On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 19:32, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > The BitTorrent idea in and of itself will save RHN tons of money on > bandwidth and save everyone else a lot of time. I was actually quite > pleased that I managed to push out almost 2 GB myself, so at least I got > one more person. :-) If something like this is implemented, then the > mirrors will do the work and more RHN servers are not needed at all.
The problem is that the BitTorrent idea of sharing bandwidth doesn't sit well with security conscious customers or the average corporate network. If I pay for access to an ISO, I want access to it that doesn't cost me much more than it already has.
As usual in the Linux world, choice is key. You don't like it... don't use it. However, your not liking it (or ten million people not liking it) does not make it a bad idea. It may well be an excellent alternative for many, and you still benefit from Red Hat's bandwidth being less heavily loaded (providing you with a faster connection) and Red Hat's reduced cost of bandwidth (providing them with lower costs, hence in the long term probably good for you too).
I should also note that you have only mentioned cost-related issues, which are independent from "security consciousness". Given that the BitTorrent code is Open Source, and can/has been freely audited by lots of people, then I should expect that an RH-sponsored BitTorrent would not pose any significant security risks to the consumer.
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz rpaiz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
