> Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we > know and love - or knew and loved?
They didn't quite get it right though, Usenet is not dead in the water. The text message side is pretty moribound, but the binaries are HUGE (not Huge) - many former torrent freaks are moving to Usenet (mainly GigaNews) for binary downloads of films and music, as it's far less traceable than torrents, and many (mostly USAnian) ISPs aren't monitoring or traffic shaping on Usenet traffic, because they all think the same as the author of that article, i.e. Usenet is an archaic text medium that nobody uses...
-- Rob - Shropshire So many cats, So few recipes...
>> > Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we >> > know and love - or knew and loved?
>> They didn't quite get it right though, Usenet is not dead in the water. >> The text message side is pretty moribound, but the binaries are HUGE >> (not Huge) - many former torrent freaks are moving to Usenet (mainly >> GigaNews) for binary downloads of films and music, as it's far less >> traceable than torrents, and many (mostly USAnian) ISPs aren't >> monitoring or traffic shaping on Usenet traffic, because they all think >> the same as the author of that article, i.e. Usenet is an archaic text >> medium that nobody uses...
>If it wasn't for binaries taking over, I think text Usenet would >founder; at least real Usenet can ride on the coat-tails of the >file-sharers so long as binaries are profitable for the NSPs.
It's a shame that the most efficient use of the internet could be compromised because of questionable use which could possibly be outlawed at the drop of a political hat.
>> Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we >> know and love - or knew and loved?
>They didn't quite get it right though, Usenet is not dead in the water. >The text message side is pretty moribound, but the binaries are HUGE >(not Huge) - many former torrent freaks are moving to Usenet (mainly >GigaNews) for binary downloads of films and music, as it's far less >traceable than torrents, and many (mostly USAnian) ISPs aren't >monitoring or traffic shaping on Usenet traffic, because they all think >the same as the author of that article, i.e. Usenet is an archaic text >medium that nobody uses...
> >Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we > >know and love - or knew and loved?
> Now that I've read the article, it doesn't say that Usenet is dead.
This quote from the site sort-of implies that:
"That library is Usenet, a vast internet- and dial-up-based message board system erected in 1980. Though moribund today, for decades Usenet was the paper of record for the online world, and its hundreds of millions of "newsgroup" postings chronicle everything from the birth of the web to the rise of Microsoft, as well as more trivial matters."
> It quite rightly says that Google's attempt to take over Usenet has > failed because it can't absolutely archive it.
> "the rusting shell of Google Groups is a reminder that Google is an > advertising company".
Oh yes, that was the main thrust of the article - Google have screwed up on their purchase of Deja and CBA to mend it because of the lack of ad revenue from the archive.
> We're not here to make money for Google Groups.
> What are we here for?
> For each other.
Exactly.
Make the most of it, 'cos I reckon that the UK ISPs are going to stop Usenet support (like many of the USAnian ones) within the next 12 months. Am I right in thinking that Carphone Whorehouse/Piscali have just dropped Usenet support?
-- Rob - Shropshire So many cats, So few recipes...
He was broadcasting from New York City, and there seemed to be a movement away from the Big Apple in those days because of crime, poverty and bad press.
While most other entertainers headed for the West Coast, Gleason chose Miami, Florida, and that was the end of Gleason and DuMont.
In message <c0rsc595pievfj7bce9mg9crcq6i16l...@4ax.com>, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> writes
>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:01:36 +0100, Geep <G...@nospam.demon.co.uk> >wrote:
>>Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we >>know and love - or knew and loved?
>Now that I've read the article, it doesn't say that Usenet is dead.
Absolutely. No, I don't think Usenet is really dead, or even dying, but, as a medium, it is less busy than a few years ago. Much less so, apart from the binary stuff mentioned earlier.
dl is dead, afba is quiet, alue is almost RIP. I guess The Shed is still active, but have not looked, for a *long* time.
I still enjoy reading Usenet, and am not a fan of online forums. Yahoo Groups are OK, but only because I can receive messages as individual e-mails, which my software (Turnpike) treats and displays exactly as Usenet articles. Should Yahoo ever withdraw the individual e-mail option, or the plain text option, I'll be outta there. -- Geep
>>>Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we >>>know and love - or knew and loved?
>>Now that I've read the article, it doesn't say that Usenet is dead.
>Absolutely. No, I don't think Usenet is really dead, or even dying, >but, as a medium, it is less busy than a few years ago. Much less so, >apart from the binary stuff mentioned earlier.
>dl is dead, afba is quiet, alue is almost RIP. I guess The Shed is >still active, but have not looked, for a *long* time.
