Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #235174 > unrolled thread

Remember when discussions were worth reading?

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  Remember when discussions were worth reading? Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> - 2026-07-25 17:19 +0000
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 15:06 -0300
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-25 23:26 +0100
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 01:29 +0100
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-25 22:43 -0300
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> - 2026-07-26 11:30 +0100
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2026-08-06 14:02 -0400
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-06 20:55 +0000
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:46 +0800
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 09:25 -0300
      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-07-26 01:02 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Caffeine Canidae <samuel.common@hotmail.com> - 2026-07-26 16:43 +0100
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-07-26 17:28 +0000
          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:38 -0300
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 16:13 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 10:17 -0400
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-30 12:41 -0300
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-07-30 16:38 -0400
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:45 +0000
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:05 +0800
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 20:53 +0000
                    CorelDRAW! on S.C.O. Unix (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 11:12 +0800
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:27 -0400
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> - 2026-08-01 08:45 -0400
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:50 +0000
                    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-3f9-this> - 2026-08-01 07:30 -0700
                      Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-03 21:59 -0300
                        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-04 08:29 -0700
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 02:54 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-08-05 10:31 -0400
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:14 -0300
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 09:36 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-05 08:36 -0700
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-05 20:16 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:00 +0000
                              Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-06 09:27 +0100
                                Re: Electronic mail deliverability (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-08-06 09:37 +0000
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 18:12 -0300
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-06 03:27 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-08-07 21:23 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Kurt Weiske" <kurt.weiske@realitycheckbbs.org.remove-5ex-this> - 2026-08-08 08:06 -0700
                                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-08 23:41 +0000
                                  "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 00:03 +0000
                                    Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 02:22 +0000
                                      Re: "spam" calls, was: Remember when discussions were worth reading? danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2026-08-09 02:31 +0000
                              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:04 -0300
                          Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? "Ted W." <usenet@xy0.org> - 2026-08-08 17:34 +0000
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-10 00:52 +0100
                            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-10 11:11 -0300
                  Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:58 +0800
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-31 12:45 +0100
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? jayjwa <jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:16 -0400
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-07-31 17:25 +0000
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 21:24 +0000
            Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-03 23:02 +0000
              Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-05 12:47 -0300
                Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> - 2026-08-05 21:48 +0000
          The Weave (was: Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading?) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 10:52 +0800
            Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 09:29 +0100
            Re: The Weave ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 09:39 +0000
              Re: The Weave Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 07:03 -0700
                Re: The Weave Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:12 +0800
                Re: The Weave Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-09 16:28 +0100
                  Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 13:13 -0700
                    Re: Interface connectors (Re: The Weave) ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-08-09 22:02 +0000
                  Re: The Weave drb@ihatespam.msu.edu (Dennis Boone) - 2026-08-09 21:04 +0000
                    IBM Channel Interface (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:29 -0700
              Re: The Weave Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 20:29 +0000
                MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-09 15:39 -0700
                  Re: MAP - Manufacturing Automation Protocol (Re: The Weave) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-09 23:20 +0000
                Re: The Weave "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-08-10 09:27 +0100
              Re: The Weave Thomas Prufer <prufer.public@mnet-online.de.invalid> - 2026-08-10 09:02 +0200
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2026-07-28 18:01 +0000
        Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-07-29 14:33 -0300
    Re: Remember when discussions were worth reading? Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2026-08-07 16:00 -1000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#235174 — Remember when discussions were worth reading?

So do we.

https://rootbadger.com

-- 
Tom Mix

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#235175

Tom Mix <tommix@mixmin.net> writes:

> So do we.
>
> https://rootbadger.com

Looks really well laid out.  Can you share more about it?  Is it
centralized as in it's only available on this website or is there a
network of websites that share the databases?  Is it available over
other protocols?  Are you the sole author?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235176

On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:

> So do we.
>
> https://rootbadger.com

Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235177

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
>
>> So do we.
>>
>> https://rootbadger.com
>
> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P

Same, Nuno.

-- 
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
refuse military service. ~ Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235179

Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:

> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
>>
>>> So do we.
>>>
>>> https://rootbadger.com
>>
>> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
>> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
>
> Same, Nuno.

I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article.  Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet?  Please
share?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235180

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:


[...]

> I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article.  Are you discussing
> Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet?  Please
> share?

Thank you for informing me that you have noticed.

I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question.  And clearly
off-topic here.

-- 
A little Consideration, a little Thought for Others, makes
all the difference. ~ Alan Alexander Milne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235244

Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:

> Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
>
>
> [...]
>
>> I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article.  Are you discussing
>> Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet?  Please
>> share?
>
> Thank you for informing me that you have noticed.
>
> I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question.  And clearly
> off-topic here.

LISP is old enough to be topical in this newsfroup.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235247

>> I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question.  And clearly
>> off-topic here.
> 
> LISP is old enough to be topical in this newsfroup.

