7 ms·
in the real sense of the word
by reconbot 8y ago
in the real sense of the word
- xellisx 8y agoI would define anything that responds to remote request a server program, which then would make the system that runs that program a server. =)
- TomMarius 8y agoThat definition is wrong.
- simcop2387 8y agoWhat definition would you use?
- TomMarius 8y agoSome that doesn't make a Bittorrent client or a Bitcoin node a server.
- lgas 8y agoBut both of those are servers?
- TomMarius 8y agoNo, both of these are peer to peer applications
- theamk 8y ago.. which have client and server parts of the protocol, that can be separately disabled. The fact that same piece of software can run on in client mode and in server mode is irrelevant. In bittorrent example, the seeders are pure servers, and those cheating aps which only connect to seeds are pure clients. Yes, many trackers actively try to detect and discourage pure clients, but this is not enforced by the protocol itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sundbry 8y agoThere are two separate meanings of the term server. 1) An application which runs on a network and services clients 2) A dedicated computer which runs server applications.
- ngcc_hk 8y agoServerless as 3) An application which run on a network and communicate with others on an equal status, you cannot distinguish one node from the others based on the source code or the logic it is running. In a sense even amazon serverless platform is not server less but it is server lite.
- shazow 8y agoA more interesting definition is that a server is something that is asymmetric from a client. Things that are peer to peer which are symmetric to each other are something special.
- chatmasta 8y agoNot really. Each peer is running a client and server and the only difference is the role of each node in a given transaction.
- noobiemcfoob 8y agoWhile you can frame peer-to-peer interactions as as a series of server-client interactions with servers and clients swapping roles... you shouldn't. It's a different paradigm with different implications. Individual transactions might be usefully described as server-client, but the overall system is not server based. So...serverless.
- chatmasta 8y agoIn all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. Also, the internet is a peer-to-peer system. But "peer-to-peer" is an abstract paradigm, because ultimately, (a) two peers need to know about each other, and (b) one peer needs to initiate every transaction. I realize we're just arguing semantics here, and I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make, but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless...
- clarry 8y ago> In all cases, one node must send the first packet. The node sending the packet is the client, and the destination of the packet is the server. I'm pretty sure you are just making up new definitions. It's kinda like saying that whoever says the first word in class is the teacher and the rest are student. The fact is that both peers send packets and the first packet isn't particularly significant, except from a stateful connection or firewall perspective.
- humblebee 8y agoBy this definition, nothing that communicates with another process can be called serverless.