Nor have I, but certain crossposts in Another place show that at least some of the old faithfuls are still there.
Maybe it's quietened down enough to be less of a chore to read now :-)
>I still enjoy reading Usenet, and am not a fan of online forums. Yahoo >Groups are OK, but only because I can receive messages as individual >e-mails, which my software (Turnpike) treats and displays exactly as >Usenet articles. Should Yahoo ever withdraw the individual e-mail >option, or the plain text option, I'll be outta there.
There is an unfortunate misconception due to the general "dumbing down" that Usenet is Google Groups.
There are other attempts to make Usenet accessible to the great unwashed; I'm sure you've noticed that some OPs posts don't find their way onto ulm via legalbanter, for example.
I think that Usenet is so useful that people who find it useful will keep it going despite the plethora of web forums, which are mostly not useful.
ISPs' own news servers have been deprecated for quite a long while. I wouldn't depend on them.
>> We're not here to make money for Google Groups.
>> What are we here for?
>> For each other.
>Exactly.
>Make the most of it, 'cos I reckon that the UK ISPs are going to stop >Usenet support (like many of the USAnian ones) within the next 12 >months. Am I right in thinking that Carphone Whorehouse/Piscali have >just dropped Usenet support?
I stopped using my ISP's news servers ages ago, when I left Demon.
Both Virgin/NTL's (most recent previous ISP) and BT's (current ISP) servers are just pathetic. The ISPs are not stupid and can see that very, very few of their customers use Usenet these days and most of the Usenet traffic they -do- get is dodgy binaries. I use Motzarella for text NGs and a paid-for (95USD/year) service for binaries. If Motzarella and the other free servers disappear -then- I'll start worrying about the death of Usenet.
-- "I have been called a misanthrope, but I prefer curmudgeon; it's folksier and less threatening. Misanthrope sounds like you'd have to have gone to college to be one." <Frank Zappa> Mike Harrison.
Mike Harrison <m.harrison....@btinternet.com> wrote: > According to my spies Rob of (Errm... Where did I put it?) writes > >Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:01:36 +0100, Geep <G...@nospam.demon.co.uk> > >> wrote:
> >> >More sausages please, and a large cuppa. Cheerslove!
> >> We're not here to make money for Google Groups.
> >> What are we here for?
> >> For each other.
> >Exactly.
> >Make the most of it, 'cos I reckon that the UK ISPs are going to stop > >Usenet support (like many of the USAnian ones) within the next 12 > >months. Am I right in thinking that Carphone Whorehouse/Piscali have > >just dropped Usenet support?
> I stopped using my ISP's news servers ages ago, when I left Demon.
> Both Virgin/NTL's (most recent previous ISP) and BT's (current ISP) > servers are just pathetic. The ISPs are not stupid and can see that > very, very few of their customers use Usenet these days and most of the > Usenet traffic they -do- get is dodgy binaries. I use Motzarella for > text NGs and a paid-for (95USD/year) service for binaries. If Motzarella > and the other free servers disappear -then- I'll start worrying about > the death of Usenet.
I'm with BT. One of the reasons I went to them after Piscali fsked up Pipex was that BT use the same peering arrangement with GigaNews that Pipex used. They allow 3 concurrent connections that don't appear to be hugely throttled - I can get 40-50kbs per connection - Pipex only allowed 2 connections at max 20kbps per connection.
In the year I've been with BT I've not seen any probs with their usenet service, except for an occasional glitch where the third connection wants to connect to a different server that requires different authentication credentials. I've not seen that one for 6 months or so.
-- Rob - Shropshire So many cats, So few recipes...
>>Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we >>know and love - or knew and loved?
>Slightly surreal brekkie reading, since it said something about geeks >cheering when Google bought Deja - don't remember that - and Usenet >being moribund - quieter, but not quite dead yet.
It was originally Alta Vista, a research project by Digital. It's had many reincarnations.
>It also says that Google have started to fix it, after seeing that >article. :-)
They have fixed quite a lot. Pity that they ohttrerq [1] [2] up the interface, but.
I can remember using VaxNotes over 20 years ago. It was newsfroups [3] from a dumb terminal. I used to log on from home using a VT100 and a 1200 [4] bps [5] modem in 1988.
[1] Oooo, sexy. When was the last time someone ROT'd [7] anything here. [2] Or used footnotes. [3] text only. [4] That was fast! [8] [5] That's bits per second.
[7] Sorry, Bear. [8] We used to have 300 bps modems
-- Richard. 1999 Scapin Pro Team/2008 Record __o _`\(,_ (_)/(_)
|
