Yup. Google Groups sucks for usenet access
BLink
snow, and I have a faster connection.
Sad to see my Forte Agent unable to find a server.
Now I'm trying Google, but really - how tough could it be to give a
threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
how Usenet works.
Ah well - when Christmas is over and I'm done with all my concerts,
maybe I'll try to find a Google API for groups and build a
hierarchical browser.
BLink
<this sig should be replaced by an intelligent Google Usenet client>
catpandaddy
"BLink" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e8b341d-fdd6-4f73...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Finally cut the cord with VISI. The Dish is working well despite the
> snow, and I have a faster connection.
>
> Sad to see my Forte Agent unable to find a server.
>
> Now I'm trying Google, but really - how tough could it be to give a
> threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
> you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
> mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
> how Usenet works.
Shh! Don't tell AnnE!
Mike O'Brien
>> Now I'm trying Google, but really - how tough could it be to give a
>> threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
>> you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
>> mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
>> how Usenet works.
> Shh! Don't tell AnnE!
or LuLu...
Jinx Minx
"BLink" <brian...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6e8b341d-fdd6-4f73...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Well don't say we didn't tell you! Seriously, sign up for a free account on
www.eternal-september.org (news.eternal-september.org) or use
freenews.netfront.net. You should still be able to use your Forte Agent
with either of those servers. They both hiccup once in awhile, but they are
leaps and bounds above Google Groups!
Jinx
levi
> Finally cut the cord with VISI. The Dish is working well despite the
> snow, and I have a faster connection.
>
> Sad to see my Forte Agent unable to find a server.
>
> Now I'm trying Google, but really - how tough could it be to give a
> threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
> you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
> mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
> how Usenet works.
>
>
> BLink
> <this sig should be replaced by an intelligent Google Usenet client>
Huh? There *is* a thread mode, showing who
responded to what post - and on what day.
You get hierarchy in the left frame, message
texts in the center frame.
You'll just have to deploy more intelligence.
Jim Land
>
> Well don't say we didn't tell you! Seriously, sign up for a free account on
> www.eternal-september.org (news.eternal-september.org) or use
> freenews.netfront.net. You should still be able to use your Forte Agent
> with either of those servers. They both hiccup once in awhile, but they are
> leaps and bounds above Google Groups!
Seconding Eternal September. Thanks to the earlier suggestion in this
group, I signed up with them (free!) and it works fine in my newsgroup
reader. Just like old times, before Google started taking over everything.
AnnE
reply Sort by date
Yup. Google Groups sucks for usenet access
1 BLink Dec 10
2 catpandaddy Dec 10
3 Mike O'Brien Dec 10
4 Jinx Minx Dec 10
5 Jim Land Dec 10
6 levi Dec 10
Thank you, Levi, for posting the above. I copied and pasted the left
side of this conversation.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh, this is AnnE <G>
levi
<cue Boba Looey> `s alright...
Jules
> Seconding Eternal September.
Thirding...
:-)
Mike H
> threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
> you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
> mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
> how Usenet works.
It's there, you apparently are just not patient enough to figure it
out. This was described before.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/gdWq5akOyUqn-PnYnO209Q?feat=directlink
Scott Smith
Yes. I don't use Google Groups very often, but when I do it's pretty
straight forward and easy to use once you figure out how to configure
it to your liking.
As far as a web-based newsreader goes, it's not that bad, IMO.
.
.
AnnE
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL and now I'm running the full version of Win7 and it even works
still.
AnnE
levi
Whatever web browser you use is more likely
to affect how Google works, rather than
your operating system.
BTW, I think it's cool that you know who
Baba Looey is.
AnnE
I know that! Was just kidding BLink.
> BTW, I think it's cool that you know who
> Baba Looey is.- Hide quoted text -
Heh, heh....been too many years. But actually, I thought you used
that "term" to really call BLink that. You know, the initials BL.
lol
Thanks for the laff.
AnnE
Chris Sorenson
Regardless of anything else google groups STILL sucks because, as I
found out to my supreme irritation, if you signup for a gmail account
it then forces your "from" address (in usenet postings) to be your gmail
address regardless of whether you have other email addresses registered
with your google account... :\
Mike O'Brien
> Regardless of anything else google groups STILL sucks because, as I
> found out to my supreme irritation, if you signup for a gmail account
> it then forces your "from" address (in usenet postings) to be your gmail
> address regardless of whether you have other email addresses registered
> with your google account... :\
Well, it is their service they are providing free so I suppose they can
dictate use of their free gmail service as well.
