Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58971 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 179 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 17:25 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-27 20:29 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-27 18:05 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2014-04-27 18:10 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-27 18:53 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 16:47 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 11:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-28 21:30 +0200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 09:17 +1200
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:02 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:04 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-28 22:22 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-28 19:23 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-28 18:32 -0700
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:38 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 03:00 +0000
POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 08:36 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:10 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-29 10:49 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:21 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2014-04-30 15:28 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:52 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:39 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 03:18 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-29 19:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-04-29 10:05 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-04-29 10:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-30 09:16 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 17:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:28 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-29 20:47 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-29 20:27 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-29 21:42 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:19 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 23:36 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 17:50 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 13:13 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Don Bruder <dakidd@sonic.net> - 2014-04-30 21:15 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 18:22 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:11 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 08:41 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 03:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 09:47 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-30 04:54 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-04-30 11:32 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-04-30 06:51 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-01 09:27 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 18:00 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-02 10:00 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-02 09:48 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:07 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-30 14:14 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2014-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 17:06 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP (Was: Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence?) John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-01 18:56 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dempson@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) - 2014-05-02 12:23 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:34 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nmassello@yahoo.com (Neill Massello) - 2014-05-01 18:25 -0600
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 01:46 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 05:48 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 03:20 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 10:50 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-02 06:04 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 12:14 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:39 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 18:32 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-02 10:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 16:50 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 11:30 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 16:45 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-04 11:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-05 20:41 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-06 12:32 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-06 17:41 +0000
Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-07 12:25 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 00:10 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-07 20:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-08 04:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-08 14:40 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-10 07:16 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:14 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 21:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 12:15 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:42 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 16:42 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 01:08 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:40 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-05-11 17:52 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:39 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:25 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-12 11:53 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:29 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:45 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 09:30 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-05-09 18:17 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-10 13:30 +1200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-05-12 00:12 +0000
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> - 2014-05-11 21:32 -0400
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2014-05-12 04:00 -0700
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2014-05-08 11:42 +0200
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:33 -0500
Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-09 03:43 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-07 19:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 15:55 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-08 22:16 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:35 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 16:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:43 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 04:20 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:01 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 14:27 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:24 +0100
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 17:38 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:58 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 21:33 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:17 +0000
Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-03 12:10 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 23:13 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-08 03:49 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-08 16:02 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-09 09:22 +1200
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 01:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-09 11:43 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-09 18:36 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 17:47 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 19:38 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 19:05 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-11 20:13 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-11 23:17 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 10:01 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 10:48 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-05-12 17:22 +0100
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-12 20:34 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 20:57 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-12 02:20 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 15:14 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-10 13:53 -0500
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-10 20:29 +0000
Re: Usenet enters the ring! NNTP vs. (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> - 2014-05-11 16:21 -0500
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-04 20:08 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:17 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:08 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:35 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-03 00:02 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 09:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-03 17:09 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 13:23 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2014-05-05 13:30 -0700
