Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #688249 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-03-27 19:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-04-12 13:07 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 60 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-03-27 19:49 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-03-27 16:01 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-03-27 20:23 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-03-28 00:45 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-03-28 11:30 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-09 19:00 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-09 20:55 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-09 23:40 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 19:47 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-09 20:02 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-10 12:58 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 09:02 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-10 09:48 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.meow.org.invalid> - 2025-04-10 14:01 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-10 10:04 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.meow.org.invalid> - 2025-04-10 16:36 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-10 10:13 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rek2 hispagatos <rek2@hispagatos.meow.org.invalid> - 2025-04-10 16:26 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 07:02 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 03:06 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 08:49 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 13:44 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 11:22 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-11 17:40 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 19:30 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-12 02:59 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-12 08:00 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 06:40 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-12 08:55 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 23:06 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-04-13 00:38 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-13 08:47 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-04-10 18:00 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 08:42 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-04-10 11:08 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-10 13:03 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-10 20:06 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 07:10 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 08:50 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:58 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-11 09:18 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-04-11 15:16 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-11 17:46 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-04-12 09:41 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 10:17 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-12 09:02 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-12 22:58 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-04-13 08:44 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-13 19:15 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-14 11:52 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-04-11 17:42 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group bill_wilson <bill_w@aol.com> - 2025-04-11 14:34 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:38 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 11:41 -0700
Re: How To Improve This Group Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 14:51 -0400
Re: How To Improve This Group % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:12 -0700
Re: How To Improve This Group Diego Garcia <dg@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-11 20:47 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-04-12 09:34 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-04-12 19:58 +0000
Re: How To Improve This Group % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-04-12 13:07 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 08:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Jd8KP.1691733$2zn8.1594217@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #688864 |
On 2025-04-11 03:02, Borax Man wrote: > On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 2025-04-10 08:58, Borax Man wrote: >>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>>>> >>>>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >>>> >>>> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >>>> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >>>> incredibly inconvenient. >>>> >>>> < snip > >>>> >>>>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>>>> >>>>>> The case is closed. >>>>> >>>>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>>>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>>>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>>>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>>>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>>>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>>>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>>>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>>>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>>>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>>>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>>>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>>>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>>>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >>>> >>>> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >>>> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >>>> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >>>> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >>>> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >>>> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. >>>> >>>> To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds >>>> of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with >>>> sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, >>>> superficial cretins on modern social media. >>>> >>> >>> IRC doesn't have stickers, animated emojis, GIFs. You cannot review >>> messages that came through when you were offline. Almost now changing >>> of fonts. No avatars. It takes a bit to learn (depending on the >>> client). No advertising, no extra "features" such as NFTs and skins or >>> what have you. No reactions and no branding (ie, logos for chat groups). >>> >>> I'm saying this not because I agree, but because this is what people >>> want. I do prefer the simplicity of IRC myself, bit IRC is not coming >>> back. There are no good mobile clients... >> >> Who the heck would want to use IRC on a cell phone anyway? It's made to >> be used with a keyboard. Anyways, if people want to get off of it in >> favour of something like Discord, all the power to them. However, I >> wouldn't want these people to complain once they're faced with a >> bombardment of advertisements and mass censorship. >> > > People use their phones a lot for chat. Some chat places I hang out on, > I'd say MOST are on their phone. Someone younger asked me how I > responded with lng replies so quickly, and I said I was using my laptop. > They thought I was *WEIRD*! It wasn't IRC, but still, the point is > people just pull out their phones and use that, rather than a keyboard. > The phone is "just there". I think its a devolution, a backwards step > in communication, but thats what is happening. I'll say this much: being exposed to today's youth on a daily basis, I can confirm that this generation is dumber than the previous and that it too was dumber than the one that preceded it. We're all getting better at using software, but we're forgetting how to accomplish basic, more critical tasks. I might have mentioned it before but I use an old MacBook Air 2017 with Linux Mint in the classroom. From time to time, while the screen is mirrored to a larger screen in the class, I might open up a terminal and simply write in "sudo apt upgrade." To the kids, I'm hacking. Similarly, a student asked me how great my "new" computer is by asking me how many pings it has. These are kids who don't know how to write an introduction or a conclusion to a text despite it being taught to them in both language classes they have, who make mistakes such as "je n'est pas de question" which translates to "I don't is a question" in English despite the language being a part of their daily lives, who don't know whether 6 on 10 is a passing mark, etc.. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the progressive political parties get so much support considering the intellect of the populace. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 13:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvi75t.25r.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688874 |
