4 ms·

I think the issue with the p2p is the Microsoft is leveraging consumer's paychecks to lower their server costs all without even reasonably informing the consume

by opnitro 11y ago

I think the issue with the p2p is the Microsoft is leveraging consumer's paychecks to lower their server costs all without even reasonably informing the consumer, let alone asking for permission. This feature could end up charging those with data caps. When I use p2p program, be it some chat system or bittorrent, I make the choice to use it. I understand that I am using my resources to run an application. But Microsoft seems to be making that choice for me.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- Philadelphia 11y ago
  It's not free if they expect for you to pay for it in time, privacy, and bandwidth. Presenting it as free while still trying to extract value from the recipient is where the ethical murkiness comes in.
  - forthefuture 11y ago
    Actually that is what free is. Just like Facebook and Google, Microsoft can very clearly and truthfully claim that their product is free if and only if they do not charge you money to use it.
    - opnitro 11y ago
      It's free in the strict sense that you are not exchanging money for it. While that is perfectly legal, people are saying that you pay in a different way.
Renaud 11y ago
The user benefits as well: if you have multiple machines in your home, only one set of updates will be downloaded and all your machines will share it. Until now, each machine had to download its own updates.
- AmVess 11y ago
  That's not the point. The point is that MS defaulted to using your bandwidth to send update data to other users over the internet P2P style. If MS were benevolent, they would have made this an opt in feature, not the default behavior. They have the option of sending updates to PC on your local network, but that isn't selected by default.
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    So did spotify, if they didn't then no one will opt-in not because they care about their "privacy" but because it takes effort and knowledge. They set the LAN option for enterprise and education SKU's not because they care about their privacy but because the network setup will not make it functional as UPNP and other types of port knocking are not something which is available in an enterprise environment.
    - jlgaddis 11y ago
      UPNP and/or port knocking typically aren't available in an enterprise network because they aren't needed or wanted. Neither of those is necessary for P2P delivery of updates, though. I think they turned it off by default for those customers because Microsoft knows the ass chewing they'd get if they didn't. Besides, a typical large enterprise is already going to have a system in place to handle the delivery of updates (e.g., WSUS, SCCM, or whatever they're using/calling it nowadays) to PCs such that the bandwidth savings aren't going to as noticeable.
mikekchar 11y ago
I have very little interest in Windows so I haven't really been following this, but game developers have been using P2P updates for almost a decade now. It's a good feature. Especially if you have everybody grabbing updates at roughly the same time (which is likely), this is going to free up congestion and make it work better for everyone (including ISPs!). What kind of data sizes are we talking about here, though? And at what ratio does it seed to? Without knowing details like that, it's hard to tell if the user will really be negatively impacted in a practical sense. Like I said, the games I have played that have automatic updates all have this feature turned on by default and I've never heard anyone complain (except for NAT issues making the P2P updating not work ;-) ). Admittedly I'm not a gamer, so possibly I have a skewed perspective from the few games I have played.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jlgaddis 11y ago
  I think it's pretty well-known, though, that game updates are delivered using P2P file-sharing. Like you, I'm definitely not a gamer (we've got a Nintendo Wii and an Xbox 360 but I've never played either of them and the last PC game I played was MS Flight Simulator for DOS, if memory serves) but even I'm aware of that -- and apparently you are too. I think the bigger issue is not that they're using P2P to deliver updates (or the plethora of other things that Microsoft is doing with Windows 10), it's that it's all being done without the user's knowledge or -- more importantly -- their consent.

by opnitro 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Philadelphia 11y ago
It's not free if they expect for you to pay for it in time, privacy, and bandwidth. Presenting it as free while still trying to extract value from the recipient is where the ethical murkiness comes in.
- forthefuture 11y ago
  Actually that is what free is. Just like Facebook and Google, Microsoft can very clearly and truthfully claim that their product is free if and only if they do not charge you money to use it.
  - opnitro 11y ago
    It's free in the strict sense that you are not exchanging money for it. While that is perfectly legal, people are saying that you pay in a different way.

Renaud 11y ago

The user benefits as well: if you have multiple machines in your home, only one set of updates will be downloaded and all your machines will share it. Until now, each machine had to download its own updates.

AmVess 11y ago
That's not the point. The point is that MS defaulted to using your bandwidth to send update data to other users over the internet P2P style. If MS were benevolent, they would have made this an opt in feature, not the default behavior. They have the option of sending updates to PC on your local network, but that isn't selected by default.
- dogma1138 11y ago
  So did spotify, if they didn't then no one will opt-in not because they care about their "privacy" but because it takes effort and knowledge. They set the LAN option for enterprise and education SKU's not because they care about their privacy but because the network setup will not make it functional as UPNP and other types of port knocking are not something which is available in an enterprise environment.
  - jlgaddis 11y ago
    UPNP and/or port knocking typically aren't available in an enterprise network because they aren't needed or wanted. Neither of those is necessary for P2P delivery of updates, though. I think they turned it off by default for those customers because Microsoft knows the ass chewing they'd get if they didn't. Besides, a typical large enterprise is already going to have a system in place to handle the delivery of updates (e.g., WSUS, SCCM, or whatever they're using/calling it nowadays) to PCs such that the bandwidth savings aren't going to as noticeable.

mikekchar 11y ago

I have very little interest in Windows so I haven't really been following this, but game developers have been using P2P updates for almost a decade now. It's a good feature. Especially if you have everybody grabbing updates at roughly the same time (which is likely), this is going to free up congestion and make it work better for everyone (including ISPs!). What kind of data sizes are we talking about here, though? And at what ratio does it seed to? Without knowing details like that, it's hard to tell if the user will really be negatively impacted in a practical sense. Like I said, the games I have played that have automatic updates all have this feature turned on by default and I've never heard anyone complain (except for NAT issues making the P2P updating not work ;-) ). Admittedly I'm not a gamer, so possibly I have a skewed perspective from the few games I have played.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jlgaddis 11y ago
I think it's pretty well-known, though, that game updates are delivered using P2P file-sharing. Like you, I'm definitely not a gamer (we've got a Nintendo Wii and an Xbox 360 but I've never played either of them and the last PC game I played was MS Flight Simulator for DOS, if memory serves) but even I'm aware of that -- and apparently you are too. I think the bigger issue is not that they're using P2P to deliver updates (or the plethora of other things that Microsoft is doing with Windows 10), it's that it's all being done without the user's knowledge or -- more importantly -- their consent.