7 ms·

Except, as GP points out, the vast expansion of the email system was followed by a huge number of users running to GMail and a huge number of domains running to

Except, as GP points out, the vast expansion of the email system was followed by a huge number of users running to GMail and a huge number of domains running to Google Apps and other hosted platforms. My parents don't run mail servers. My employer no longer runs a mail server (outsourced to a common third-party provider), and I used to run a mail server but I gave up on it and fell back on Google Apps when I needed one. Running a mail server is a huge pain and once centralized systems became available (Hotmail, then Gmail and Google Apps) most users fell back on them.

wmf 14y ago
Even a situation where 99% of people use a handful of providers is a lot more free than everyone being forced to use a single provider.
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  This. And if you put just a tiny bit of effort into it and own your own domain you can switch providers at any time for little effort. A world of difference from the Facebook trap.
drgath 14y ago
"Decentralized" don't mean outsourced vs self-hosted. It just means there isn't a central/core part of a network that everything relies on. Outsourcing of decentralized systems is very popular (see: email, web hosting, DNS, etc.)
- unixnoob 14y ago
  Yes. I think most people miss this. For peer-to-peer to succeed I think there needs to be some amount of "re-education". There needs to be a shift in thinking. Many of these things that others are doing for you (email, etc.) can just as easily run from your machine instead of theirs. You do not need the same capacity and ability to scale as they do. What makes it all possible is NAT traversal. That is the fundamental problem being solved which takes us back to peer-to-peer and the orginal model of the internet. The rest is all just pre-configuration and UI.
  - mnutt 14y ago
    I think NAT traversal is actually only one part of P2P becoming successful. Between UDP hole punching, uPNP, and other techniques you can cover a pretty large percentage of users. The harder part, to me, is distributed trust in the discovery phase. Without a central authority it's really hard to ensure authenticity, fight spam, etc.
    - Sami_Lehtinen 14y ago
      IPv6 is going to solve that. RetroShare is afaik completely decentralized private social network. Although it's security design isn't as good as I would wish it to be. Good network uses PKI and all data being transferred or at rest is secured. This also means that service providers can't be held responsible. Many decentralized plans allow still operators to soop in network parts which they're operating. If there's separate client, why not to make sure that system is secure?
      - unixnoob 14y ago
        I don't know a lot about RetroShare but from what little I know I think they actually had the right approach. It was real peer-to-peer. I'm not thinking about peer-to-peer from an anonymous file sharing perspective. I'm thinking in much broader terms. But I know anonymous file sharing is what many projects have focused on. You are right that many puported "peer-to-peer" solutions are not true p2p. Look hard and you'll usually find a middleman somewhere in the scheme. Of course as we all know many users are not really interested in how something works, just so long as it works. How many people really look hard at the scheme being used? As for IPv6, I think it brings a lot of complexity. And where there is complexity, there will be problems. Working with IPv4 is complex enough as it is. I like IPv4 because it's more widely found. Not everyone will have access to IPv6.
    - unixnoob 14y ago
      I really don't think it's as big an issue as people make it. People commenting about this in lists and forums and blogs make the issue more complex than it is because they have all sorts of assumptions about how it has to work. But as Rob Pike says when you assume you put plum paste on your ass. "Discovery phase." This is nerd stuff. Put all the nerd stuff aside for a moment. When you want to telephone someone, how to you handle the "discovery phase"? You look up the telephone number and place the call. Everyone does this the world over. Second, how many people do you actually telephone in your entire lifetime? Hundreds? Thousands? (Are you a telemarketer?) Third, how many of them are people you see face-to-face at some point? People do not normally call lots of anonymous people. A telephone network. (Actually a system of regional networks.) Everyone has a number. You get their number and you make the call. But how? According to nerds on the web, this should be a complex problem with no easy solution. But millions of people, non-technical people, make telephone calls everyday. To think the web equivalent of a telephone directory is an unsolvable problem is ridiculous. And to think that every person needs a directory with billions of names is similarly silly. They will only need a small subset. Moreover, with modern storage capacities, you could store a billion names and numbers on a small device no problem. Searching billion row databases is quite fast, if you use the right software. But you will never even need to go that far. AFAIK people do not change their telephone numbers very frequently. Certainly not on a whim. If they do change it, then they have to let others know. Somehow they manage this., even if they are non-tecnical. Of course if you keep changing your number you'll be harder to contact. This ic common sense. But why would you do that? Why would you need to keep changing your number? Get a number and stick to it. If you think stuff like MobileIP is the solution to roaming then you need to keep looking at what's possible. There are simpler and more reliable ways to do it. How many people do you call in a lifetime? Think about it.
gnaffle 14y ago
Do you honestly believe that "most users" use GMail and Hotmail? Most users use an ISP, but lots and lots of companies host their own mail, sometimes for good legal reasons. It would be interesting to know if Microsoft sells more Exchange licenses to hosting companies, but I don't think so.
mikeash 14y ago
So what? E-mail is still decentralized. That most people don't host it themselves is a completely unrelated concept.
pcwalton 14y ago
Gmail does not have as large of a market share as you think: http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/email-clients/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/email-... In general this is a common misconception at HN and in similar circles: Gmail may be ubiquitous among the tech crowd, but it's far from clear that it's even in first place among webmail providers.