On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-04-11 03:02, Borax Man wrote: >> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 2025-04-10 08:58, Borax Man wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>>>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >>>>> >>>>> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >>>>> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >>>>> incredibly inconvenient. >>>>> >>>>> < snip > >>>>> >>>>>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>>>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The case is closed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>>>>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>>>>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>>>>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>>>>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>>>>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>>>>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>>>>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>>>>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>>>>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>>>>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>>>>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>>>>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>>>>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >>>>> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >>>>> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >>>>> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >>>>> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >>>>> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds >>>>> of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with >>>>> sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, >>>>> superficial cretins on modern social media. >>>>> >>>> >>>> IRC doesn't have stickers, animated emojis, GIFs. You cannot review >>>> messages that came through when you were offline. Almost now changing >>>> of fonts. No avatars. It takes a bit to learn (depending on the >>>> client). No advertising, no extra "features" such as NFTs and skins or >>>> what have you. No reactions and no branding (ie, logos for chat groups). >>>> >>>> I'm saying this not because I agree, but because this is what people >>>> want. I do prefer the simplicity of IRC myself, bit IRC is not coming >>>> back. There are no good mobile clients... >>> >>> Who the heck would want to use IRC on a cell phone anyway? It's made to >>> be used with a keyboard. Anyways, if people want to get off of it in >>> favour of something like Discord, all the power to them. However, I >>> wouldn't want these people to complain once they're faced with a >>> bombardment of advertisements and mass censorship. >>> >> >> People use their phones a lot for chat. Some chat places I hang out on, >> I'd say MOST are on their phone. Someone younger asked me how I >> responded with lng replies so quickly, and I said I was using my laptop. >> They thought I was *WEIRD*! It wasn't IRC, but still, the point is >> people just pull out their phones and use that, rather than a keyboard. >> The phone is "just there". I think its a devolution, a backwards step >> in communication, but thats what is happening. > > I'll say this much: being exposed to today's youth on a daily basis, I > can confirm that this generation is dumber than the previous and that it > too was dumber than the one that preceded it. We're all getting better > at using software, but we're forgetting how to accomplish basic, more > critical tasks. I might have mentioned it before but I use an old > MacBook Air 2017 with Linux Mint in the classroom. From time to time, > while the screen is mirrored to a larger screen in the class, I might > open up a terminal and simply write in "sudo apt upgrade." To the kids, > I'm hacking. Similarly, a student asked me how great my "new" computer > is by asking me how many pings it has. These are kids who don't know how > to write an introduction or a conclusion to a text despite it being > taught to them in both language classes they have, who make mistakes > such as "je n'est pas de question" which translates to "I don't is a > question" in English despite the language being a part of their daily > lives, who don't know whether 6 on 10 is a passing mark, etc.. I guess > it shouldn't be surprising that the progressive political parties get so > much support considering the intellect of the populace. > Not too many of my generation really knew their way around a computer either. Some learned it, because you needed to to get Napster working, or install Grand Prix 2 addons or whatever. The difference is today you don't need to learn anything. I've seen chimps use phones, whereas back in the early 90s, you kind of had to learn a bit of DOS to do anything on your computer. Many people learned how to "CD" to a directory, perhaps run "A:setup", start a program, but just that and not much more. You couldn't get far not knowing the OS in the past, but you can get far today. This is probably true with everything, there is a greater tolerance of ignorance and lower standards. Technology hides all the details, but that was a trend even 30 years ago when "User Friendly" was a widely used buzzword. Does this mean the kids are dumber? Well, hard to say. Demographics has changed, which adds another variable, but demographic change aside I don't think there has been a loss in intelligence, just more pandering and fewer demands. Tech companies do their utmost to hide the inner workings, so we have people who have no idea what can actually be done. I'm often amazed at work how crappy our workflows are, that despite all the computing power, we do things in a really inefficnet way, such as taking screenshots of Excel pages, putting the screenshot in an email, sending it to someone else, for them to enter that data into another excel spreadsheet, which they can't copy and past, because its a screenshot, but have to visually read and type, then send it back to those who sent the screenshot for verification. There are far, far better solutions, but they simply are not taught about them, are not aware of them. Probably why stuff gets reinvented all the time. People forget, or are unware of things like NNTP and IRC, and just reinvent it again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 11:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <itaKP.1939828$t84d.1783777@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #688879 |
On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: > On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 2025-04-11 03:02, Borax Man wrote: >>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-10 08:58, Borax Man wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>>>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>>>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>>>>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >>>>>> >>>>>> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >>>>>> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >>>>>> incredibly inconvenient. >>>>>> >>>>>> < snip > >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>>>>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The case is closed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>>>>>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>>>>>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>>>>>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>>>>>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>>>>>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>>>>>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>>>>>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>>>>>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>>>>>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>>>>>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>>>>>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>>>>>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>>>>>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >>>>>> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >>>>>> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >>>>>> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >>>>>> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >>>>>> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds >>>>>> of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with >>>>>> sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, >>>>>> superficial cretins on modern social media. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> IRC doesn't have stickers, animated emojis, GIFs. You cannot review >>>>> messages that came through when you were offline. Almost now changing >>>>> of fonts. No avatars. It takes a bit to learn (depending on the >>>>> client). No advertising, no extra "features" such as NFTs and skins or >>>>> what have you. No reactions and no branding (ie, logos for chat groups). >>>>> >>>>> I'm saying this not because I agree, but because this is what people >>>>> want. I do prefer the simplicity of IRC myself, bit IRC is not coming >>>>> back. There are no good mobile clients... >>>> >>>> Who the heck would want to use IRC on a cell phone anyway? It's made to >>>> be used with a keyboard. Anyways, if people want to get off of it in >>>> favour of something like Discord, all the power to them. However, I >>>> wouldn't want these people to complain once they're faced with a >>>> bombardment of advertisements and mass censorship. >>>> >>> >>> People use their phones a lot for chat. Some chat places I hang out on, >>> I'd say MOST are on their phone. Someone younger asked me how I >>> responded with lng replies so quickly, and I said I was using my laptop. >>> They thought I was *WEIRD*! It wasn't IRC, but still, the point is >>> people just pull out their phones and use that, rather than a keyboard. >>> The phone is "just there". I think its a devolution, a backwards step >>> in communication, but thats what is happening. >> >> I'll say this much: being exposed to today's youth on a daily basis, I >> can confirm that this generation is dumber than the previous and that it >> too was dumber than the one that preceded it. We're all getting better >> at using software, but we're forgetting how to accomplish basic, more >> critical tasks. I might have mentioned it before but I use an old >> MacBook Air 2017 with Linux Mint in the classroom. From time to time, >> while the screen is mirrored to a larger screen in the class, I might >> open up a terminal and simply write in "sudo apt upgrade." To the kids, >> I'm hacking. Similarly, a student asked me how great my "new" computer >> is by asking me how many pings it has. These are kids who don't know how >> to write an introduction or a conclusion to a text despite it being >> taught to them in both language classes they have, who make mistakes >> such as "je n'est pas de question" which translates to "I don't is a >> question" in English despite the language being a part of their daily >> lives, who don't know whether 6 on 10 is a passing mark, etc.. I guess >> it shouldn't be surprising that the progressive political parties get so >> much support considering the intellect of the populace. >> > > Not too many of my generation really knew their way around a computer > either. Some learned it, because you needed to to get Napster working, > or install Grand Prix 2 addons or whatever. The difference is today you > don't need to learn anything. I've seen chimps use phones, whereas back > in the early 90s, you kind of had to learn a bit of DOS to do anything > on your computer. Many people learned how to "CD" to a directory, > perhaps run "A:setup", start a program, but just that and not much more. > You couldn't get far not knowing the OS in the past, but you can get far > today. This is probably true with everything, there is a greater > tolerance of ignorance and lower standards. Technology hides all the > details, but that was a trend even 30 years ago when "User Friendly" was > a widely used buzzword. Does this mean the kids are dumber? Well, hard > to say. Demographics has changed, which adds another variable, but > demographic change aside I don't think there has been a loss in > intelligence, just more pandering and fewer demands. Tech companies do > their utmost to hide the inner workings, so we have people who have no > idea what can actually be done. > > I'm often amazed at work how crappy our workflows are, that despite all > the computing power, we do things in a really inefficnet way, such as > taking screenshots of Excel pages, putting the screenshot in an email, > sending it to someone else, for them to enter that data into another > excel spreadsheet, which they can't copy and past, because its a > screenshot, but have to visually read and type, then send it back to > those who sent the screenshot for verification. There are far, far > better solutions, but they simply are not taught about them, are not > aware of them. > > Probably why stuff gets reinvented all the time. People forget, or are > unware of things like NNTP and IRC, and just reinvent it again. In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that those of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before times and are aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the age of 40 even know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never mentioned to users of the Internet. Few web sites talk about it and ISPs themselves don't even mention its existence. After all, there is no money in it, so why would they bother. Instead, people are told about things like Discord and TikTok because there is a way of monetizing a user's presence on those sites. Once again, the people on IRC are usually Linux users who venture onto their distribution of choice's support channel, or people from he before times who are aware of its existence. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 17:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5t2foFq6iaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688881 |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:22:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in > killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed > politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use > it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a > result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The ISP is used dropped their news server year ago. It required a huge amount of storage and processing power. Even before it was phased out a server in Berlin was more responsive than one 8 miles away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 19:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xChKP.1705828$2zn8.1526082@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #688883 |
On 4/11/25 13:40, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:22:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > > >> In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in >> killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed >> politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use >> it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a >> result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. > > The ISP is used dropped their news server year ago. It required a huge > amount of storage and processing power. Even before it was phased out a > server in Berlin was more responsive than one 8 miles away. Luckily for those who like Usenet, there are free servers around that they can use. However, there is no reason to believe that they'll be around forever. If ever the people running Eternal September decide to stop their operations and paid servers become the only game in town, I doubt that Usenet will have even the number of users it has today. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 02:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m5u37sFllbU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688896 |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 19:30:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > Luckily for those who like Usenet, there are free servers around that > they can use. However, there is no reason to believe that they'll be > around forever. If ever the people running Eternal September decide to > stop their operations and paid servers become the only game in town, I > doubt that Usenet will have even the number of users it has today. I've used individual.net at the Free University of Berlin for years. It wa free but now costs 10 Euros / year. It was about $15 but fell considerably. The Euro rebounded to 1.14 USD today, the highest in three years. Still a bargain. It doesn't do binary groups, but neither do I.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 08:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ABsKP.1908646$eNx6.1780463@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #688898 |
On 4/11/25 22:59, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 19:30:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> Luckily for those who like Usenet, there are free servers around that >> they can use. However, there is no reason to believe that they'll be >> around forever. If ever the people running Eternal September decide to >> stop their operations and paid servers become the only game in town, I >> doubt that Usenet will have even the number of users it has today. > > I've used individual.net at the Free University of Berlin for years. It wa > free but now costs 10 Euros / year. It was about $15 but fell > considerably. The Euro rebounded to 1.14 USD today, the highest in three > years. Still a bargain. It doesn't do binary groups, but neither do I. I recall people telling me that the best way to pirate was through Usenet. This was back in like 2000 or so. I'm sure it was true, but the news server my ISP provided always had missing parts to whatever a person would want to download. The thought of paying for Usenet was laughable at the time. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 06:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvk2m5.1r6.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688881 |