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John White <jccw@comcast.net> - 2014-05-05 16:41 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 13:55 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP android <here@there.was> - 2014-05-02 16:10 +0200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2014-05-02 10:37 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-05-02 10:48 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 11:09 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP billy@MIX.COM - 2014-05-02 17:06 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-05-02 17:23 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:34 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-05-03 12:01 +1200
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-02 17:00 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 13:19 -0400
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP dyera@not.freeshell.org.invalid - 2014-05-03 16:29 +0000
Re: POP3 vs. IMAP Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-03 12:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-30 16:35 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 17:27 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 17:41 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-05-02 22:14 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 18:46 -0400
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2014-05-02 23:33 +0000
Re: Obnoxious noises in Apple Mail - how to silence? Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-05-02 19:48 -0400
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 03:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlmojq8.2o18.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59186 |
In message <lkei0r$21a$1@reader2.panix.com> billy@MIX.COM <billy@MIX.COM> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting > Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com>: >> > > Which is why I've taken on the fool's errand of re-writing things >> > > myself. If there's enough support, it'll be released as open source. >> > >> > I'd love to see that! >> >> Then get enough people together to pony up the development costs, either >> through crowd funding or just write a big check yourself. The way it's >> looking, version 1.0 is going to be at least $20K of effort. If someone >> wants to organize a Kickstarter (or whatever) at $50K to make it an >> ongoing effort, great; let me know. Otherwise, I'm planning to put it >> on the App Store for $10, but I have zero expectation that it'll be >> popular enough to cover costs. > The author of MailMate, licenses for which are US$50, raised US$42,741 - > https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/mailmate-2-0-the-email-client-for-the-rest-of-us > One annoying aspect (to me, anyway) of the App Store is the inability > to try a program without purchasing it. That's simply not true. Developers are free to have demo version if they want. There's a whole big web out there and there is no exclusivity with the MAS. -- It was long ago and it was far away / And it was so much better than it is today
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 09:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <090520140930023300%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #59211 |
In article <slrnlmojq8.2o18.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > One annoying aspect (to me, anyway) of the App Store is the inability > > to try a program without purchasing it. > > That's simply not true. Developers are free to have demo version if they > want. There's a whole big web out there and there is no exclusivity with > the MAS. unless they can't, because their app won't work outside of the mac app store, such as if it uses icloud. regardless, requiring the user to go hunt down a demo version somewhere else is ridiculous. the lack of demo versions also exists for the ios app store and there is no alternate method even if the developer wanted to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 18:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <536d5413$0$50768$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #59214 |
On 14-05-09 09:30, nospam wrote: > the lack of demo versions also exists for the ios app store and there > is no alternate method even if the developer wanted to. The demo version are often called "Lite". They are fere, give you a taste of the full version but have a number of features disabled.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 19:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <090520141928589455%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #59231 |
In article <536d5413$0$50768$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > the lack of demo versions also exists for the ios app store and there > > is no alternate method even if the developer wanted to. > > The demo version are often called "Lite". They are fere, give you a > taste of the full version but have a number of features disabled. sometimes they do that and sometimes they're time-limited, or with games, level-limited. apps that aren't in the app store can do the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 13:30 +1200 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <100520141330545436%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #59231 |
In article <536d5413$0$50768$c3e8da3$92d0a893@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-05-09 09:30, nospam wrote: > > > > the lack of demo versions also exists for the ios app store and there > > is no alternate method even if the developer wanted to. > > The demo version are often called "Lite". They are fere, give you a > taste of the full version but have a number of features disabled. Yep. Unforuntaely there's no real "standard" way for naming apps. Some developers reverse that by using a normal name for the free / cheaper version, and then tacking "Pro" on the end of the more expensive version.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 00:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <lkp3ks$9hi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #59211 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > One annoying aspect (to me, anyway) of the App Store is the inability > > to try a program without purchasing it. > > That's simply not true. Developers are free to have demo version if they > want. There's a whole big web out there and there is no exclusivity with > the MAS. Whether or not the developer makes a demo available outside the Mac App Store is another matter. We were talking about demos *in* the Mac App Store, not out of it. So far there aren't any. If an app isn't free on the MAS, it's pay first and try later. I'm surprised the MAS has been so successful, because I thought that model was long obsolete. I guess people who have money to throw around and/or impulse buyers are more numerous than I had thought. -- K. Lang may your lum reek.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Invid Fan <invid@loclanet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 21:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <110520142132087619%invid@loclanet.com> |
| In reply to | #59297 |
In article <lkp3ks$9hi$1@dont-email.me>, Király <me@home.spamsucks.ca> wrote: > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > > One annoying aspect (to me, anyway) of the App Store is the inability > > > to try a program without purchasing it. > > > > That's simply not true. Developers are free to have demo version if they > > want. There's a whole big web out there and there is no exclusivity with > > the MAS. > > Whether or not the developer makes a demo available outside the Mac App > Store is another matter. We were talking about demos *in* the Mac App > Store, not out of it. So far there aren't any. If an app isn't free on > the MAS, it's pay first and try later. I'm surprised the MAS has been so > successful, because I thought that model was long obsolete. > > I guess people who have money to throw around and/or impulse buyers are > more numerous than I had thought. I have always used demos instead of buying things. No need to ever pay for a game when you can just download demos, play them for an hour, then go to the next demo. I'm sure companies know exactly how often a demo is converted into a sale, and if they're not worried about the lack of them neither should you. If I'm ever going to buy a particular $50 game, I just pay the money up front. The two Apple App stores use in-app purchases as a way to basically mirror shareware, which is probably more effective than a demo. -- Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!" 'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 04:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <LLidneHZZeZTNO3OnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #59302 |
On 5/11/2014 6:32 PM PT, Invid Fan typed:
> I have always used demos instead of buying things. No need to ever pay
> for a game when you can just download demos, play them for an hour,
> then go to the next demo. I'm sure companies know exactly how often a
> demo is converted into a sale, and if they're not worried about the
> lack of them neither should you. If I'm ever going to buy a particular
> $50 game, I just pay the money up front.
