Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!MIX!Blackbird From: billy@MIX.COM Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <5363472a$0$50666$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1399660562 17354 166.84.1.5 (9 May 2014 18:36:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Xref: csiph.com comp.sys.mac.system:59223 Doc O'Leary writes: > Like I said, *of course* people have been pushing their proprietary CDNs Anyone can post to Youtube. > to do what Usenet could have been doing all along. But, you're continually ignoring the fact that Usenet was not created nor intended to do this. > If I were an ISP, I'd rather have one generic CDN protocol on servers > that I control rather than having hundreds of content providers Where do you get hundreds? > trying to co-locate their own black box hardware inside my operation. "My corporate policy has always been software as a service..." Again, it all comes down to who's paying for it. In addition to some Usenet admin experience, you'd benefit from a bit of ISP experience as well. > Usenet can benefit *everyone*, not just the big players like Google. _Something_ may benefit everyone. Usenet is not it. You're putting the cart before the horse. It'd be best to first find a horse. Billy Y.. -- sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer bcc 20$ ; not a number