Oh how time flys

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235269

On 26/07/2026 9:43 AM, Anton Antimo wrote:
> Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
> 
>> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
>>>
>>>> So do we.
>>>>
>>>> https://rootbadger.com
>>>
>>> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
>>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
>>> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
>>
>> Same, Nuno.
> 
> I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article.  Are you discussing
> Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet?  Please
> share?

I have been discussing how to learn Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp.  What
is it about Lisp that you want to discuss?  Do you wish to weave a web
with me on Hunchentoot?  We could create a front weave for alt.folklore.
computers!
-- 
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com
https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235289

Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:

> On 26/07/2026 9:43 AM, Anton Antimo wrote:
>> Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So do we.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://rootbadger.com
>>>>
>>>> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
>>>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
>>>> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
>>>
>>> Same, Nuno.
>> I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article.  Are you
>> discussing
>> Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet?  Please
>> share?
>
> I have been discussing how to learn Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp.  What
> is it about Lisp that you want to discuss?  Do you wish to weave a web
> with me on Hunchentoot?  We could create a front weave for alt.folklore.
> computers!

I'm following your discussion in comp.lang.lisp.  What's to weave a web?
Hack something together?  Let's do it.  How about we write together
something on top of Hunchentoot with a REPL that can patch the server
hot, fixing a bug without shutting it down---something cool that can be
easily done with Common Lisp.  A front for a news group sounds good.  I
suggest we don't handle the NNTP-network side of things---let's just
take an archive of articles and read them locally (first).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235178

On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
>
>> So do we.
>>
>> https://rootbadger.com
>
> Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
> advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
>

Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.

If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.

I'll stick to the original, warts and all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235181

Ted W. wrote:
> Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
> already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
> it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
> 
> If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
> it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
> Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
> before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
> remain long after they're gone.
> 
> I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
> 

Yeah, I think it's an interesting project but hardly anything that is 
particularly new by any stretch - and you can already seen in quite alot 
of social media (especially the Reddit and Lemmy-like) the roots of the 
original social media platform.

Nothing has ever truly replaced it in its entirety - because it'd only 
be a copy...

(Collapsing or living long enough to sell data - quite the nihilistic 
way to look at it but hardly unfounded in the modern era)

-- 
- Mokka

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235182

On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:

> On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:

[...]

> Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
> already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
> it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
> 
> If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
> it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
> Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
> before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
> remain long after they're gone.
> 
> I'll stick to the original, warts and all.

There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a 
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web 
browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we 
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with 
minimal network connectivity required. 

Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and 
is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types. 

As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of 
media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, 
it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't 
expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235185

Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
>
>> On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:

[...]

>> Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
>> already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
>> it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
>> 
>> If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
>> it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
>> Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
>> before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
>> remain long after they're gone.
>> 
>> I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
>
> There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a 
> lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web 
> browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we 
> already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with 
> minimal network connectivity required. 
>
> Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and 
> is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types. 
>
> As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of 
> media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, 
> it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't 
> expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.

Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.

Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235186

On 2026-07-29, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:

> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
> already have.

Me too - but we're a small minority.

> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
> (Not saying everything is perfect.)

I agree that the lower layers might not have changed much.
But they're buried under layer after layer of gooey bloatware.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235187

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2026-07-29, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
>
>> Can you elaborate on your idea?  It seems you're saying that instead of
>> using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
>> protocol?  If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
>> good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
>> protocol into a good user interface.  When I think of good user
>> interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
>> already have.
>
> Me too - but we're a small minority.
>
>> Why is that so?  I believe computers are not too different from what
>> they were in the 70s.  We're still using the same software pretty much.
>> (Not saying everything is perfect.)
>
> I agree that the lower layers might not have changed much.
> But they're buried under layer after layer of gooey bloatware.

Yes.  Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving.  Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity.  Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that?  Because only very rich corporations can build it.  And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web.  The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic.  Maybe that's indeed the end of the web.  Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235188

Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org 
deliver unto us this message:
> 
> Yes.  Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
> For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
> way browsers have been evolving.  Complex software is bound to die
> because of the lack of diversity.  Look how very few browsers we have.
> Why is that?  Because only very rich corporations can build it.  And
> maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web.  The so-called
> smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
> of the web traffic.  Maybe that's indeed the end of the web.  Rebirth.
> I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
> Just like the USENET is something we want.

This is an interesting discussion. 

Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been 
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's 
not completely dead. 

The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to 
arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but 
the web just isn't cutting it these days.

We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything, 
but we didn't know what to do. 

-- 
The meek shall inherit, we're told,
But I'm not so easily sold.
For supposing they should,
It would do them no good --
They'd lose it at once to the bold. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235189

The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:

> Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org 
> deliver unto us this message:
>> 
>> Yes.  Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
>> For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
>> way browsers have been evolving.  Complex software is bound to die
>> because of the lack of diversity.  Look how very few browsers we have.
>> Why is that?  Because only very rich corporations can build it.  And
>> maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web.  The so-called
>> smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
>> of the web traffic.  Maybe that's indeed the end of the web.  Rebirth.
>> I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
>> Just like the USENET is something we want.
>
> This is an interesting discussion. 
>
> Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been 
> combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's 
> not completely dead. 
>
> The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to 
> arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but 
> the web just isn't cutting it these days.
>
> We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything, 
> but we didn't know what to do. 