On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: >> On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>> On 2025-04-11 03:02, Borax Man wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-10 08:58, Borax Man wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>>>>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>>>>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>>>>>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >>>>>>> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >>>>>>> incredibly inconvenient. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> < snip > >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>>>>>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The case is closed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>>>>>>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>>>>>>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>>>>>>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>>>>>>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>>>>>>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>>>>>>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>>>>>>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>>>>>>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>>>>>>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>>>>>>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>>>>>>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>>>>>>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>>>>>>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >>>>>>> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >>>>>>> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >>>>>>> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >>>>>>> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >>>>>>> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds >>>>>>> of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with >>>>>>> sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, >>>>>>> superficial cretins on modern social media. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> IRC doesn't have stickers, animated emojis, GIFs. You cannot review >>>>>> messages that came through when you were offline. Almost now changing >>>>>> of fonts. No avatars. It takes a bit to learn (depending on the >>>>>> client). No advertising, no extra "features" such as NFTs and skins or >>>>>> what have you. No reactions and no branding (ie, logos for chat groups). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm saying this not because I agree, but because this is what people >>>>>> want. I do prefer the simplicity of IRC myself, bit IRC is not coming >>>>>> back. There are no good mobile clients... >>>>> >>>>> Who the heck would want to use IRC on a cell phone anyway? It's made to >>>>> be used with a keyboard. Anyways, if people want to get off of it in >>>>> favour of something like Discord, all the power to them. However, I >>>>> wouldn't want these people to complain once they're faced with a >>>>> bombardment of advertisements and mass censorship. >>>>> >>>> >>>> People use their phones a lot for chat. Some chat places I hang out on, >>>> I'd say MOST are on their phone. Someone younger asked me how I >>>> responded with lng replies so quickly, and I said I was using my laptop. >>>> They thought I was *WEIRD*! It wasn't IRC, but still, the point is >>>> people just pull out their phones and use that, rather than a keyboard. >>>> The phone is "just there". I think its a devolution, a backwards step >>>> in communication, but thats what is happening. >>> >>> I'll say this much: being exposed to today's youth on a daily basis, I >>> can confirm that this generation is dumber than the previous and that it >>> too was dumber than the one that preceded it. We're all getting better >>> at using software, but we're forgetting how to accomplish basic, more >>> critical tasks. I might have mentioned it before but I use an old >>> MacBook Air 2017 with Linux Mint in the classroom. From time to time, >>> while the screen is mirrored to a larger screen in the class, I might >>> open up a terminal and simply write in "sudo apt upgrade." To the kids, >>> I'm hacking. Similarly, a student asked me how great my "new" computer >>> is by asking me how many pings it has. These are kids who don't know how >>> to write an introduction or a conclusion to a text despite it being >>> taught to them in both language classes they have, who make mistakes >>> such as "je n'est pas de question" which translates to "I don't is a >>> question" in English despite the language being a part of their daily >>> lives, who don't know whether 6 on 10 is a passing mark, etc.. I guess >>> it shouldn't be surprising that the progressive political parties get so >>> much support considering the intellect of the populace. >>> >> >> Not too many of my generation really knew their way around a computer >> either. Some learned it, because you needed to to get Napster working, >> or install Grand Prix 2 addons or whatever. The difference is today you >> don't need to learn anything. I've seen chimps use phones, whereas back >> in the early 90s, you kind of had to learn a bit of DOS to do anything >> on your computer. Many people learned how to "CD" to a directory, >> perhaps run "A:setup", start a program, but just that and not much more. >> You couldn't get far not knowing the OS in the past, but you can get far >> today. This is probably true with everything, there is a greater >> tolerance of ignorance and lower standards. Technology hides all the >> details, but that was a trend even 30 years ago when "User Friendly" was >> a widely used buzzword. Does this mean the kids are dumber? Well, hard >> to say. Demographics has changed, which adds another variable, but >> demographic change aside I don't think there has been a loss in >> intelligence, just more pandering and fewer demands. Tech companies do >> their utmost to hide the inner workings, so we have people who have no >> idea what can actually be done. >> >> I'm often amazed at work how crappy our workflows are, that despite all >> the computing power, we do things in a really inefficnet way, such as >> taking screenshots of Excel pages, putting the screenshot in an email, >> sending it to someone else, for them to enter that data into another >> excel spreadsheet, which they can't copy and past, because its a >> screenshot, but have to visually read and type, then send it back to >> those who sent the screenshot for verification. There are far, far >> better solutions, but they simply are not taught about them, are not >> aware of them. >> >> Probably why stuff gets reinvented all the time. People forget, or are >> unware of things like NNTP and IRC, and just reinvent it again. > > In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in > killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed > politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use > it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a > result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that those > of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before times and are > aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the age of 40 even > know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never mentioned to users of the > Internet. Few web sites talk about it and ISPs themselves don't even > mention its existence. After all, there is no money in it, so why would > they bother. Instead, people are told about things like Discord and > TikTok because there is a way of monetizing a user's presence on those > sites. Once again, the people on IRC are usually Linux users who venture > onto their distribution of choice's support channel, or people from he > before times who are aware of its existence. > Yes, I remember my ISP carried Usenet, and cancelled it. I'm in Australia though, so it may be for different reasons. It could simply have been too much bother. It would have taken a lot of bandwidth and storage for something most customers weren't aware of. It was sad to see it go, and I do wish they maintained it, but from a business point of view, I do understand. They cancelled it mid or late 2000s, or possible later. I suppose then it is our job to mention these technologies and make people aware of alternatives to the privacy traps and algorthmic straight jackets that more modern alternatives hoist on thier victims... um... users... I set these up for my own personal clique, but they're not much into communicating anyway, or are simply put or, or confused, by any client that is not web based or an "app". Unfortunately, I've not been able to find a good NNTP web frontend that allows only encrypted connections. Maybe I'll get to work on modifying an existing one to make it the way I think it should be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 08:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <EotKP.1633653$FVcd.130036@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #688899 |
