Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Death of Usenet (was Re: 2nd RFD: uk.radio.amateur.moderated)
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Tony
May 19, 2013, 6:06:53 PM5/19/13
to
In uk.net.news.config, REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas
Cole) wrote:
>Is the Internet Archive running a Usenet preservation effort as they are
>with the web?
Not that I'm aware of, and the massive amount of historical Usenet data
that was used by Deja and then Google is, I believe, lost (or at least, in
the hands of Google, who likely have no interest in sharing it, which is
the same thing).
I went looking a little while ago for archives, and then some stuff
knocking around, but nothing significant. Also, I suspect that since
Google got the Deja News archive, the only organisation 'archiving'
significant volumes of Usenet is Google, as you say, so there would be a
huge gap if they only gave up the original archive source.
There is OldUse.net but I don't know how current their archive is.
http://olduse.net/
I thought about trying to scrape the google groups interface, to get an
archive of some uk.* newsgroups, but you don't get the full unmunged
headers if you do that.
If anyone *has* an archive of Usenet, especially the uk.* hierarchy, I'd be
interested in getting a copy.
>> A better option would be to do what some have suggested and provide a good,
>> public, well written web-based interface to Usenet which could be used to
>> point at any news provider.
>
>Sounds like an idea, there must be a business plan in there somewhere that
>could justify it?
Neither of the potential users generates enough revenue ....
>> However, both those points are moot - Usenet *is* the amateur radio of the
>> Internet age, it will decline to the point where only people interested in
>> the *technology* of it, use it.
>
>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
But unless something drastic happens, Usenet *is* dying.
(FU's set to unnm as this is not specific to the RFD).
[1] Of course, all this relates to text only posts, I'm sure Giganews and
the other binary providers are claiming volumes are up and that the amount
of TV shows and pirate movies posted to Usenet continues to rise.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Cole) wrote:
>Is the Internet Archive running a Usenet preservation effort as they are
>with the web?
Not that I'm aware of, and the massive amount of historical Usenet data
that was used by Deja and then Google is, I believe, lost (or at least, in
the hands of Google, who likely have no interest in sharing it, which is
the same thing).
I went looking a little while ago for archives, and then some stuff
knocking around, but nothing significant. Also, I suspect that since
Google got the Deja News archive, the only organisation 'archiving'
significant volumes of Usenet is Google, as you say, so there would be a
huge gap if they only gave up the original archive source.
There is OldUse.net but I don't know how current their archive is.
http://olduse.net/
I thought about trying to scrape the google groups interface, to get an
archive of some uk.* newsgroups, but you don't get the full unmunged
headers if you do that.
If anyone *has* an archive of Usenet, especially the uk.* hierarchy, I'd be
interested in getting a copy.
>> A better option would be to do what some have suggested and provide a good,
>> public, well written web-based interface to Usenet which could be used to
>> point at any news provider.
>
>Sounds like an idea, there must be a business plan in there somewhere that
>could justify it?
Neither of the potential users generates enough revenue ....
>> However, both those points are moot - Usenet *is* the amateur radio of the
>> Internet age, it will decline to the point where only people interested in
>> the *technology* of it, use it.
>
>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
But unless something drastic happens, Usenet *is* dying.
(FU's set to unnm as this is not specific to the RFD).
[1] Of course, all this relates to text only posts, I'm sure Giganews and
the other binary providers are claiming volumes are up and that the amount
of TV shows and pirate movies posted to Usenet continues to rise.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 19, 2013, 6:21:34 PM5/19/13
to
In article <knbiaa$rta$1...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, to...@darkstorm.co.uk wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of, and the massive amount of historical Usenet data
> that was used by Deja and then Google is, I believe, lost (or at least, in
> the hands of Google, who likely have no interest in sharing it, which is
> the same thing).
>
Archive.org seem to have quite a bit of clout and they certainly are
> Not that I'm aware of, and the massive amount of historical Usenet data
> that was used by Deja and then Google is, I believe, lost (or at least, in
> the hands of Google, who likely have no interest in sharing it, which is
> the same thing).