Exactly.  I don't think we could've done anything.  They're free to
destroy.  They found a way to make money and so they did.  I hesitate to
say it was completely disastrous because perhaps some good came: a lot
of us found a way to make a living?  In the beginning, we were the only
ones who knew how to use it and how it worked.  I suppose this is the
same we must do again.  

I'm not so closely in touch with NNTP admins here, but judging from the
groups hosted by Eternal September, after Google Groups left the USENET,
things look pretty bright here.  Why?  Because once again we're left to
our own devices here.  The only sorry thing is that all the experts we
used to have are really hanging out somewhere else.  I wonder if they
know that the USENET is peaceful once again.

What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.  Perhaps we think now
we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
private NNTP server.  For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any
misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.

So that's another question I ask.  Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world?  Maybe we should begin a new network of
interlinked private NNTP servers.  It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235190

Verily, in article <87o6fo7adu.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org 
deliver unto us this message:
> I wonder if they
> know that the USENET is peaceful once again.

I've been telling a few here and there. 

We also need younger people, if it's to last. The newcomers who interest 
me most are the Zoomers setting up BBSes. GenZ is sick of corporate caca 
and hungry for authenticity, and old tech is helping some of them find 
it. 

> What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
> the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.  Perhaps we think now
> we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
> private NNTP server.  For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
> prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any
> misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.

It's certainly easier to curate and moderate a mailing list than a 
newsgroup. 

I believe one of the values of Usenet is that the feed includes some 
fools and mischief-makers. Some people are amused by that and read it 
all, some people killfile the anti-social types, and some read only a 
selected few. We have direct and immediate control over our own Usenet 
feeds, unlike forums where we have to ask a mod. 

 
> So that's another question I ask.  Is the USENET model the adequate one
> for an Internet-populous world?  Maybe we should begin a new network of
> interlinked private NNTP servers.  It doesn't seem that a high-volume
> NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
> noise/content ratio.

Usenet will never be for everyone. The barrier to entry is too high for 
many. 



-- 
The meek shall inherit, we're told,
But I'm not so easily sold.
For supposing they should,
It would do them no good --
They'd lose it at once to the bold. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#235199

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 16:38:26 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:

> Verily, in article <87o6fo7adu.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
> deliver unto us this message:

>> What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because
>> perhaps the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.  
>> [...]
> It's certainly easier to curate and moderate a mailing list than a
> newsgroup.
> 
> I believe one of the values of Usenet is that the feed includes some
> fools and mischief-makers. Some people are amused by that and read it
> all, some people killfile the anti-social types, and some read only a
> selected few. 

I have to say though, at least on the NNTP server side, moderation tools 
could be modernized and made easier to setup. Its rather a pain with 
InterNetNews

> We have direct and immediate control over our own Usenet
> feeds, unlike forums where we have to ask a mod. 

This is one of the CRAZIEST comparisions that I never thought about. You 
have given me another reason to dislike those auto-mod bots. They serve to 
solve a problem that didn't really exist before (except for removing 
inappropriate content from discussions, for legal reasons, I suppose)

>> So that's another question I ask.  Is the USENET model the adequate one
>> for an Internet-populous world?  Maybe we should begin a new network of
>> interlinked private NNTP servers.  It doesn't seem that a high-volume
>> NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
>> noise/content ratio.
> 
> Usenet will never be for everyone. The barrier to entry is too high for
> many.

In a gate keeping kind of way lol, this is kinda nice. Here's what I mean, 
the way we see MS windows and the Web today? Heavily monetized and even 
more spy-like than ever before? It used to be pretty good for an OS and 
environment. But because they have so many normal every day joe users (and 
those who had deep pockets) who wanted to make money and raise adoption 
(presumably so they could make money with it) it lead to a saturation of 
ideals ranging from technical, to profiteering. Holistic to outright 
depraved (think wikipedia vs online gambling). 

Imagine if Linux was mainstream from the beginning? That windows didn't 
end up with the huge level of market share that aquired in the late 80s 
and early 90s? What would have happened to linux? We even started to see 
this before with it's ancestors from UNIX. The beginnings of the same 
level of closed off nature that has profit in mind.

I believe that if MS windows didn't take off and USENET was brought to 
modern standards, we wouldn't have the bastions of quality and lovely 
software that we do now. Linux would have been the MS Windows of their 
alternate timeline and USENET the reddit of their alternate timeline. (Of 
course this may also mean that they would have a SuperLinux to their MS 
Windowsified version of Linux which would be equivalent in relationship to 
our version of MS Windows and Linux.

Phew, that got a little hairy. I hope that made sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web