>
> The two Apple App stores use in-app purchases as a way to basically
> mirror shareware, which is probably more effective than a demo.
Ditto. I need free (play/us)able samplers first. :)
--
"An ant can do more than an ox that is lying down." --unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 11:42 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <1llbsed.d9imtv1v3hy8mN%befr@eaglesoft.de> |
| In reply to | #59178 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > Otherwise, I'm planning to put it > on the App Store for $10, but I have zero expectation that it'll be > popular enough to cover costs. If you wan´t the chance to sell more, sell it without the App store (and make a demo available). If it´s any good, I´ll gladly pay 50€ for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 16:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <droleary-7173DF.16335008052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59190 |
In article <1llbsed.d9imtv1v3hy8mN%befr@eaglesoft.de>,
befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, I'm planning to put it
> > on the App Store for $10, but I have zero expectation that it'll be
> > popular enough to cover costs.
>
> If you wan´t the chance to sell more, sell it without the App store (and
> make a demo available).
> If it´s any good, I´ll gladly pay 50€ for it.
Ideally, I'd prefer to have it pre-funded so I wouldn't have to deal
with all those unnecessary complexities. An offer of $50 for a v2.0
newsreader isn't very enticing when I know I have to put out a $10 v1.0
newsreader *first* that may not get enough traction to carry it forward.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 03:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Of what value is Usenet? (Re: POP3 vs. IMAP) |
| Message-ID | <slrnlmojnh.2o18.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #59190 |
In message <1llbsed.d9imtv1v3hy8mN%befr@eaglesoft.de> Bernd Fröhlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: >> Otherwise, I'm planning to put it >> on the App Store for $10, but I have zero expectation that it'll be >> popular enough to cover costs. > If you wan´t the chance to sell more, sell it without the App store (and > make a demo available). 1) Almost all developers make more from the MAS because they get more exposure. The exception is companies that already have well established products, and even there... Barebones dropped the price of BBEdit by 2/3 and seems to be quite happy offering MAS and non-MAS versions. 2) you can always make a demo available outside the MAS. -- I thought that they were angels, but to my surprise, we climbed aboard their starship, we headed for the skies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-07 19:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lke1fg$314$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59165 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:
> No; don't just accept bad software design as a given. The *first* thing
> I did when I started my newsreader to decouple the NNTP bits into their
> own framework, and even in there I have the parts that care about
> communicating with the server abstracted away from the core
> functionality of dealing with messages. That is why I expect my reader
> to be able to more easily support POP or IMAP (or just about anything
> else that can be massaged into a message) in the future or, on the flip
> side, re-use that NNTP framework for other apps or command line tools.
> Your "Of course not" explains why things like curl lack support for news
> or nntp URL schemes, and why Usenet continues to slide into obscurity.
Huh? Daily traffic is steadily increasing, and has gone from about 3GB
back when I worked on tin (ca 1994) to past 15TB(!) today. How do you
get to "continues to slide into obscurity" from that?
Perhaps you mean the loss of many of the better educated, more articulate,
and wiser past participants, who've moved to private mailing lists, et al.,
due to the overwhelming moronity of so many newer users?
Well, building a "better" newsreader is not going to solve that problem,
at all.
> Your casual negligence is embarrassing.
I could offer the same observation about casual ignorance...
And, there are already plenty of email user agents, and web browsers.
Not to mention web sites. What value do you see in distributing, for
example, web log content via Usenet? Or video, etc? Most of the 15TB
daily traffic is material that'd far better served elsehwere, by the
way.
In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I know it's
due to the generousity of many organizations hosting feeds that are not
(directly, at least) generating enough revenue to cover their costs.
If I want to follow a URL in a Usenet article, I can easily invoke a
web browser. The site hosting it can pay for the resources necessary
to deliver it (video, photos, etc). Works for me.
