4 ms·
So, what would you call it then? If it's technically correct then being needlessly contradictory is silly and superfluous.
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
So, what would you call it then? If it's technically correct then being needlessly contradictory is silly and superfluous.
- ryanlol 11y ago"Botnet" almost always refers to compromised computers, that's not what this article talks about. The article describes a ridiculously ineffective approach of buying a bunch of EC2 instances to run 50(!) copies of spotify each, when you should be able to easily support thousands of instances of spotify running on a single server. There's no need to do this using a botnet, there's no point in doing this using a botnet... It's utter nonsense. The only reason they talk about one is to make the whole thing sound far more nefarious than it is. And to reiterate my point once more, nobody ever refers to remotely managing their own computers as a "botnet".
- tragic 11y agoOK then, it's proof of concept for a botnet. That would make the headline awfully long.
- ryanlol 11y agoIt'd be ridiculously stupid to have a botnet do this instead of running it on your own hardware. Again, you can easily run thousands of spotify clients on a single computer.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoFair enough. I think his assertion that using an exploit to compromise Spotify Premium account users (via targeted malware) is kind of the extreme example to justify the term botnet. Unless I'm mistaken, running thousands of clients on the same computer would take a lot of effort to 'distribute' over enough IPs as to cloak the operation? I get that you have some beef with the phrasing used, but I think for the sake of practicality calling "a network of robots posing as humans" a botnet is fine and not click bait at its core. Not to belabor the point but I'm pretty sure I could scold you about some improper music terminology usage when you'd be trying to make a point.