>
*very* serious about archiving. I'd be surprised if they aren't doing
something with Usenet. One would like to think that Google would do the
decent thing and hand all the data over, but, yeah, dream on,hey!
> You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
> almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
>
> If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
> bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
>
disagree on the numbers. All the time there's something to argue about,
ukra alone will generate that number of posts in a month... Those that
remain now are largely made up of the hardcore and they are not going
anywhere any time soon.
Either way, if the thing peters out to a relative trickle, I don't see it
as the end of the world. It's already a niche part of the 'net and it'll
get a little more niche yet, but we'll love it all the same.
>
> [1] Of course, all this relates to text only posts, I'm sure Giganews and
> the other binary providers are claiming volumes are up and that the amount
> of TV shows and pirate movies posted to Usenet continues to rise.
existence will be assured.
--
-------------------
Stephen Thomas Cole
Remove the obvious to send e-mail: REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com
-------------------
Message has been deleted
Richard Kettlewell
May 20, 2013, 5:40:49 AM5/20/13
to
Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
>
> You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
> almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
>
> If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
> bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
If the lower-traffic hierarchies are anything to go by, I think the
> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
>
> You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
> almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
>
> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>
> Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
>
> If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
> bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
latter suggestion is the most likely in the medium term.
The biggest single thing that could accelerate the decline is Google
Groups being abandoned (for instance, in favor of G+ communities), GG
being by a comfortable margin the most popular user agent, and its users
being the least likely to migrate to NNTP-based access.
Other risks include:
- for-free text NSPs losing the interest or capability to subsidize
Usenet;
- binaries providers being killed off by copyright holders
(slightly puzzling that it hasn’t happened already);
- for-pay text NSPs finding the paying audience too small to continue
in business;
- (closely related) ISPs stopping paying NSPs for outsourced NNTP
provision.
If all of these things happen (which is a fairly big if!) then only
hobbyist providers would be left. There are already hierarchies run
entirely that way, so it needn’t be the “death of Usenet”, but I doubt
it’d look much like it does now.
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
Tony
May 20, 2013, 6:13:20 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>>>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>>>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
>>
>> You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
>> almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
>>
>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>>
>> Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
>>
>> If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
>> bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
>
> If the lower-traffic hierarchies are anything to go by, I think the
> latter suggestion is the most likely in the medium term.
>
> The biggest single thing that could accelerate the decline is Google
> Groups being abandoned (for instance, in favor of G+ communities), GG
> being by a comfortable margin the most popular user agent, and its users
> being the least likely to migrate to NNTP-based access.
I see this as almost inevitable, given Google have just merged their
> Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> writes:
>> REMOVEste...@REMOVEgmail.com (Stephen Thomas Cole) wrote:
>
>>>Yes, I don't dispute this, really. It will eventually be a hobbyist
>>>endeavour, which isn't a bad thing at all, really. I can't see Usenet
>>>going totally dark anytime soon because of it.
>>
>> You've seen the graphs surely? I'm sure I've posted them before, it's
>> almost a linear decrease in posting volume over the last 3 years[1].
>>
>> http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/spoolstats/
>>
>> Back of the fag packet maths means 0 posts by the end of 2015.
>>
>> If it's a curve and not a straight line, then maybe 2017, or maybe it
>> bottoms out at a few thousand posts and then dribbles along.
>
> If the lower-traffic hierarchies are anything to go by, I think the
> latter suggestion is the most likely in the medium term.
>
> The biggest single thing that could accelerate the decline is Google
> Groups being abandoned (for instance, in favor of G+ communities), GG
> being by a comfortable margin the most popular user agent, and its users
> being the least likely to migrate to NNTP-based access.
chat client in to G+ (hangouts) entirely (and removed the ability to
*not* record chat history as part of that).
I still think, in order to survive with any meaningful conversation,
hierarchies need to contract, not expand. However, the recent creation
of a raspberry pi newsgroup in the big8 goes counter to that (in theory)
with people still preferring to specialise rather than generalise
groups.