> > Hmm. I thought C is self-documenting. More or less. Heh.
>
> It could be, if developers had half a clue. One look at the tin source
> shows that nobody that apparently cares to make things easy for
> outsiders to pick up. I mean, for goodness sake, would calling an
> article more than "art" kill you? And that's hardly even the tip of the
> tip of the *tip* of the iceberg.
What - you don't like label names that are entriely adequate for anyone
even casually familiar with the art? Geez.
The stuff is write is in assembly language, and is fully commented, such
that anyone familiar with the language can read and understand it. But,
is it a tutorial for anyone else? Nope. Example -
http://MIX.COM/KRTKM.MAC
> > Better to me means it works, and works well. Particularly in the
> > real world, where not everyone follows the RFCs/standards/etc.
>
> Yes, the battle cry of most mis-managed open software projects: It works
> well . . . until it doesn't work at all. Look, like the OpenSSL coders,
> need to take a step back and see what you've done with a fresh set of
> eyes, and start making changes that make your past efforts more useful
> to today's users and developers.
Tin is just a newsreader. It's not a web browser, it's not an email
user agent, nor is it anything else. It does allow one to invoke a
web browser, and it does support some basic email functions (I can
easily mail myself articles I want to save, for example). It works
now, and will continue to work fine, even if it was not actively
maintained.
I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more easily
parsed by you. I haven't looked at them in a long time, but I am a
heavy user of John Davis' text editor, and his coding style there is
more like what you're expecting/hoping to find.
> My experience with open source projects is that they won't do that,
> which is why I find myself having to re-code things that should have
> been taken care of decades ago. I mean, even your newsrc handling is
> awful. I could have taken the time to figure out how to apply your
> junky ol' code to what I want, or I could do what I ended up doing, and
> essentially run the file through an NSScanner to construct an NSIndexSet
> of read articles for each group.
Tin pre-dates Next Step.
> You have no equivalent higher-level concepts for parsing strings
> or article ranges (which tin code calls bitmap sequences, for some
> strange, non-self-documenting reason). That's only "works well"
> by some 1980s definition of the phrase.
What - I'd expect you know what a bitmap is.. Tin dates back to when
RAM was not so freely available.
> > They're character cell (text) terminal based newsreaders because
> > Usenet is a text medium.
>
> As long as you believe that, your software will continue to slide into
> irrelevance. In reality, Usenet is abstractly a CDN.
It's a _text_ CDN, yes.
> And the people who use it deserve to be more than a few characters
> in a From: header.
For example, what?
> The truth is more likely that you *want* to keep newsreaders stuck in
> the terminal because you're either unwilling or unable to envision a
> better future for the technology.
And what about all the other technologies, protocols, et cetera?
Why do you what to put 10 kilos of stuff in a 5 kilo box, when there
are so many 10 kilo boxes at hand, begging to be filled?
> That's sad, and it's a shame that your efforts with tin will be lost
> in time rather than having been something that future generations could
> build on.
See above.
> > > Believe me, I would *love* to find some open source code for a
> > > newsreader that looked like the developers knew they needed to package
> > > it for other developers to read/use. If you can actually point me to
> > > that, you'd be a hero-by-proxy.
> >
> > I'd like to, but I don't think it (yet..) exists.
>
> Which is why I've taken on the fool's errand of re-writing things
> myself. If there's enough support, it'll be released as open source.
> Given the state of Usenet these days, though, I'm not expecting to even
> break even on my efforts.
Nobody has ever gotten rich implimenting or maintaining Usenet. I can't
speak for anyone else, but I do it for fun. And, once in a while, I am
a bit better educated from it.
> > Well.. There's a lot of info available in tin/slrn sources that'd
> > be useful to anyone.
>
> Not nearly as much as you think. Speaking from experience, as an
> outsider, the code is *at best* not useful and, at worst, exhibits signs
> of deranged minds.
I'm speaking about, in this particular case, dealing with various server
quirks. You can read, and learn, or do it that hard way - write something
and then deal with complaints and bug reports from your users when they
enounter the same stuff.
> Go ahead and try and talk your tin friends into getting them to factor
> out a libnntp that can used, at the very least, to simply process Usenet
> URLs.
I'm just speculating, but I'd expect they'd say, "You're the one who wants
it, so get busy and write it yourself."
