7 ms·

I thought software distribution would be a no brainer. There are plenty of projects that still have lists of mirror sites, using IPFS would be much better from

I thought software distribution would be a no brainer. There are plenty of projects that still have lists of mirror sites, using IPFS would be much better from a bandwidth and security perspective.

sneak 9y ago
How many thousands of times per day are copies of software downloaded over transoceanic links when many hundreds of copies of that same data exist already in the user’s own county or even building? These efficiency gains are real; major distributions should adopt this ASAP.
- heavenlyblue 9y ago
  But by downloading the distro I am not applying to be a distributor of that distro.
  - zdkl 9y ago
    Then you're welcome to buy a copy I guess? I mean bandwidth isn't free and the assumption is if you download a distro, you like it enough to pass a little something on to your peers or spare a dime to the distributors.
- hoschicz 9y ago
  Does IPFS actually take the peer's actual geographic location when picking one? I thought they just search for peers in the local LAN and if they don't find one, they just go for the one that's closest to them according to their PeerId (Kademlia DHT)
  - y4mi 9y ago
    Well, I think it would be neat if package managers would utilize it. From my experience, it's rare that a company creates their own mirror (repo)... Especially if they're workstations.
    - zaarn 9y ago
      Most package managers should maintain a local cache of packages (pacman and apt do this). An IPFS mirror would also mean you'd have to run an IPFS node in a possibly corporate environment, which is a big nono if management doesn't allow P2P applications for whatever reasons. (Maybe they have their secret cure to cancer on their super secret server and don't want it to use the chatty IPFS protocols)
hoschicz 9y ago
There already is Bittorrent. The distros are getting distributed over Bittorrent and since more people have it and know how to use it than IPFS, there is no point in distributing it over IPFS.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  As a host, though, there's little reason not to offer both. It offers the same benefits as bittorrent but a slightly different network, and also canonical domain names using IPNS which would be a nice addition for hosting their content.
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  Not the same use-case. Today you have mirrors, tomorrow you could have multiple IPFS gateways, which would just take a hash and return a file. Besides that, IPFS could be used to fill the BitTorrent niche -- so it would replace both mirrors and BitTorrent. It's easier to use than BitTorrent and less frightening too.
  - iforgotpassword 9y ago
    If its easier to use than bittorrent then piracy people will switch over too and soon the name sounds just as frightening. The problem with bittorrent wrt popularizing legal use was that browsers should have shipped with BT support, the experience would have been just like clicking a traditional download link.
    - edraferi 9y ago
      Yeah, browser integration is critical. That’s why IPFS has focused on the JS implementation. One nuance - these p2p protocols are not as simple as HTTP, FTP, etc. They require persistent connections to many peers and significant local storage. This eats up more local resources, to the point where making in default-on might cause significant performance hit.
    - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
      There already is webtorrent https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent which is just a JS library that runs in all browsers. If you're talking about browsers acting as seed themselves, I don't think that model would get much traction, and the first thing people will do after downloading a browser is to disable that feature. Nobody wants to keep seeding. This is the #1 problem for BitTorrent, and most people only keep Torrent on while they're downloading, so they never want it running all the time. I think same goes with IPFS, which is why they came up with FileCoin, but if the mental cost of maintaining a node (because of all the copyright issues mentioned elsewhere on this thread) is higher than the actual profit each node makes, it will never take off. So in the end I think filecoin nodes will centralize just like Bitcoin nodes became centralized--that is, if they ever do end up launching what they promised--and when that happens it's AWS all over again, although the content addressable nature is indeed cool and I can imagine some cool applications coming out of it. It's just that I don't think it will replace HTTP altogether.

I thought software distribution would be a no brainer. There are plenty of projects that still have lists of mirror sites, using IPFS would be much better from a bandwidth and security perspective.

sneak 9y ago

How many thousands of times per day are copies of software downloaded over transoceanic links when many hundreds of copies of that same data exist already in the user’s own county or even building? These efficiency gains are real; major distributions should adopt this ASAP.

heavenlyblue 9y ago
But by downloading the distro I am not applying to be a distributor of that distro.
- zdkl 9y ago
  Then you're welcome to buy a copy I guess? I mean bandwidth isn't free and the assumption is if you download a distro, you like it enough to pass a little something on to your peers or spare a dime to the distributors.
hoschicz 9y ago
Does IPFS actually take the peer's actual geographic location when picking one? I thought they just search for peers in the local LAN and if they don't find one, they just go for the one that's closest to them according to their PeerId (Kademlia DHT)
- y4mi 9y ago
  Well, I think it would be neat if package managers would utilize it. From my experience, it's rare that a company creates their own mirror (repo)... Especially if they're workstations.
  - zaarn 9y ago
    Most package managers should maintain a local cache of packages (pacman and apt do this). An IPFS mirror would also mean you'd have to run an IPFS node in a possibly corporate environment, which is a big nono if management doesn't allow P2P applications for whatever reasons. (Maybe they have their secret cure to cancer on their super secret server and don't want it to use the chatty IPFS protocols)

hoschicz 9y ago

There already is Bittorrent. The distros are getting distributed over Bittorrent and since more people have it and know how to use it than IPFS, there is no point in distributing it over IPFS.

Jtsummers 9y ago
As a host, though, there's little reason not to offer both. It offers the same benefits as bittorrent but a slightly different network, and also canonical domain names using IPNS which would be a nice addition for hosting their content.
fiatjaf 9y ago
Not the same use-case. Today you have mirrors, tomorrow you could have multiple IPFS gateways, which would just take a hash and return a file. Besides that, IPFS could be used to fill the BitTorrent niche -- so it would replace both mirrors and BitTorrent. It's easier to use than BitTorrent and less frightening too.
- iforgotpassword 9y ago
  If its easier to use than bittorrent then piracy people will switch over too and soon the name sounds just as frightening. The problem with bittorrent wrt popularizing legal use was that browsers should have shipped with BT support, the experience would have been just like clicking a traditional download link.
  - edraferi 9y ago
    Yeah, browser integration is critical. That’s why IPFS has focused on the JS implementation. One nuance - these p2p protocols are not as simple as HTTP, FTP, etc. They require persistent connections to many peers and significant local storage. This eats up more local resources, to the point where making in default-on might cause significant performance hit.
  - cocktailpeanuts 9y ago
    There already is webtorrent https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent https://github.com/webtorrent/webtorrent which is just a JS library that runs in all browsers. If you're talking about browsers acting as seed themselves, I don't think that model would get much traction, and the first thing people will do after downloading a browser is to disable that feature. Nobody wants to keep seeding. This is the #1 problem for BitTorrent, and most people only keep Torrent on while they're downloading, so they never want it running all the time. I think same goes with IPFS, which is why they came up with FileCoin, but if the mental cost of maintaining a node (because of all the copyright issues mentioned elsewhere on this thread) is higher than the actual profit each node makes, it will never take off. So in the end I think filecoin nodes will centralize just like Bitcoin nodes became centralized--that is, if they ever do end up launching what they promised--and when that happens it's AWS all over again, although the content addressable nature is indeed cool and I can imagine some cool applications coming out of it. It's just that I don't think it will replace HTTP altogether.