On 4/12/25 02:40, Borax Man wrote: > On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: >>> On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>> On 2025-04-11 03:02, Borax Man wrote: >>>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-04-10 08:58, Borax Man wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-04-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>>>>>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>>>>>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>>>>>>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >>>>>>>> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >>>>>>>> incredibly inconvenient. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> < snip > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>>>>>>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The case is closed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>>>>>>>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>>>>>>>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>>>>>>>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>>>>>>>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>>>>>>>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>>>>>>>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>>>>>>>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>>>>>>>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>>>>>>>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>>>>>>>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>>>>>>>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>>>>>>>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>>>>>>>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >>>>>>>> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >>>>>>>> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >>>>>>>> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >>>>>>>> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >>>>>>>> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds >>>>>>>> of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with >>>>>>>> sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, >>>>>>>> superficial cretins on modern social media. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IRC doesn't have stickers, animated emojis, GIFs. You cannot review >>>>>>> messages that came through when you were offline. Almost now changing >>>>>>> of fonts. No avatars. It takes a bit to learn (depending on the >>>>>>> client). No advertising, no extra "features" such as NFTs and skins or >>>>>>> what have you. No reactions and no branding (ie, logos for chat groups). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm saying this not because I agree, but because this is what people >>>>>>> want. I do prefer the simplicity of IRC myself, bit IRC is not coming >>>>>>> back. There are no good mobile clients... >>>>>> >>>>>> Who the heck would want to use IRC on a cell phone anyway? It's made to >>>>>> be used with a keyboard. Anyways, if people want to get off of it in >>>>>> favour of something like Discord, all the power to them. However, I >>>>>> wouldn't want these people to complain once they're faced with a >>>>>> bombardment of advertisements and mass censorship. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> People use their phones a lot for chat. Some chat places I hang out on, >>>>> I'd say MOST are on their phone. Someone younger asked me how I >>>>> responded with lng replies so quickly, and I said I was using my laptop. >>>>> They thought I was *WEIRD*! It wasn't IRC, but still, the point is >>>>> people just pull out their phones and use that, rather than a keyboard. >>>>> The phone is "just there". I think its a devolution, a backwards step >>>>> in communication, but thats what is happening. >>>> >>>> I'll say this much: being exposed to today's youth on a daily basis, I >>>> can confirm that this generation is dumber than the previous and that it >>>> too was dumber than the one that preceded it. We're all getting better >>>> at using software, but we're forgetting how to accomplish basic, more >>>> critical tasks. I might have mentioned it before but I use an old >>>> MacBook Air 2017 with Linux Mint in the classroom. From time to time, >>>> while the screen is mirrored to a larger screen in the class, I might >>>> open up a terminal and simply write in "sudo apt upgrade." To the kids, >>>> I'm hacking. Similarly, a student asked me how great my "new" computer >>>> is by asking me how many pings it has. These are kids who don't know how >>>> to write an introduction or a conclusion to a text despite it being >>>> taught to them in both language classes they have, who make mistakes >>>> such as "je n'est pas de question" which translates to "I don't is a >>>> question" in English despite the language being a part of their daily >>>> lives, who don't know whether 6 on 10 is a passing mark, etc.. I guess >>>> it shouldn't be surprising that the progressive political parties get so >>>> much support considering the intellect of the populace. >>>> >>> >>> Not too many of my generation really knew their way around a computer >>> either. Some learned it, because you needed to to get Napster working, >>> or install Grand Prix 2 addons or whatever. The difference is today you >>> don't need to learn anything. I've seen chimps use phones, whereas back >>> in the early 90s, you kind of had to learn a bit of DOS to do anything >>> on your computer. Many people learned how to "CD" to a directory, >>> perhaps run "A:setup", start a program, but just that and not much more. >>> You couldn't get far not knowing the OS in the past, but you can get far >>> today. This is probably true with everything, there is a greater >>> tolerance of ignorance and lower standards. Technology hides all the >>> details, but that was a trend even 30 years ago when "User Friendly" was >>> a widely used buzzword. Does this mean the kids are dumber? Well, hard >>> to say. Demographics has changed, which adds another variable, but >>> demographic change aside I don't think there has been a loss in >>> intelligence, just more pandering and fewer demands. Tech companies do >>> their utmost to hide the inner workings, so we have people who have no >>> idea what can actually be done. >>> >>> I'm often amazed at work how crappy our workflows are, that despite all >>> the computing power, we do things in a really inefficnet way, such as >>> taking screenshots of Excel pages, putting the screenshot in an email, >>> sending it to someone else, for them to enter that data into another >>> excel spreadsheet, which they can't copy and past, because its a >>> screenshot, but have to visually read and type, then send it back to >>> those who sent the screenshot for verification. There are far, far >>> better solutions, but they simply are not taught about them, are not >>> aware of them. >>> >>> Probably why stuff gets reinvented all the time. People forget, or are >>> unware of things like NNTP and IRC, and just reinvent it again. >> >> In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in >> killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed >> politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use >> it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a >> result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that those >> of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before times and are >> aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the age of 40 even >> know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never mentioned to users of the >> Internet. Few web sites talk about it and ISPs themselves don't even >> mention its existence. After all, there is no money in it, so why would >> they bother. Instead, people are told about things like Discord and >> TikTok because there is a way of monetizing a user's presence on those >> sites. Once again, the people on IRC are usually Linux users who venture >> onto their distribution of choice's support channel, or people from he >> before times who are aware of its existence. >> > > Yes, I remember my ISP carried Usenet, and cancelled it. I'm in > Australia though, so it may be for different reasons. Depending on when it happened, it was probably caused by the decision of the American Congress. Much like how the United States and other countries in the West were convinced that Mortal Kombat and Night Trap were going to traumatize a generation and we needed video game ratings, they were convinced that Usenet was the center of all degeneracy. People should not be surprised that countries in the Five Eyes Alliance all behave similarly, which is why both Canadians and Americans should be concerned that Brits are currently being arrested and sentenced for sharing memes on social media. > It could simply > have been too much bother. It would have taken a lot of bandwidth and > storage for something most customers weren't aware of. It was sad to > see it go, and I do wish they maintained it, but from a business point > of view, I do understand. They cancelled it mid or late 2000s, or > possible later. > > I suppose then it is our job to mention these technologies and make > people aware of alternatives to the privacy traps and algorthmic > straight jackets that more modern alternatives hoist on thier > victims... um... users... > > I set these up for my own personal clique, but they're not much into > communicating anyway, or are simply put or, or confused, by any client > that is not web based or an "app". Unfortunately, I've not been able to > find a good NNTP web frontend that allows only encrypted connections. > Maybe I'll get to work on modifying an existing one to make it the way I > think it should be. I think that the bandwidth argument is an excuse. Even the "hotbed of degeneracy and piracy" argument is a weak one. In reality, our Western governments didn't like the fact that Usenet is an uncontrolled environment where you can truly say what you think and discuss topics that they consider to be taboo. They don't believe in freedom of speech, so they are ready to take away any platform which protects it. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-12 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvlsg1.j0v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688909 |