> Until that sort of thing is eagerly embraced, you should gravely doubt
> the usefulness of tin source code in the future.
Well..... If you can get the IETF and others involved to add what you want
to the Usenet standards and best practices, I'm quite confident tin and slrn
will follow. To their credit, tin's maintainers adhere to them extremely
well. And I'd bet slrn does, too.
> Again, I know that all reads as more hostile than intended.
No problemo, I'm not taking it as hostile, at all...
> Like I said, my experience with poorly run software development is that
> the people involved aren't interested in fixing what's wrong, and so I
> prefer not to get involved with their mutual back-patting sessions. I
> just laugh and walk away from "brogrammers" who think committing code is
> the most important thing in the world, yet the code they're cranking out
> is all garbage that they think "works, and works well".
...but, I've got to say I think this is a rather distorted point of view.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 15:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <droleary-4836C7.15554608052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59179 |
In article <lke1fg$314$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Huh? Daily traffic is steadily increasing, and has gone from about 3GB
> back when I worked on tin (ca 1994) to past 15TB(!) today. How do you
> get to "continues to slide into obscurity" from that?
By looking at reality; not all traffic is equivalent. For someone who
sees Usenet as limited to what tin can show, it is disingenuous for you
to try to claim that massive binary postings support your point. Its
function as a CDN is part of *my* argument. As a social/information
network, though, web sites have been kicking Usenet's ass for quite some
time.
> Perhaps you mean the loss of many of the better educated, more articulate,
> and wiser past participants, who've moved to private mailing lists, et al.,
> due to the overwhelming moronity of so many newer users?
I mean for just about everything:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Usenet_traffic_changes
> Well, building a "better" newsreader is not going to solve that problem,
> at all.
It will if you can give people what they actually want from discussions.
Especially now that we're seeing mobile apps replacing web sites as the
front-end. A fresh coat of paint would do wonders for the public
perception of Usenet.
> And, there are already plenty of email user agents, and web browsers.
> Not to mention web sites. What value do you see in distributing, for
> example, web log content via Usenet? Or video, etc? Most of the 15TB
> daily traffic is material that'd far better served elsehwere, by the
> way.
Would it, though? I again point to podcasts as a prime example.
Especially video podcasts, which see a high rate of failure when the
producer has to absorb all the distribution costs directly when they
offer it through their own web site. And I don't know that I'd even
argue that we are "better served" by pushing the problem off to YouTube
and the like.
There could be better protocols for accomplishing the same task, but
then we could also argue whether email is a good way to send files
around. The point will remain that people will use the tools they have
to get the job done. Usenet is a tool that can do *a lot* of things
people keep reinventing on HTTP and other protocols. That's why it's a
shame that so many people are stuck using software that hasn't really
been updated in the last decade to appeal to new users.
> In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I know it's
> due to the generousity of many organizations hosting feeds that are not
> (directly, at least) generating enough revenue to cover their costs.
Like email, Usenet is not inherently a commercial medium, so nobody
should expect it to have a return on investment. Same is true of web
support boards or social media outreach. The key, I think, is that
Usenet has failed to really make its case for ISPs to keep running a
server. Functioning as a (legitimate) CDN would be one way to do that,
and much of that mainly *is* about building a better newsreader. A
newsreader so seamless that people don't even need to know that NNTP is
used instead of HTTP.
> If I want to follow a URL in a Usenet article, I can easily invoke a
> web browser. The site hosting it can pay for the resources necessary
> to deliver it (video, photos, etc). Works for me.
That's not sustainable without detailing the "pay for" economic model.
For most distribution/caching of content, a system like Usenet is going
to be re-invented in one form or another. Either the case should be
made for using Usenet going forward, or we should all completely abandon
these groups for whatever is out there that does the job better.
> Tin is just a newsreader. It's not a web browser, it's not an email
> user agent, nor is it anything else. It does allow one to invoke a
> web browser, and it does support some basic email functions (I can
> easily mail myself articles I want to save, for example). It works
> now, and will continue to work fine, even if it was not actively
> maintained.
