> A server by any other name would still use as much outgoing > bandwidth. According to Friday's Wired online, Napster has now been > banned by Cox at Home in San Diego because it is a de facto server. > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,35523,00.html. > > I don't think anyone calls Napster clients "servers", but that is really > what they are, and the same is true of Freenet nodes. What we write in > the documentation won't change that. ISPs are concerned about bandwidth, > not semantics. > > Hal
Bandwidth limits, which Napster very much lacks, would be a good next step then. -Adam Lydick -- Freenet -- Re-Wiring the Internet http://freenet.sourceforge.net My Node: tcp/rivendell.yi.org:19114 _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