On 2025-04-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 4/12/25 02:40, Borax Man wrote: >> On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: [ * snip * ] >>> On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: >>> >>> In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in >>> killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed >>> politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use >>> it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a >>> result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that those >>> of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before times and are >>> aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the age of 40 even >>> know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never mentioned to users of the >>> Internet. Few web sites talk about it and ISPs themselves don't even >>> mention its existence. After all, there is no money in it, so why would >>> they bother. Instead, people are told about things like Discord and >>> TikTok because there is a way of monetizing a user's presence on those >>> sites. Once again, the people on IRC are usually Linux users who venture >>> onto their distribution of choice's support channel, or people from he >>> before times who are aware of its existence. >>> >> >> Yes, I remember my ISP carried Usenet, and cancelled it. I'm in >> Australia though, so it may be for different reasons. > > Depending on when it happened, it was probably caused by the decision of > the American Congress. Much like how the United States and other > countries in the West were convinced that Mortal Kombat and Night Trap > were going to traumatize a generation and we needed video game ratings, > they were convinced that Usenet was the center of all degeneracy. People > should not be surprised that countries in the Five Eyes Alliance all > behave similarly, which is why both Canadians and Americans should be > concerned that Brits are currently being arrested and sentenced for > sharing memes on social media. > >> It could simply >> have been too much bother. It would have taken a lot of bandwidth and >> storage for something most customers weren't aware of. It was sad to >> see it go, and I do wish they maintained it, but from a business point >> of view, I do understand. They cancelled it mid or late 2000s, or >> possible later. >> >> I suppose then it is our job to mention these technologies and make >> people aware of alternatives to the privacy traps and algorthmic >> straight jackets that more modern alternatives hoist on thier >> victims... um... users... >> >> I set these up for my own personal clique, but they're not much into >> communicating anyway, or are simply put or, or confused, by any client >> that is not web based or an "app". Unfortunately, I've not been able to >> find a good NNTP web frontend that allows only encrypted connections. >> Maybe I'll get to work on modifying an existing one to make it the way I >> think it should be. > > I think that the bandwidth argument is an excuse. Even the "hotbed of > degeneracy and piracy" argument is a weak one. In reality, our Western > governments didn't like the fact that Usenet is an uncontrolled > environment where you can truly say what you think and discuss topics > that they consider to be taboo. They don't believe in freedom of speech, > so they are ready to take away any platform which protects it. > Given what has happened in the 2020s, and recently what has been exposed with regards to government meddling in Social Media, I think this is a credible hypothesis. I think the storage and bandwidth would have contributed, if the ISP's were pressured, to not push back too much. There WERE a lot of binaries floating around, I do remember that. Also, Usenet didn't have that much dissident political discussion on it, that I could see. There was more to be found on Web Forums that Usenet, so it could have been a target, but I don't think it was lucrative a target as you might think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m60fckF84a5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #688922 |
On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 23:06:43 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in <slrnvvlsg1.j0v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>: > On 2025-04-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 4/12/25 02:40, Borax Man wrote: >>> On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > [ * snip * ] >>>> On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: >>>> >>>> In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful >>>> in killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed >>>> politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use >>>> it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As >>>> a result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that >>>> those of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before >>>> times and are aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the >>>> age of 40 even know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never >>>> mentioned to users of the Internet. Few web sites talk about it and >>>> ISPs themselves don't even mention its existence. After all, there is >>>> no money in it, so why would they bother. Instead, people are told >>>> about things like Discord and TikTok because there is a way of >>>> monetizing a user's presence on those sites. Once again, the people >>>> on IRC are usually Linux users who venture onto their distribution of >>>> choice's support channel, or people from he before times who are >>>> aware of its existence. >>>> >>>> >>> Yes, I remember my ISP carried Usenet, and cancelled it. I'm in >>> Australia though, so it may be for different reasons. >> >> Depending on when it happened, it was probably caused by the decision >> of the American Congress. Much like how the United States and other >> countries in the West were convinced that Mortal Kombat and Night Trap >> were going to traumatize a generation and we needed video game ratings, >> they were convinced that Usenet was the center of all degeneracy. >> People should not be surprised that countries in the Five Eyes Alliance >> all behave similarly, which is why both Canadians and Americans should >> be concerned that Brits are currently being arrested and sentenced for >> sharing memes on social media. >> >> >>> It could simply have been too much bother. It would have taken a lot >>> of bandwidth and storage for something most customers weren't aware >>> of. It was sad to see it go, and I do wish they maintained it, but >>> from a business point of view, I do understand. They cancelled it mid >>> or late 2000s, or possible later. >>> >>> I suppose then it is our job to mention these technologies and make >>> people aware of alternatives to the privacy traps and algorthmic >>> straight jackets that more modern alternatives hoist on thier >>> victims... um... users... >>> >>> I set these up for my own personal clique, but they're not much into >>> communicating anyway, or are simply put or, or confused, by any client >>> that is not web based or an "app". Unfortunately, I've not been able >>> to find a good NNTP web frontend that allows only encrypted >>> connections. Maybe I'll get to work on modifying an existing one to >>> make it the way I think it should be. >> >> I think that the bandwidth argument is an excuse. Even the "hotbed of >> degeneracy and piracy" argument is a weak one. In reality, our Western >> governments didn't like the fact that Usenet is an uncontrolled >> environment where you can truly say what you think and discuss topics >> that they consider to be taboo. They don't believe in freedom of >> speech, >> so they are ready to take away any platform which protects it. >> >> > Given what has happened in the 2020s, and recently what has been exposed > with regards to government meddling in Social Media, I think this is a > credible hypothesis. I think the storage and bandwidth would have > contributed, if the ISP's were pressured, to not push back too much. > There WERE a lot of binaries floating around, I do remember that. Also, > Usenet didn't have that much dissident political discussion on it, that > I could see. There was more to be found on Web Forums that Usenet, so > it could have been a target, but I don't think it was lucrative a target > as you might think. As someone who used to administer a netnews server, I can tell you that -- at least in our case -- the decision to shut down the server was purely business. We had very few users using the service, and it was a significant cost to update and maintain. For a while we outsourced it, then finally pulled the plug. We kept a shell server going for longer, but last June we shut that down, also -- only a tiny percentage of our users used it, and there are better-maintained shell servers out on the Net. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.14.2 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G "All I need to know I learned from my cat."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-13 08:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2oOKP.266607$8rz3.184643@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #688922 |