It does not "work" for my mother. It does not "work" for most Mac
users. It *definitely* does not work for people with an iPhone. The
only question the developers should be asking is whether or not any
*part* of their code could be functionally useful to other users or
developers. If so, it would be beneficial to re-factor out the parts
that can be decoupled and reused, instead of having the legacy code be
an anchor around the whole thing. Clearly *every other* newsreader
developer has seen fit to ignore that basic principle of software
design. Not me, though. NNTP.framework is what I started on Day 1:
drwxr-xr-x@ 1 droleary staff 264 Mar 3 15:54
compared to when I finally got around to starting to put an app on top
of it:
drwxr-xr-x@ 1 droleary staff 264 Mar 30 16:58
> I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more easily
> parsed by you. I haven't looked at them in a long time, but I am a
> heavy user of John Davis' text editor, and his coding style there is
> more like what you're expecting/hoping to find.
Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article", and just
looking at art.h makes it clear they have no abstraction of what a
article/message is independent of their newsreader. What I'm looking to
find is something that could be reasonable factored out to create a
libnntp. I didn't see that in *any* open source newsreader, and so I
had to write my own.
> Tin pre-dates Next Step.
If you're pushing it as something people should be using today, you
don't get to point to tin's birthday as being an excuse for its current
state. Even I wrote code a decade or two ago that I'm not proud of, but
at least I have the perspective to acknowledge that it is now garbage.
I leave it to the people to maintain tin to step up to the plate and
make their code better but, like I said, my experience with open source
projects is that even the worst coding is more desirable than the best
ideas in software architecture or design.
> What - I'd expect you know what a bitmap is.. Tin dates back to when
> RAM was not so freely available.
My point is that "bitmap" is too generic to be part of an API you
actually expect people to easily use/understand. In particular, the
task described is parsing read article ranges from the newsrc. It's in
the form of CSV ranges of number strings. Regardless of how much RAM
some ancient machine had, using the label "bitmap" to describe any of
that should not have passed review.
> > > They're character cell (text) terminal based newsreaders because
> > > Usenet is a text medium.
> >
> > As long as you believe that, your software will continue to slide into
> > irrelevance. In reality, Usenet is abstractly a CDN.
>
> It's a _text_ CDN, yes.
No, it is a *legacy* 7-bit CDN. It moved away from both plain text and
on to a full 8-bit a long, long time ago. Again, it's not my fault if
tin hasn't been keeping up with how people in 2014 make use of Usenet.
The best thing you can do for it is stop making excuses for it and push
for it to be better (or do as I've done and start writing something new).
> > And the people who use it deserve to be more than a few characters
> > in a From: header.
>
> For example, what?
Photos, for a start. With a camera on every phone, you just can't have
a social network without *at least* allowing users to post a picture of
themselves in some manner. X-Face only goes so far, and updates like
Face are also horribly limited, so the right solution is to support
external standards.
My intention is to, at some point, create something like a
X-public-vcard-URL header, to allow clients to get more detailed
information about each other, should they wish to publish contact
details (including a photo). It stems naturally from my need/desire to
support Address Book entries on the Mac.
In general, the presentation of Usenet is group-centric, but a lot of
how people approach social networks these days is user-centric. Just
like Kibo demonstrated long ago, performing a pivot in perspective can
radically change how people participate.
>
> > The truth is more likely that you *want* to keep newsreaders stuck in
> > the terminal because you're either unwilling or unable to envision a
> > better future for the technology.
>
> And what about all the other technologies, protocols, et cetera?
What about them? They all have their niches. That fact that Usenet
traffic is still growing in some areas shows that it does certain things
well. Unfortunately, much of that is illicit/illegal use, but that is
the *same* argument that is used against BitTorrent or *any*
decentralized CDN used these days.
The fact is that I could put an important file up on Usenet today and be
fairly certain I could get at it from the other side of the world both
tomorrow and for at least the next 5 years. The cost is lower than any
of the "cloud storage" that's out there, and who knows if the company
you went with will even be around next year? Usenet is *fucking great*
for that sort of thing. The possibilities are there, for anyone willing
to look beyond what tin does.
> Nobody has ever gotten rich implimenting or maintaining Usenet.
And that's the shame of it all. Facebook gets to throw around piles of
cash for invading their user's privacy, but Usenet gets no love. I'd
hope the reasons for the disparity are obvious by now but, hell, I
expected there'd be a libnntp by now, too.