Regards,
Mike O'Brien
life is full of choices. choices have consequences
Mark Olson
> "Chris Sorenson" <cso...@isd.net> wrote
>
>> Regardless of anything else google groups STILL sucks because, as I
>> found out to my supreme irritation, if you signup for a gmail account
>> it then forces your "from" address (in usenet postings) to be your gmail
>> address regardless of whether you have other email addresses registered
>> with your google account... :\
>
> Well, it is their service they are providing free so I suppose they can
> dictate use of their free gmail service as well.
Actually I was curious so I decided to try adding my visi.com address
to my Google Groups account, as an alternate to my Gmail address. It
was successful. I haven't actually gone all the way through the process
of posting (because I don't need any more spam than I already get) but
it appears I can do exactly what Chris claims I cannot do, because the
dialog box where I specify what email the post is to come from allows
me to select my visi.com address.
Mark Olson
Just to clarify- I already had my visi.com address associated with my
Gmail account. I had to go through the Account settings under Google
Groups to also associate it with GGs.
Jules
> "Chris Sorenson" <cso...@isd.net> wrote
>
>> Regardless of anything else google groups STILL sucks because, as I
>> found out to my supreme irritation, if you signup for a gmail account
>> it then forces your "from" address (in usenet postings) to be your gmail
>> address regardless of whether you have other email addresses registered
>> with your google account... :\
>
> Well, it is their service they are providing free so I suppose they can
> dictate use of their free gmail service as well.
Y'know, it's a shame they don't do as with their email service - I mean,
I use gmail, but *only* for the POP access; I wouldn't dream of using the
web interface because it appears to be clunky and awful (OK, so not quite
true - I do have to try and remember to go in via the web once a month and
check for things incorrectly identifed as spam, because they don't deliver
spam via POP and don't let you turn the spam filter off).
But anyway, it's a pity they don't have something that "looks" like an
NNTP server and lets you sign up and then just point a regular usenet
app at it (complete with all the flexibility that gives you)
I've had the same sort of issue with yahoo groups in the past, where
they've made it hard to use anything other than a yahoo address with their
services (I managed, somehow, and it's possibly better now than it used to
be)
I'm not really complaining, because as you say it's their service and
their choice; but it always seems a shame when a big company comes in,
stomps on the competition, and somehow gives the public a worse experience
in the process. Thankfully in newsgroup terms much better places (such as
eternal-september, NiN etc.) still exist, not it's not quite Game Over yet.
cheers
Jules
catpandaddy
"Jules" <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.12.15....@remove.this.gmail.com...
There you go again.
Google groups is stomping on the competition? I have yet to see how the
phrase "stomping on the competition" applies to the world of Usenet. It
doesn't. It simply does not. We are not talking about some kind of
zero-sum game here where one group wins by shutting another group out. It
doesn't work that way. Anyone who wants to set up a Usenet service under
any implementation whatsoever is free to do so. It's like saying that cars
will put bikes out of business. Or lettuce will put cabbage out of
business. Or that one kind of tree in England puts another kind of tree in
Brazil out of business.
In short, one does not exist to do the other in.
I can literally switch which Usenet portal I use at will, or even use many
concurrently, and I'm not locked into a contract with any of them. In fact,
it's much easier for me to jump from one method of accessing Usenet messages
to another than it is to jump from that hypothetical tree in England and
land on the other hypothetical tree in Brazil. The first is effortless.
The second would break a person's neck while failing to reach the goal by
thousands of miles.
You might as well take a set of watercolors and mix a few shades together
and claim they will put another shade of watercolor out of business.
I'm intending this message to be free of malice... I don't mean to be an ass
about this, it just comes naturally to me, sadly. It's simply that none of
the doomsday-rhetoric has ever made itself evident to me in practice, and I
don't begrudge anyone their right to set up their own implementation,
however assinine it may seem to me. Someone could store and forward Usenet
message via telephone voice mail for all I care. Some might even choose to
use it. And it wouldn't matter.
So someone chose to try to archive every Usenet message ever posted, and
make it possible to read them from a web browser, and even provided a
primitive gateway to reply to them. Big deal. I'll live.
If you can take one more example... automatic transmissions on cars do not
exist to put manual transmissions out of business. There will always be
those who favor the one and those who favor the other. Begrudging the one
that you don't personally favor just seems like such a wasteful thing over
which to fret.
And I will continue to write in my LiveJournal even as I make use of Usenet,
Email and FTP. Just like I will continue to use a screwdriver alongside of
my wrenches and hammers and pliers. It's not a matter of whether one is
superior to the other. It's simply a matter of whichever suits my purposes
at a given moment.
Whew! Rant mode off. And cheers!! Hope the holiday season treats you well
and all that.
