4 ms·
Yep. That was exactly my thought. Everything old is new again. (And Usenet is even still there.) I'm still convinced that Usenet gets ignored precisely becaus
by _jal 9y ago
Yep. That was exactly my thought.
Everything old is new again. (And Usenet is even still there.)
I'm still convinced that Usenet gets ignored precisely because it is federated and mature - it is harder to extract nickels from than a centralized service; user-surveillance and other ad-related choke points are fragmented, it works already, there are already robust end-user filters.
(I also believe Twitter should have been an RFC, not a startup.)
For anyone who wants to build similar stuff for internal use - NNTP is probably not going to be the right choice unless you have a large number of sites. For a startup, IMAP has everything you need built-in for shared, threaded group messaging that looks a fair-bit like usenet (from the client's perspective). If you don't have strong ideas about UI or workflow, you can use an MTA to read and respond, and you're done. If you want your own UI, there are a huge number of IMAP libraries out there for just about any language you want to use.
"Old" tech is a goldmine.
- mhink 9y ago> I also believe Twitter should have been an RFC, not a startup. I have this reaction to _so many_ online services these days.
- amelius 9y agoIt would be fun to actually write the RFCs for those services. Besides, perhaps they could trigger open source and federated alternatives.
- majewsky 9y ago"Fun"? I incidentally starting writing a RFC-like spec and it's sooo tedious to define all the little details. (I don't mean that it's not useful. It helps me very much in putting my ideas on a more rigorous foundation, but damn is it tedious.)