5 ms·

Honest question: Why cling on to Usenet in 2021? Why not use an alternative solution such as a mailing list, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, Vanilla Forums,

by cpach 5y ago

Honest question: Why cling on to Usenet in 2021? Why not use an alternative solution such as a mailing list, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, Vanilla Forums, Simple Machines Forum, etc? There are many other systems out there, even if you want self-hosted open source software.

zzo38computer 5y ago
I still use Usenet. I don't like mailing lists, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, etc. NNTP and IRC are much better. I only started using Usenet recently (and only for text, not binaries); all of the spam messages I have seen are from Google Groups. Legitimate messages are sometimes from Google Groups too, but are also posted on other servers. (I wrote my own NNTP client software actually) I also run my own NNTP server, for the discussions for my own projects and that stuff (it isn't connected with any other NNTP servers currently, although it could be done if wanted). Currently it does not include the web interface; those who are interested in it can help with such a thing. Web interface is then an alternative for the people who do not like NNTP; the web interface includes a clear link to the NNTP even if JavaScripts/CSS are disabled, so that if given the link to the web interface, you can still use the NNTP if you do prefer to use the NNTP. (I also use 63-bit article numbers rather than 31-bit article numbers, although it is unlikely that they will ever reach high enough numbers that will exceed 31-bits, it is an available feature if it is needed.)
notorandit 5y ago
Because it used to be an open standard (nntp) ...
syshum 5y ago
Usenet is distributed, and open protocol that is inherently superior to all of those "alternatives"
- geofft 5y ago
  If it is distributed and open and superior, why does anyone care that Google doesn't let you access it?
  - Kye 5y ago
    Every ISP used to offer free access. It was promoted right alongside other offerings. The shrinking accessibility and visibility is part of the problem. It's easier to kill something off if the only people who use it are people who don't have a place on the mainstream internet. Look at the uproar over Freenode. No one would notice if IRC had been as obscure as NNTP over the last 15 years.
    - geofft 5y ago
      Not sure I follow the argument. You're saying that Tcl programmers don't have a place on the mainstream internet? Also, I'm not sure I understand your argument about NNTP and IRC. Why did NNTP became obscure and why did its accessibility and visibility shrink, when the same did not happen to IRC? Given that NNTP is distributed and open and superior to many things that are not obscure, accessible, and visible, how could such a thing have happened?
      - NoGravitas 5y ago
        I think partly, it's that NNTP is harder to run than IRC. You need to (at minimum) set aside a substantial amount of storage space, how much depending on whether you carry binary groups, and how long you retain articles for. The other thing is that people tended to rely on their ISPs to provide NNTP service, and they started tending to drop it in the late 90s and early 2000s, and there were few/no free alternatives at the time.
        Kye 5y ago
        Yep. Compare to IRC which has always had an abundance of free servers and free clients that run on anything. You can telnet into an IRC server if you type fast enough. It's still the go-to support channel for major open source projects because of that accessibility.
      - jonathankoren 5y ago
        My guess is spam. The way I remember it, back in the late 90s and early aughts every news group became useless due to cross posting spam. Sure spam was always a thing, but I remember groups I used to read became unreadable by the sheer number of binary files being posted. IRC could avoid this problem because it is transitory. But I think the biggest reason is that usenet is unmoderated[0], while there’s always an op on an irc channel. [0] Yes, there’re some things people try to do, but they always felt bolted on, and a bit awkward. I’m not even sure how widespread they are, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen them actually work. Then again, I’m talking about a Usenet from 25 years ago.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Usenet is a distributed and open protocol. Its superiority has been in question since September of 1993, when it noticeably buckled under the load of a million or so (and quite probably fewer) commercial dial-up service subscribers. Previously Usenet had a maximum user base genereally of less than 1 million. The pre-AOL Usenet probably measured less than 1 million potential users, and a small fraction of that active.[1] It dragged on for another decade, more or less, but was largely no longer freely available to dial-up / residential users by the early 2000s, largely due to its inability to police against antisocial behaviour, or mount a credible political defence against claims of rampant criminal activity (at least some of it reasonably well evidenced). As such, actually offering Usnet access became a net liability to most commercial operators. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c3xyu/why_usenet_died/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c3xyu/why_use... ________________________________ Notes: 1. Relying on Brian Reid's "USENET Readership Summary Reports", as of April, 1988, there were 381 newsgroups, 57,979 messages, an estimated 141,000 readers, of a total user population on connected hosts of 880,000. Cited in John S. Quarterman, The Matrix, 1990.
TomSwirly 5y ago
> Why not use an alternative solution such as a mailing list, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, Vanilla Forums, Simple Machines Forum, I can see posts I made thirty years ago on Usenet answering questions I might still have today. It's possible that as few as none of the sites you described will be here in thirty years, and certainly _some_ of them will be gone.