Doc O'Leary
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> But anyway, it's a pity they don't have something that "looks" like an
> NNTP server and lets you sign up and then just point a regular usenet
> app at it (complete with all the flexibility that gives you)
There is no business sense to that. You might as well ask all the
social networking sites to agree on a standard "user profile" that can
be easily transferred between sites. The reality is that locking you in
is what they use to help keep you around when better sites pop up in the
future. Interoperability is something most companies only get to by
being dragged kicking and screaming.
> I'm not really complaining, because as you say it's their service and
> their choice; but it always seems a shame when a big company comes in,
> stomps on the competition, and somehow gives the public a worse experience
> in the process. Thankfully in newsgroup terms much better places (such as
> eternal-september, NiN etc.) still exist, not it's not quite Game Over yet.
So don't give in to the companies who aren't doing you a service.
People seem all too willing to sign away their entire online lives for
services that could just as easily be provided by a $5/month hosting
service. It's hard to blame the companies when the fault lies with the
people, although it is quite handy to killfile the company as a proxy to
quieting those same people.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
Jules
>> I'm not really complaining, because as you say it's their service and
>> their choice; but it always seems a shame when a big company comes in,
>> stomps on the competition
>
> There you go again.
Yes, I do :P
> Google groups is stomping on the competition? I have yet to see how the
> phrase "stomping on the competition" applies to the world of Usenet.
It was more directed at the previous comment about Yahoo than usenet, to
be honest.
> Anyone who wants to set up a Usenet service
> under any implementation whatsoever is free to do so.
Agreed.
> It's like saying that cars will put bikes out of business. Or lettuce
> will put cabbage out of business.
Well, the way I look at it, people mostly use usenet to ask questions and
get answers. If 90% of folk start using Google groups (and I mean groups -
not the part that happens to be a usenet gateway) then suddenly I'm 9
times more likely to get an answer to my question if I sign up with Google
than I am if I ask it on usenet (yes, I know it's not *quite* that
clear-cut, but the basic idea is sound I think).
It's all about the marketing and vendor lock-in, I guess. There are some
classes of product where all the company needs to do is attract enough
people, and the rest kind-of have to follow whether they like the product
or not.
> I'm intending this message to be free of malice... I don't mean to be an
> ass about this, it just comes naturally to me, sadly.
:-) No worries... and anyway, if I get pissed at anyone I always just walk
away for a bit and never stay pissed for long. Life's too short 'n all
that.
> So someone chose to try to archive every Usenet message ever posted, and
> make it possible to read them from a web browser, and even provided a
> primitive gateway to reply to them. Big deal. I'll live.
Oh, I think google are great for that side of it (even though I don't
personally like the interface). My only 'issue' is their blurring of
the lines between their own web-based groups (that are solely under their
control) and of the wider usenet (which isn't), and I wish they'd be a bit
more open about it (and/or that people knew that usenet exists :-)
> If you can take one more example... automatic transmissions on cars do
> not exist to put manual transmissions out of business. There will
> always be those who favor the one and those who favor the other.
I don't know about that one ;-) Seems hard to get a car with a good manual
in the US (and/or people who know how to service them). In England it was
the other way around - very few autos (or associated service techs).
Unlikely for the choice to die out completely, I agree - but I do think
there might come a time when car company x just offers one type of 'box on
its entire product range, and with more and more companies sharing chassis
and engine designs...
> And I will continue to write in my LiveJournal even as I make use of
> Usenet, Email and FTP. Just like I will continue to use a screwdriver
> alongside of my wrenches and hammers and pliers. It's not a matter of
> whether one is superior to the other. It's simply a matter of whichever
> suits my purposes at a given moment.
Now that I couldn't have put better myself! It's all down to using the
right tool for the job - and of course making sure that there's a
selection of "tools" available...
> Whew! Rant mode off. And cheers!! Hope the holiday season treats you
> well and all that.
Heh, you too.
Right, back to building siege weapons for me :-)
cheers!
Jules
Jules
> In article <pan.2009.12.15....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But anyway, it's a pity they don't have something that "looks" like an
>> NNTP server and lets you sign up and then just point a regular usenet
>> app at it (complete with all the flexibility that gives you)
>
> There is no business sense to that.
I agree, there doesn't seem to be. But gmail exists and allows POP
access, thus allowing the user to make use of the email service, but
freeing them from the offered (web) client. It's obviously a setup that
Google can make work there from a business point of view, and I don't
think the NNTP analogy is that different. Why they went into the SMTP game
but not the NNTP one I don't know.
> You might as well ask all the
> social networking sites to agree on a standard "user profile" that can
> be easily transferred between sites.
Oh, how nice that would be ;)
> Interoperability is something most companies only get to by
> being dragged kicking and screaming.
