Quiet? Here? Huh?
Geep
More sausages please, and a large cuppa. Cheerslove!
Interesting article here :
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/
Fairly depressing breakfast reading. Whatever happened to the Usenet we
know and love - or knew and loved?
--
Geep
Harry Keane
"Geep" <Ge...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:YKCmPoBA...@binnsroad.demon.co.uk...
Could you keep the noise down over there, please? I'm trying to concentrate
on FaceBook!
:-)
--
Harry Keane
P.S. We are grandparents again - Louisa Mary Heather Payne, born 1st
October, a sister for RobertHarry
Rob
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...
Humbug
wrote:
It's still here, despite Google's efforts.
I'll put the kettle on, shall I?
--
Humbug
Humbug
wrote:
>Rob <robrai...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Interesting article here :
>> >
>> > http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/
>> >
>> > 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.
Carry on posting, friends!
--
Humbug
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
Lots of text groups are very active.
--
mad
Humbug
wrote:
>
Now that I've read the article, it doesn't say that Usenet is dead.
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".
We're not here to make money for Google Groups.
What are we here for?
For each other.
--
Humbug
Rob
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:01:36 +0100, Geep <Ge...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >More sausages please, and a large cuppa. Cheerslove!
> >
> >Interesting article here :
> >
> >http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/
> >
> >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?
zol
Mack A. Damia
wrote:
Wasn't Jackie Gleason hooked up with DuMont?
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.
Long time ago. Memories blur.
--
mad
Geep
<hum...@tofee.net> writes
>>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
Harry Keane
news:4sg0d5t2bcotgie7a...@4ax.com...
> From "Harry Keane" <Harry...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
<snip>
>>P.S. We are grandparents again - Louisa Mary Heather Payne, born 1st
>>October, a sister for RobertHarry
>
> Congrats to all. :-)
Thanks.
--
Harry Keane
Humbug
wrote:
>In message <c0rsc595pievfj7bc...@4ax.com>, Humbug
><hum...@tofee.net> writes
>>On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:01:36 +0100, Geep <Ge...@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.
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.
--
Humbug
Mike Harrison
>Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:01:36 +0100, Geep <Ge...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >More sausages please, and a large cuppa. Cheerslove!
>> >
>> >Interesting article here :
>> >
>> >http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/
>> >
>
>
>>
>> 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?
>
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.
Rob
> 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 <Ge...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >More sausages please, and a large cuppa. Cheerslove!
> >> >
> >> >Interesting article here :
> >> >
> >> >http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/10/usenet/
> >> >
> >
> >
> >> 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.
Richard Sherratt
<ha...@drunkenbastards.spam.com> wrote:
>From Geep <Ge...@nospam.demon.co.uk>:
>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
_`\(,_
(_)/(_)