Skype uses peer to peer communication, where as Google hangout uses client-server architecture.
Google early versions used client-server but new version don’t use it anymore.
, even though skypt says p2p we can’t be sure its a proprietary protocol.
When we use peer to peer we need to think of the storage problem right?
The idea of Peer-to-Peer is to eliminate the gap or separation between the Server and Client. Instead of treating some machines as Servers with special abilities and treating some machines as Clients which can just be dumb without servers, peer-to-peer will treat every machine as both Client and Server as well.
The irony with the traditional Server-Client model today is that, Servers which have special powers run low on resources while clients (our laptops / desktops) are powered with powerful processors, high storage (1TB) and high memory (4GB minimum).
So this traditional model is under-utilizing resources by empowering clients with high end resources. In peer-to-peer a machine is both Client and Server so the resources like Processing, Storage and Memory of that machine will be utilized.
Addressing and handling these resources is the principle of Peer-to-Peer architecture. So when you use peer-to-peer architecture those problems are already addressed by design.
Servers don’t run low on resource, its due to them getting overwhelmed by client requests and the amount of hard drive we have can’t be compared to that of a server’s. Server’s are designed to serve a particular purpose or a set of purposes, but we as clients don’t just browse or just engage in peer to peer activities.
We do tons of stuffs with our systems and so if we are to switch the architecture we need to ensure that the client systems operate optimally under these circumstances. So, I think we need to emphasize what disadvantages of server-client model does the peer to peer system address and what are the features it can provide as given by the client-server model. Client side mvc designs came into picture just to utilize today’s computing power a client has. Peer to peer systems should tightly embrace encryption so that no malicious peer tries take advantage of the system.
Not all clients are highly configured. There are still client systems out there with very low resources. I am not against peer-to-peer but i think we should consider this too.
In short determining right tool for a task would be up to us, after required research and understanding on its features. But irrespective of its current popular usage and features the centralized architectures are bound to single point of failures such as, data theft/misuse, privacy, service down time, etc.
Important than that is, in a centralized architecture, when all data gets collected to a single point, obviously it will attract people with power such as government, crackers, owners etc. to exploit the pile of data and gain maximum out of it though it violates ethical and moral values.
Peer to Peer vs Centralized
Current technologies which we use in our day to day activities, almost for everything like storage, communication, processing, use Centralized architecture. P2P is not a single size fit for all solution against centralized architectures.
In terms of storage P2P is a kind of poor performer if you measure with utilization of optimal utilization of storage medium. But in-terms of communication, peer to peer solves single point of failure, prevents data theft/misuse, low latency etc.
Decentralized vs Centralized
Decentralization architectures would be suitable for storage related scenarios, where instead of storing a file in all the devices, you should be able to store your data in trustworthy places where you get access to verify its integrity.
For example, storing your valuables on local bank which you trust and verify its integrity when ever you pleased is always better, than storing in an unknown place blindly believing it is secure only because its owners says so and hoping nothing will happen to it.
Utilizing both Decentralized as well as P2P architectures in right scenarios as a replacement of centralized architectures will make much more sense in-terms of proper utilization or resources, and proper justification for ethical and moral values.
The Server powering this site (discuss.fsftn.org) is running on 1GB MB Ram, 30 GB Storage with 1 Core processor. My machine or your machine is obviously highly configured than Server and most of the de-facto laptops or desktops today contains 2GB Ram as minimum requirement and more than 30 GB as storage.
Disagree. It’s just the Software that distinguishes a machine from being a Server / Client. Not hardware. Any machine can act as a Server provided it gets the Server software installed and the operating system configured and is networked.
One of the issues p-2-p is trying to address is this. Use whatever machine available as possible, thus instead of polluting with ‘n’ number of Servers as separate entity and ‘n’ number of Clients as separate entity, mix them together and so today you already have all the powers without the need for a new machine to be spawned.
There are already millions of client machines, people in future will also buy them. Instead of using those machines why should we still put extra machines as Servers and pollute?
Now if the purpose of Servers are to serve only files, Eliminate servers and take use of existing clients to that (Peer-2-Peer) again.
Yes they do emphasize that by design. Check Bitcoin, Maidsafe.
I recommend this to read. http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/11/24/shirky1-whatisp2p.html
Read up about “Meshnets”. It’s all security vs. convenience. If you look at it, even SSL is a form of centralized trust system.
BitTorrent is coming up with a Web browser that works with P2P.
Hyperboria - Project Meshnet - A global decentralized alternative to the Internet.
This project seems interesting. We should spend some time on this.
"I just watched the movie India’s Daughter. The movie is about a gang rape (and murder) in India in 2012. The first thing that struck me was that I wanted to put it up on The Pirate Bay’s frontpage to make sure that people all over the world could see it – especially in India. Why? It’s being censored there.
Sharing is political. Words are political. Communication is political. And if we don’t use the powers and voices we have, we’re on the wrong side of the struggle." – Peter Sundae
I don’ think free speech really exists in India. Only the illusion of it exists.
You have some legal framework that you can use to defend yourself.
The Compact for a Free, Open & Neutral Network (FONN Compact)
I can see FONN really leverages on social auditing in its policy to make the mechanism and usage of network to be neutral. Great.
Not sure whether this would exactly fit here . But , it has tons of information
Think @prashere pointed it out to earlier . But I missed to follow it .
The GNUnet project seems to have built an entirely new network stack for a decentralized internet, making it easy for application developers to write P2P applications. I knew about the project long back, but never looked in detail until now.
Could this in anyway be used on a mesh? Ideas?
yes already it is in our list along with retroshare… for use in mesh