng and compensating each and every owner of the techniques you use. All I can say is that if we do go down that path, I guarantee that it will be a poorer profession for all of us - except the patent attorneys, I guess.
Anecdote the third: A while back, I had the good fortune to have lunch down by Seattle?s waterfront with Neal Stephenson, the author of
Snow Crash and The Diamond Age (one of the best SF books I've come across in a long time). As he talked about the nature of networked technology and what he hoped to see emerge, he
html over torrent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bittorrent and ad-hoc standards (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prediction... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Apache (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I tend to agree with Abrash on this. The usual pattern is:
1. CompSci invents concept.
2. 10 Years later, everyone uses it.
Situations like Google where the concept is taken directly to the market are very rare. As Honeywell (Multics) and Symbolics can tell you, being ahead of your time can really suck.
That being said, it's not that ideas have no value. The problem is that their value is ethereal and cannot translate directly into dollars. If your ideas are good enough for the market, then you can make money by using them as a form of entertainment and educations. (e.g. Books, Websites with ads, etc.) Alternatively, you can implement them and see if they give you a competitive advantage. (This is what patents are intended for. Things went downhill after the Patent Office stops requiring prototypes.) Either way you do have to do a smidge more than just think up ideas. You must create an actual product out of them and monetize *that*.
kget (Score:2, Interesting)
Problems with this. (Score:4, Interesting)
The first is that bittorrent is not really a stable protocol. By which I mean, the protocol itself is still under active development. I could imagine in-browser bittorrent being great for about two weeks, then all of a sudden Azureus will come up with some kind of funny extension or the main Bittorrent team will come up with a better multi-root-tracker swarming mechanism or some such and all of a sudden the in-browser client won't work with any of the new torrents out there. That would get obnoxious.
The second is that web browsers are not stable. I mean, web browsers crash a lot. I expect a torrent to be running for hours and hours, becuase if it won't be going that long, well, it makes less sense for it to be torrented in the first place. Even the most stable web browser I've ever used, I'd be a little cautious to run bittorrent inside it because some afternoon I could be reading a site it doesn't like or something and I could crash two or three times, getting booted out of my hypothetical torrent each time, before that torrent finishes. I'd hope or wish there was some way to move the actual bittorrent downloading into a separate process, one that isn't effected by browser crashes, even if it's transparently "part of" the web browser from a GUI perspective. (Come to think of it, I kind of wish at times someone could make a web browser where every window got its own process space, or something, so one browser window could lock up or crash without effecting the others. Web browsers are practically OSes now, they might as well start acting like it.)
Other than these things it seems like a good idea.
Re:Just more proof... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been thinking how it would be great for streaming media (even live feeds), if you only delay the play cursor 30-60 seconds.
The media players with embedded bittorrent clients would swarm on the feed for the data before the play cursor, and if there are any missing pieces (maybe 5 seconds) before the current play cursor would use the previous (the one used today) protocol to fill in the gaps (if any).
Live feeds typically don't have a large pipe to the event, and connect to a hosting provider to multiplex the stream for them. The beauty of bittorrent is that it allows multiple hosting providers (or anyone with large upstream capacity and forwarded port) to serve the same stream, even a live feed.
Heh, I interviewed at a streaming media hosting company a coulpe months back, so that's what started me thinking in this area... I'm not sure they'd like this idea.
Re:torrent (Score:5, Interesting)
consider this.
the average torrent (i assume a movie or something) is being initially uploaded by one seed with, being generous, a max of 80 kBps. The person still manages to send all that information to everyone rather quickly (given a slower start to send 1-2 full copies out into the swarm).
Microsoft Pipes have like, what, 1000000 times the bandwidth? So yes, you usually download as fast as your connection can handle. So yes, you WILL download faster than a popular torrent at the beginning of it distribution cycle.. if the person hosting originally had a small pipe.
If Microsoft used torrents, their overall bandwidth would increase - they just dont need to.
But let dream of the day that every single dedicated 'fat pipe', 'home user', and business used torrents instead of http / ftp / other p2p:
we would see a HUGE increase in bandwidth across the internet.
The reason you beleive torrents are slower has nothing to do with the protocol, but rather the people who use it.
The only issue I have is that torrents die after some time, because people do not seed to 1:1, or people loose interest files that arent 'fresh'.
If Firefox, Internet Explorer, Safari, and Opera embeded bittorrent, forced 1:1 seed ratios, and seeded every file in your download folder out to whoever needed it most.. well..
wouldnt that be peachy?
Re:Doesn't seem like a good fit to me.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:torrent (Score:4, Interesting)
problems i'd forsee arrive when the tracker needs to be responsible for seeding several files at once while still acting as a tracker... however, on the "fat pipes" we've been talking about, this should be less of an issue, and because of the nature of bittorrent, the tracker should only need to be a seed for a short amount of time, especially with a relatively popular file.
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever I move from Opera to Firefox, I find myself frustrated and going back.
It continues to surprise me that people don't see thirty bucks of value in Opera, and settle instead for the piss-poor experience of MSIE and the clumsy experience of Firefox.
Re:Odd, FF keeps luring me from Opera (prev Op use (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, what I do see is the possibility of exploits for extensions same as BHOs in IE.
Third, I see many people having popular extensions break when they upgrade.
For me, extensions seem to be far more a hassle than they are worth. And as far as I can tell, there are enough people out there who feel the same to make Opera profitable. And that, not market share, is what matters to me as an Opera user.
Re:torrent (Score:3, Interesting)