Percy Picacity
May 20, 2013, 6:36:52 AM5/20/13
to
usenet users seem on the whole to want to talk about something, whether
technical or artistic; while the bulk of social media seems to be used
mainly for the purpose of talking aimlessly about nothing at all, with
a variable narcissistic element. Hopefully there will always be a few
people with other interests in life than their latest bodily sensation.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
May 20, 2013, 6:44:53 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> I don't know what it means for the future, but it is interesting that
> usenet users seem on the whole to want to talk about something, whether
> technical or artistic; while the bulk of social media seems to be used
> mainly for the purpose of talking aimlessly about nothing at all, with
> a variable narcissistic element. Hopefully there will always be a few
> people with other interests in life than their latest bodily sensation.
Plenty of people use Usenet for the latter. It's the difference between
> I don't know what it means for the future, but it is interesting that
> usenet users seem on the whole to want to talk about something, whether
> technical or artistic; while the bulk of social media seems to be used
> mainly for the purpose of talking aimlessly about nothing at all, with
> a variable narcissistic element. Hopefully there will always be a few
> people with other interests in life than their latest bodily sensation.
talking about something and talking with people.
I use social media like twitter and facebook to keep in touch with
people I know and find out what's going on in their life.
I use social media like letterboxd to talk specifically about movies
with people I don't know.
Usenet is a mix of both, and when those two mixes work very well you get
good, thriving groups. When only one is present, you get useful groups.
When the two clash, you get a lot of people pointing at the charter.
I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
Percy Picacity
May 20, 2013, 7:26:14 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20 10:44:53 +0000, Tony said:
>
>
> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
Probably. I shouldn't try and publish it then?
>
>
> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
--
Percy Picacity
Tony
May 20, 2013, 7:30:12 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> On 2013-05-20 10:44:53 +0000, Tony said:
>
>>
>>
>> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
>
> Probably. I shouldn't try and publish it then?
Your call. Perhaps stick it on Facebook and see if anyone agrees.
>
>>
>>
>> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
>
> Probably. I shouldn't try and publish it then?
Judith
May 20, 2013, 11:30:54 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:30:12 +0000 (UTC), Tony <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote:
>On 2013-05-20, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20 10:44:53 +0000, Tony said:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
>>
>> Probably. I shouldn't try and publish it then?
>
>Your call. Perhaps stick it on Facebook and see if anyone agrees.
I would bet that Percy does not have a Facebook account - and that would be a
>On 2013-05-20, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-20 10:44:53 +0000, Tony said:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think your analysis of social media is flawed.
>>
>> Probably. I shouldn't try and publish it then?
>
>Your call. Perhaps stick it on Facebook and see if anyone agrees.
complement - not a criticism. Percy?
--
Wearing a cycle helmet will not kill you.
Percy Picacity
May 20, 2013, 3:46:07 PM5/20/13
to
of my personality: there's even one where I say 'lol' every now and
again.
--
Percy Picacity
Mike Fleming
May 20, 2013, 7:12:41 PM5/20/13
to
In article <6jak31....@news.alt.net>, Percy Picacity
--
Mike Fleming
<k...@under.the.invalid> writes:
> I have about eighty facebook pages, each reflecting a different aspect
> of my personality: there's even one where I say 'lol' every now and
> again.
Have you thought of getting out more?
> I have about eighty facebook pages, each reflecting a different aspect
> of my personality: there's even one where I say 'lol' every now and
> again.
--
Mike Fleming
Percy Picacity
May 21, 2013, 4:31:32 AM5/21/13
to
--
Percy Picacity
Judith
May 21, 2013, 7:48:02 AM5/21/13
to
Stephen Thomas Cole
May 23, 2013, 2:33:48 AM5/23/13
to
In article <slrnkpjtq...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk>, Tony
shaping up to be quite a nice little group.
<to...@darkstorm.co.uk> wrote:
> However, the recent creation
> of a raspberry pi newsgroup in the big8 goes counter to that (in theory)
> with people still preferring to specialise rather than generalise
> groups.
Don't forget the very recent creation of comp.sys.mac.vintage too. That's
> However, the recent creation
> of a raspberry pi newsgroup in the big8 goes counter to that (in theory)
> with people still preferring to specialise rather than generalise
> groups.
shaping up to be quite a nice little group.
0 new messages