This is a very contentious topic and I welcome and encourage discussion, but let’s keep it civil. The title of this article merely highlights the contentious nature of the topic.
There is a wiki-style page explaining why sequential downloading of BitTorrent files is bad. If you don’t understand it, go research it until you do, then come back here.
Let me preface by saying that I think BitTorrent (BT) technology is amazing and I have much respect for all those who helped it be created and maintained. I am not kicking the proverbial gift-horse in the mouth. I’m thankful for what I’ve got. I understand the issue of sequential downloading and how it is detrimental to the whole BT concept. Which is why I understand the heated discussion between people requesting the feature and people explaining why the feature is bad. I am not rehashing that debate.
What I want to do is try and intelligently think about the issue and discuss it, and to do so requires a paradigm-shift by those in the discussion. Think about the progression and proliferation of technology. Think about the concepts of supply and demand. Nobody disputes that zillions of BT users want sequential downloading (zillion = a lot). That means there is a huge demand for it. They might not understand BT technology enough to know why sequential downloading (herein referred do as SD) is bad for BT. But it’s easy to understand why there is a demand for it. If we take a broader look at the history of technological progression, almost always we see that when there is a huge demand for something but our technology is unable to supply that demand, there is great incentive to innovate and improve our technology to meet that demand.
And so my call to action is this: people may be stupid for wanting SD for BT. But the huge demand for it exists for a reason. Rather than telling people to “not want SD”, instead innovate and create to solve the problem. It may be that some innovation in BT technology solves the problem. Or it may be that BT will never be capable of successfully incorporating SD, in which case a new technology is needed. No doubt this problem will be eventually solved. But ignoring a demand does not make it go away. Neither does saying “there shouldn’t BE a demand.” The demand is there, and it must, and will, be supplied. You can argue about it until you’re blue in the face, but that’s the simple fact of the matter. It’s not easy to solve the problem, and I have much respect for the brilliant minds behind the technology. But pretending or insisting that a problem does not exist is not a solution to that problem. The problem remains. And hopefully soon, a solution will follow.