On 4/12/25 19:06, Borax Man wrote: > On 2025-04-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >> On 4/12/25 02:40, Borax Man wrote: >>> On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > [ * snip * ] >>>> On 2025-04-11 09:44, Borax Man wrote: >>>> >>>> In the case of NNTP, American Congress seems to have been succesful in >>>> killing most of it. If I remember correctly, some poorly informed >>>> politician had no idea what was going on on Usenet or even how to use >>>> it, but he felt that he could complain about its contents anyway. As a >>>> result, ISPs stopped providing a news server. The result is that those >>>> of us on Usenet are usually people who lived in the before times and are >>>> aware of its existence. I doubt that people under the age of 40 even >>>> know what a Usenet is. As for IRC, it is never mentioned to users of the >>>> Internet. Few web sites talk about it and ISPs themselves don't even >>>> mention its existence. After all, there is no money in it, so why would >>>> they bother. Instead, people are told about things like Discord and >>>> TikTok because there is a way of monetizing a user's presence on those >>>> sites. Once again, the people on IRC are usually Linux users who venture >>>> onto their distribution of choice's support channel, or people from he >>>> before times who are aware of its existence. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I remember my ISP carried Usenet, and cancelled it. I'm in >>> Australia though, so it may be for different reasons. >> >> Depending on when it happened, it was probably caused by the decision of >> the American Congress. Much like how the United States and other >> countries in the West were convinced that Mortal Kombat and Night Trap >> were going to traumatize a generation and we needed video game ratings, >> they were convinced that Usenet was the center of all degeneracy. People >> should not be surprised that countries in the Five Eyes Alliance all >> behave similarly, which is why both Canadians and Americans should be >> concerned that Brits are currently being arrested and sentenced for >> sharing memes on social media. >> > >>> It could simply >>> have been too much bother. It would have taken a lot of bandwidth and >>> storage for something most customers weren't aware of. It was sad to >>> see it go, and I do wish they maintained it, but from a business point >>> of view, I do understand. They cancelled it mid or late 2000s, or >>> possible later. >>> >>> I suppose then it is our job to mention these technologies and make >>> people aware of alternatives to the privacy traps and algorthmic >>> straight jackets that more modern alternatives hoist on thier >>> victims... um... users... >>> >>> I set these up for my own personal clique, but they're not much into >>> communicating anyway, or are simply put or, or confused, by any client >>> that is not web based or an "app". Unfortunately, I've not been able to >>> find a good NNTP web frontend that allows only encrypted connections. >>> Maybe I'll get to work on modifying an existing one to make it the way I >>> think it should be. >> >> I think that the bandwidth argument is an excuse. Even the "hotbed of >> degeneracy and piracy" argument is a weak one. In reality, our Western >> governments didn't like the fact that Usenet is an uncontrolled >> environment where you can truly say what you think and discuss topics >> that they consider to be taboo. They don't believe in freedom of speech, >> so they are ready to take away any platform which protects it. >> > > Given what has happened in the 2020s, and recently what has been exposed > with regards to government meddling in Social Media, I think this is a > credible hypothesis. I think the storage and bandwidth would have > contributed, if the ISP's were pressured, to not push back too much. > There WERE a lot of binaries floating around, I do remember that. Also, > Usenet didn't have that much dissident political discussion on it, that > I could see. There was more to be found on Web Forums that Usenet, so > it could have been a target, but I don't think it was lucrative a target > as you might think. To give you an idea on the bandwidth argument, I bought a subscription to BlockNews more than a decade ago based on Jeff Relf (God rest his soul)'s recommendation. I believe it provided me with 3GB of data. To this day, I haven't reached 3GB, and I post a lot. Of course, I don't use binaries either. If they were concerned that people were using too much bandwidth, they were free to remove all access to alt.binaries.*, they didn't need to touch the discussion forums themselves. Speaking of BlockNews, I don't believe I'll ever reach that 3GB limit anyway since the news server has become an absolute joke now. You can't subscribe to any forum without the server feeling the need to download _all_ posts to it since the beginning of time, regardless of what you set. It also takes forever to download them. I've told BlockNews of the problem, but they don't see the issue. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvg1ar.1ft4l.candycanearter07@candydeb.host.invalid> |
| In reply to | #688823 |
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:02 this Thursday (GMT): > On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>> >>> >>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>> goes back to at least 1975. >> >> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. > > I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If > my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it > incredibly inconvenient. I mostly use a website for my outlook account, since the org setup makes it extremely hard to use betterbird for it. >< snip > > >>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>> >>> The case is closed. >> >> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. > > Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on > there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people > three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are > doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently > isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a > proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. What's Rizon doing? > To be honest, I'm glad that neither IRC nor Usenet attract those kinds > of people anyway. I'd rather know that I'm communicating with > sufficiently smart individuals on the old networks than the vapid, > superficial cretins on modern social media. Yeah, fair point. -- user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 08:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <x68KP.162974$Xq5f.122557@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #688850 |
On 2025-04-10 14:00, candycanearter07 wrote: > CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 00:02 this Thursday (GMT): >> On 4/9/25 19:40, candycanearter07 wrote: >>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:55 this Wednesday (GMT): >>>> On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 19:00:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, if you COULD get more people to migrate to USENET from traditional >>>>> social media, that would be great. I personally don't think many people >>>>> are going to want to learn a new software for such an old protocol. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>>> goes back to at least 1975. >>> >>> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >> >> I see nothing but security issues in using web-based e-mail myself. If >> my e-mail is not configured in a client like Betterbird, I also find it >> incredibly inconvenient. > > I mostly use a website for my outlook account, since the org setup makes > it extremely hard to use betterbird for it. > >> < snip > >> >>>> Usenet is still very much viable as is IRC. All that is required >>>> is for more people to start using it -- again. >>>> >>>> The case is closed. >>> >>> I agree, the main problem from my pov is barrier to entry and >>> "precivable" benefits. Yes, obviously, USENET is great for being simple >>> and decrentralized, but the average person would not care/understand >>> what being "decentralized" means, and the simplicity is seen as a >>> drawback. And as for barrier to entry, the only real client people would >>> be likely/willing to use would be Thunderbird, since everything else is >>> either old (again, /I/ don't care, but ppl definitely would), highly >>> specialized FOSS programs that most of the time are targeted to Linux, >>> or a TUI program. And they have to configure the newsreader to connect >>> to a server, FIND a server, etc etc.. and no layman would go through >>> that just for a "retro forum experience that has barely any users". As >>> well as the general tech illiteracy. So, IF the barrier to entry was >>> lowered, and potentially a webapp made, people MIGHT be willing to try >>> it. I think that's a pretty long shot, though. >> >> Good luck getting people to use IRC again. I spent my adolescence on >> there, but it is clear that it is not attracting the same kind of people >> three decades later. It's too bad because some networks, like Rizon, are >> doing a fantastic job with their servers. Nonetheless, IRC apparently >> isn't as appealing in its uncensored, decentralized nature as a >> proprietary, centralized social medium like Instagram's comment section is. > > What's Rizon doing? Rizon allows you to own a channel without requiring a bot or your presence. That alone makes it superior to Efnet. < snip > -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1834f06795f937d4$93606$1602464$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> |