by cpach 5y ago

zzo38computer 5y ago

I still use Usenet. I don't like mailing lists, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, etc. NNTP and IRC are much better. I only started using Usenet recently (and only for text, not binaries); all of the spam messages I have seen are from Google Groups. Legitimate messages are sometimes from Google Groups too, but are also posted on other servers. (I wrote my own NNTP client software actually) I also run my own NNTP server, for the discussions for my own projects and that stuff (it isn't connected with any other NNTP servers currently, although it could be done if wanted). Currently it does not include the web interface; those who are interested in it can help with such a thing. Web interface is then an alternative for the people who do not like NNTP; the web interface includes a clear link to the NNTP even if JavaScripts/CSS are disabled, so that if given the link to the web interface, you can still use the NNTP if you do prefer to use the NNTP. (I also use 63-bit article numbers rather than 31-bit article numbers, although it is unlikely that they will ever reach high enough numbers that will exceed 31-bits, it is an available feature if it is needed.)

notorandit 5y ago

Because it used to be an open standard (nntp) ...

syshum 5y ago

Usenet is distributed, and open protocol that is inherently superior to all of those "alternatives"

geofft 5y ago
If it is distributed and open and superior, why does anyone care that Google doesn't let you access it?
- Kye 5y ago
  Every ISP used to offer free access. It was promoted right alongside other offerings. The shrinking accessibility and visibility is part of the problem. It's easier to kill something off if the only people who use it are people who don't have a place on the mainstream internet. Look at the uproar over Freenode. No one would notice if IRC had been as obscure as NNTP over the last 15 years.
  - geofft 5y ago
    Not sure I follow the argument. You're saying that Tcl programmers don't have a place on the mainstream internet? Also, I'm not sure I understand your argument about NNTP and IRC. Why did NNTP became obscure and why did its accessibility and visibility shrink, when the same did not happen to IRC? Given that NNTP is distributed and open and superior to many things that are not obscure, accessible, and visible, how could such a thing have happened?
    - NoGravitas 5y ago
      I think partly, it's that NNTP is harder to run than IRC. You need to (at minimum) set aside a substantial amount of storage space, how much depending on whether you carry binary groups, and how long you retain articles for. The other thing is that people tended to rely on their ISPs to provide NNTP service, and they started tending to drop it in the late 90s and early 2000s, and there were few/no free alternatives at the time.
      - Kye 5y ago
        Yep. Compare to IRC which has always had an abundance of free servers and free clients that run on anything. You can telnet into an IRC server if you type fast enough. It's still the go-to support channel for major open source projects because of that accessibility.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      My guess is spam. The way I remember it, back in the late 90s and early aughts every news group became useless due to cross posting spam. Sure spam was always a thing, but I remember groups I used to read became unreadable by the sheer number of binary files being posted. IRC could avoid this problem because it is transitory. But I think the biggest reason is that usenet is unmoderated[0], while there’s always an op on an irc channel. [0] Yes, there’re some things people try to do, but they always felt bolted on, and a bit awkward. I’m not even sure how widespread they are, because I don’t think I’ve ever seen them actually work. Then again, I’m talking about a Usenet from 25 years ago.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Usenet is a distributed and open protocol. Its superiority has been in question since September of 1993, when it noticeably buckled under the load of a million or so (and quite probably fewer) commercial dial-up service subscribers. Previously Usenet had a maximum user base genereally of less than 1 million. The pre-AOL Usenet probably measured less than 1 million potential users, and a small fraction of that active.[1] It dragged on for another decade, more or less, but was largely no longer freely available to dial-up / residential users by the early 2000s, largely due to its inability to police against antisocial behaviour, or mount a credible political defence against claims of rampant criminal activity (at least some of it reasonably well evidenced). As such, actually offering Usnet access became a net liability to most commercial operators. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c3xyu/why_usenet_died/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3c3xyu/why_use... ________________________________ Notes: 1. Relying on Brian Reid's "USENET Readership Summary Reports", as of April, 1988, there were 381 newsgroups, 57,979 messages, an estimated 141,000 readers, of a total user population on connected hosts of 880,000. Cited in John S. Quarterman, The Matrix, 1990.

TomSwirly 5y ago

> Why not use an alternative solution such as a mailing list, Discord, Element, Slack, Discourse, Vanilla Forums, Simple Machines Forum, I can see posts I made thirty years ago on Usenet answering questions I might still have today. It's possible that as few as none of the sites you described will be here in thirty years, and certainly _some_ of them will be gone.