Yes, been there, done that (on the dragging side) a few times!
>> I'm not really complaining, because as you say it's their service and
>> their choice; but it always seems a shame when a big company comes in,
>> stomps on the competition, and somehow gives the public a worse
>> experience in the process. Thankfully in newsgroup terms much better
>> places (such as eternal-september, NiN etc.) still exist, not it's not
>> quite Game Over yet.
>
> So don't give in to the companies who aren't doing you a service. People
> seem all too willing to sign away their entire online lives for services
> that could just as easily be provided by a $5/month hosting service.
> It's hard to blame the companies when the fault lies with the people,
Yes, you may be right in that (speaking generally) people sometimes don't
make the effort to go looking for a solution to their problem, and instead
make do with a partial solution. Fair enough and that's their loss...
The problem I think arises when a service depends on a certain level of
user participation to work; company x with deep pockets can market the
hell out of a poorer product, putting company y with a better product out
of business - there are cases where it doesn't matter how superior a
product is if it doesn't have the user following to sustain it.
cheers
Jules
levi
That's not true.
Check out my "From:" address.
You're merely whining about the
default -- which is how you would
set the defaults up if you were
providing the same services.
Doc O'Leary
Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:09:10 -0600, Doc O'Leary wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2009.12.15....@remove.this.gmail.com>,
> > Jules <jules.rich...@remove.this.gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> But anyway, it's a pity they don't have something that "looks" like an
> >> NNTP server and lets you sign up and then just point a regular usenet
> >> app at it (complete with all the flexibility that gives you)
> >
> > There is no business sense to that.
>
> I agree, there doesn't seem to be. But gmail exists and allows POP
> access, thus allowing the user to make use of the email service, but
> freeing them from the offered (web) client. It's obviously a setup that
> Google can make work there from a business point of view, and I don't
> think the NNTP analogy is that different. Why they went into the SMTP game
> but not the NNTP one I don't know.
I think it's pretty clear that they did it because they *had* to offer
something more than just webmail to be able to sift through your
personal messages. Usenet, on the other hand, is nowhere near as
ubiquitous or personal as email, so they're quite happy to mainly
archive it and throw a bone by offering a basic posting interface to
those who don't have (or don't know they have) a Usenet provider. It
may even be that the backend to *all* Google Groups is run on an NNTP
server, but there's no reason to make that interface public if nobody is
demanding access via a Usenet client.
> The problem I think arises when a service depends on a certain level of
> user participation to work; company x with deep pockets can market the
> hell out of a poorer product, putting company y with a better product out
> of business - there are cases where it doesn't matter how superior a
> product is if it doesn't have the user following to sustain it.
And yet we see the opposite with social networking. For some reason, we
see all these *huge* media companies who easily have the resources to
make their sites work like Facebook or Twitter, yet they actually direct
people *away* to those sites in what appears to be a desperate attempt
to seem cool. I seriously don't see what Twitter offers that anyone
else couldn't offer if they hosted their own microblog with an RSS feed.
From a branding standpoint, most of the established companies are doing
it all wrong.
Mike H
We'll test. I just set mine to use a different e-mail account.
Mike H
wrote:
...
> Well, the way I look at it, people mostly use usenet to ask questions and
> get answers. If 90% of folk start using Google groups (and I mean groups -
> not the part that happens to be a usenet gateway) then suddenly I'm 9
> times more likely to get an answer to my question if I sign up with Google
> than I am if I ask it on usenet (yes, I know it's not *quite* that
> clear-cut, but the basic idea is sound I think).
I dunno. I don't follow any "google groups" groups. They tend to be
too filled with crap. Even more so than standard usenet. The "google
groups" groups support indexing, so if you're looking for something it
should pop up in a standard search you do through your search engine
of choice.
Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Finally cut the cord with VISI. The Dish is working well despite the
> snow, and I have a faster connection.
>
> Sad to see my Forte Agent unable to find a server.
>
> Now I'm trying Google, but really - how tough could it be to give a
> threaded/hierarchical article view? NNTP, iirc, gives ids that allow
> you to associate responses with the original article. If I search for
> mn.general, I get a Googly view of recent postings. That's just not
> how Usenet works.
>
> Ah well - when Christmas is over and I'm done with all my concerts,
> maybe I'll try to find a Google API for groups and build a
> hierarchical browser.
Just sign up with Individual.Net and use them ... 10 euros (so whatever the
conversion rate is for the day is what you pay in dollars) for a year of text
access and then you can continue to use Agent if you want to. Further, they
are rock solid and cheap. Or, you can buy a 1GB block from any number of
USENET resellers out there that will probably last you a very long time for
text use.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Religion is a crutch, but that's okay... humanity is a cripple.