| In reply to | #688820 |
On Wed, 09 Apr 2025 23:40:03 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote: >> >> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >> goes back to at least 1975. > > Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. > Most BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS use a wesite for email, and Gmail/Outlook. FTFY. I cannot image the kind of supremely doltish moron that would actually use web mail. It is extremely sluggish, awkward, and frustrating. One has to actually log in with 2-factor authentication. Then Gmail, with its nanny algorithms, keeps shoving messages of advice and warning into ones face. Futhermore the whole interface looks like shit. It is a totally irritating mess!. Give me wonderful Sylpheed, the absolute best email client anywhere. It is built on GTK+2 (not +3) and it is quick, slick, and a supreme joy to use. Nothing could ever be better. https://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/ -- Hail Linux! Hail FOSS! Hail Stallman!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 13:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvfgcp.cd7.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688834 |
On 2025-04-10, Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> wrote: > On Wed, 09 Apr 2025 23:40:03 +0000, candycanearter07 wrote: > >>> >>> Well, then, maybe they should stop using email. After all, that protocol >>> goes back to at least 1975. >> >> Most people use a website for email, and Gmail/Outlook. >> > > Most BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS use a wesite for email, and Gmail/Outlook. > > FTFY. > > I cannot image the kind of supremely doltish moron that would actually > use web mail. It is extremely sluggish, awkward, and frustrating. One > has to actually log in with 2-factor authentication. Then Gmail, with > its nanny algorithms, keeps shoving messages of advice and warning into > ones face. Futhermore the whole interface looks like shit. It is a > totally irritating mess!. > > Give me wonderful Sylpheed, the absolute best email client anywhere. > It is built on GTK+2 (not +3) and it is quick, slick, and a supreme joy > to use. Nothing could ever be better. > > https://sylpheed.sraoss.jp/en/ > I use Claws-Mail, which was from a fork of Sylpheed. I chose Claws-Mail for its usable GPG intergration. On my laptop, I just use mutt, which I almost prefer to Claws-Mail. Almost. Agree with you on web based mail. My first experience with personal email WAS web based, because I used hotmail, but when I got an accunt with an ISP, obviously a mail client was superior, and still is. Even more so because I think web based clients are WORSE now than they were 20+ years ago. Confusing, slow, janky, awkward ergonomics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-10 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pan$a5e62$eeb89569$d2770de0$8cebff75@linux.rocks> |
| In reply to | #688840 |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >> > I use Claws-Mail, which was from a fork of Sylpheed. I chose Claws-Mail > for its usable GPG intergration. > Sylpheed has complete GPG integration without a plugin. Have you tried the current 3.7.1 version? Note: Sylpheed has released a 3.8.0 beta that has OAuth2 which will allow reading/writing to Gmail servers. Reportedly it does not work too well -- but who in their right mind would ever want to read/write from Gmail? -- Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 07:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvhg3o.3j6.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688855 |
On 2025-04-10, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: > >>> >> I use Claws-Mail, which was from a fork of Sylpheed. I chose Claws-Mail >> for its usable GPG intergration. >> > > Sylpheed has complete GPG integration without a plugin. > > Have you tried the current 3.7.1 version? > > Note: > > Sylpheed has released a 3.8.0 beta that has OAuth2 which > will allow reading/writing to Gmail servers. Reportedly > it does not work too well -- but who in their right mind > would ever want to read/write from Gmail? > I'll look at Sylpheed again. I've been using ClawsMail for years, and to be honest, I can't quite remember exactly why I chose it over sylpheed. I *think* PGP was the reason, but I'm not too sure now. Could have been something else. As for email, I will not use Gmail. I have a throwaway legacy hotmail account, but my personal email is my ISP provided one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 08:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Me8KP.1691734$2zn8.815132@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #688867 |
On 2025-04-11 03:10, Borax Man wrote: > On 2025-04-10, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote: >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >> >>>> >>> I use Claws-Mail, which was from a fork of Sylpheed. I chose Claws-Mail >>> for its usable GPG intergration. >>> >> >> Sylpheed has complete GPG integration without a plugin. >> >> Have you tried the current 3.7.1 version? >> >> Note: >> >> Sylpheed has released a 3.8.0 beta that has OAuth2 which >> will allow reading/writing to Gmail servers. Reportedly >> it does not work too well -- but who in their right mind >> would ever want to read/write from Gmail? >> > > I'll look at Sylpheed again. I've been using ClawsMail for years, and > to be honest, I can't quite remember exactly why I chose it over > sylpheed. I *think* PGP was the reason, but I'm not too sure now. Could > have been something else. > > As for email, I will not use Gmail. I have a throwaway legacy hotmail > account, but my personal email is my ISP provided one. Might I suggest Posteo.de which integrates GPG in its system and which is completely open-source. It used to be endorsed by the FSF. You can encrypt the calendar, the contact list and any incoming e-mail even if it wasn't already encrypted by the sender. It costs a whopping 1 euro a month. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage John 14:6
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-04-11 12:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvvi4f6.g4a.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> |
| In reply to | #688875 |
On 2025-04-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: > On 2025-04-11 03:10, Borax Man wrote: >> On 2025-04-10, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote: >>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 13:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>> I use Claws-Mail, which was from a fork of Sylpheed. I chose Claws-Mail >>>> for its usable GPG intergration. >>>> >>> >>> Sylpheed has complete GPG integration without a plugin. >>> >>> Have you tried the current 3.7.1 version? >>> >>> Note: >>> >>> Sylpheed has released a 3.8.0 beta that has OAuth2 which >>> will allow reading/writing to Gmail servers. Reportedly >>> it does not work too well -- but who in their right mind >>> would ever want to read/write from Gmail? >>> >> >> I'll look at Sylpheed again. I've been using ClawsMail for years, and >> to be honest, I can't quite remember exactly why I chose it over >> sylpheed. I *think* PGP was the reason, but I'm not too sure now. Could >> have been something else. >> >> As for email, I will not use Gmail. I have a throwaway legacy hotmail >> account, but my personal email is my ISP provided one. > > Might I suggest Posteo.de which integrates GPG in its system and which > is completely open-source. It used to be endorsed by the FSF. You can > encrypt the calendar, the contact list and any incoming e-mail even if > it wasn't already encrypted by the sender. It costs a whopping 1 euro a > month. > I am paying a bit more than that for my current email service. It used to be part of my ISP's core service, but they've been bought out by a larger company and subsequently have dropped their quality, and dropped email. Its now by a third party, but a local one. And I get to keep my email address, which I've had for over 20 years. That matters to me too. Not sure I trust the Germans with my sensetive data. I'd rather run GPG locally. Having an email client, and running it locally means its encrypted before it leaves your machine, and the email service provider has no hope of seeing the encrypted contents, even if under a court order. Thanks for the suggestion though.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web