wmf 14y ago

Even a situation where 99% of people use a handful of providers is a lot more free than everyone being forced to use a single provider.

jeremyjh 14y ago
This. And if you put just a tiny bit of effort into it and own your own domain you can switch providers at any time for little effort. A world of difference from the Facebook trap.

drgath 14y ago

"Decentralized" don't mean outsourced vs self-hosted. It just means there isn't a central/core part of a network that everything relies on. Outsourcing of decentralized systems is very popular (see: email, web hosting, DNS, etc.)

unixnoob 14y ago
Yes. I think most people miss this. For peer-to-peer to succeed I think there needs to be some amount of "re-education". There needs to be a shift in thinking. Many of these things that others are doing for you (email, etc.) can just as easily run from your machine instead of theirs. You do not need the same capacity and ability to scale as they do. What makes it all possible is NAT traversal. That is the fundamental problem being solved which takes us back to peer-to-peer and the orginal model of the internet. The rest is all just pre-configuration and UI.
- mnutt 14y ago
  I think NAT traversal is actually only one part of P2P becoming successful. Between UDP hole punching, uPNP, and other techniques you can cover a pretty large percentage of users. The harder part, to me, is distributed trust in the discovery phase. Without a central authority it's really hard to ensure authenticity, fight spam, etc.
  - Sami_Lehtinen 14y ago
    IPv6 is going to solve that. RetroShare is afaik completely decentralized private social network. Although it's security design isn't as good as I would wish it to be. Good network uses PKI and all data being transferred or at rest is secured. This also means that service providers can't be held responsible. Many decentralized plans allow still operators to soop in network parts which they're operating. If there's separate client, why not to make sure that system is secure?
    - unixnoob 14y ago
      I don't know a lot about RetroShare but from what little I know I think they actually had the right approach. It was real peer-to-peer. I'm not thinking about peer-to-peer from an anonymous file sharing perspective. I'm thinking in much broader terms. But I know anonymous file sharing is what many projects have focused on. You are right that many puported "peer-to-peer" solutions are not true p2p. Look hard and you'll usually find a middleman somewhere in the scheme. Of course as we all know many users are not really interested in how something works, just so long as it works. How many people really look hard at the scheme being used? As for IPv6, I think it brings a lot of complexity. And where there is complexity, there will be problems. Working with IPv4 is complex enough as it is. I like IPv4 because it's more widely found. Not everyone will have access to IPv6.
  - unixnoob 14y ago
    I really don't think it's as big an issue as people make it. People commenting about this in lists and forums and blogs make the issue more complex than it is because they have all sorts of assumptions about how it has to work. But as Rob Pike says when you assume you put plum paste on your ass. "Discovery phase." This is nerd stuff. Put all the nerd stuff aside for a moment. When you want to telephone someone, how to you handle the "discovery phase"? You look up the telephone number and place the call. Everyone does this the world over. Second, how many people do you actually telephone in your entire lifetime? Hundreds? Thousands? (Are you a telemarketer?) Third, how many of them are people you see face-to-face at some point? People do not normally call lots of anonymous people. A telephone network. (Actually a system of regional networks.) Everyone has a number. You get their number and you make the call. But how? According to nerds on the web, this should be a complex problem with no easy solution. But millions of people, non-technical people, make telephone calls everyday. To think the web equivalent of a telephone directory is an unsolvable problem is ridiculous. And to think that every person needs a directory with billions of names is similarly silly. They will only need a small subset. Moreover, with modern storage capacities, you could store a billion names and numbers on a small device no problem. Searching billion row databases is quite fast, if you use the right software. But you will never even need to go that far. AFAIK people do not change their telephone numbers very frequently. Certainly not on a whim. If they do change it, then they have to let others know. Somehow they manage this., even if they are non-tecnical. Of course if you keep changing your number you'll be harder to contact. This ic common sense. But why would you do that? Why would you need to keep changing your number? Get a number and stick to it. If you think stuff like MobileIP is the solution to roaming then you need to keep looking at what's possible. There are simpler and more reliable ways to do it. How many people do you call in a lifetime? Think about it.

gnaffle 14y ago

Do you honestly believe that "most users" use GMail and Hotmail? Most users use an ISP, but lots and lots of companies host their own mail, sometimes for good legal reasons. It would be interesting to know if Microsoft sells more Exchange licenses to hosting companies, but I don't think so.

mikeash 14y ago

So what? E-mail is still decentralized. That most people don't host it themselves is a completely unrelated concept.

pcwalton 14y ago

Gmail does not have as large of a market share as you think: http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/email-clients/ http://www.campaignmonitor.com/resources/will-it-work/email-... In general this is a common misconception at HN and in similar circles: Gmail may be ubiquitous among the tech crowd, but it's far from clear that it's even in first place among webmail providers.