> > Not nearly as much as you think. Speaking from experience, as an
> > outsider, the code is *at best* not useful and, at worst, exhibits signs
> > of deranged minds.
>
> I'm speaking about, in this particular case, dealing with various server
> quirks. You can read, and learn, or do it that hard way - write something
> and then deal with complaints and bug reports from your users when they
> enounter the same stuff.
But nobody is going to deep-dive into tin's code to find those things.
Again, like far too many open source projects, it assumes a person has a
detailed understanding of the inner workings of everything before they
begin doing anything. That's just not a good design.
> > Go ahead and try and talk your tin friends into getting them to factor
> > out a libnntp that can used, at the very least, to simply process Usenet
> > URLs.
>
> I'm just speculating, but I'd expect they'd say, "You're the one who wants
> it, so get busy and write it yourself."
In other words, exactly the kind of unprofessional behavior that plagues
most open source projects. Had their code been a high enough quality, I
would have *gladly* based what I wanted on their efforts. But if they
show no signs of wanting to *themselves* improve the core of their
project, when I decide to write it myself, it should be no surprise that
my efforts won't be based on tin.
> > Until that sort of thing is eagerly embraced, you should gravely doubt
> > the usefulness of tin source code in the future.
>
> Well..... If you can get the IETF and others involved to add what you want
> to the Usenet standards and best practices, I'm quite confident tin and slrn
> will follow. To their credit, tin's maintainers adhere to them extremely
> well. And I'd bet slrn does, too.
All the more reason that it's a shame nobody involved had the foresight
to factor out a libnntp before they started. Because, having to start
from scratch, I can pretty much guarantee that I'm going to have some
silly bugs and non-standard behavior in my framework.
> > Like I said, my experience with poorly run software development is that
> > the people involved aren't interested in fixing what's wrong, and so I
> > prefer not to get involved with their mutual back-patting sessions. I
> > just laugh and walk away from "brogrammers" who think committing code is
> > the most important thing in the world, yet the code they're cranking out
> > is all garbage that they think "works, and works well".
>
> ...but, I've got to say I think this is a rather distorted point of view.
But that's my experience. You can see it played out not so long ago in
the GNUstep newsgroups after their failed Kickstarter. The problem with
tin, too, probably isn't with the code itself, but simply with its
organization and/or the aims of the project/management itself. If
nobody there sees value in having a libnntp as part of their effort, I'm
certainly not going to bust my hump giving them something they don't
want.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08 22:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <bt2e1pF7k5uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #59201 |
On 2014-05-08, Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> wrote: > In article <lke1fg$314$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > >> I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more easily >> parsed by you. I haven't looked at them in a long time, but I am a >> heavy user of John Davis' text editor, and his coding style there is >> more like what you're expecting/hoping to find. > > Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article", and just > looking at art.h makes it clear they have no abstraction of what a > article/message is independent of their newsreader. What I'm looking to > find is something that could be reasonable factored out to create a > libnntp. I didn't see that in *any* open source newsreader, and so I > had to write my own. Any idea whether you will release your libnntp to the community for other developers to use? Or will you keep it locked away so others will need to re-invent the wheel like you just did? : ) -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 11:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <droleary-ABD9D5.11351809052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59208 |
In article <bt2e1pF7k5uU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> Any idea whether you will release your libnntp to the community for
> other developers to use? Or will you keep it locked away so others will
> need to re-invent the wheel like you just did? : )
Already answered. My corporate policy has always been software as a
service, and things get open sourced once development costs have been
covered. You, or anyone, is welcome to cover those costs individually
or collectively via crowd funding, or you can default to the model of
waiting until there is a product to buy.
But, wait, there is a line at the end of the tunnel! I'm far enough
along that I want to do MIME handling, and in searching around for that
I *finally* came across a library for NNTP that looks reasonably well
done. MailCore (libmailcore.com) is a Cocoa wrapper for LibEtPan
(etpan.org), which itself supports not only IMAP/POP/SMTP email, but
NNTP and RSS/Atom feeds. It's something I wish I would have found 2
months ago.
That said, I'm not sure I'm going to switch my NNTP framework to
wrapping it. It is at a lower level than is useful for a modern
newsreader (e.g., hardcoded things like XOVER rather than CAPABILITIES
detection, etc.), but it appears to be a great starting point for anyone
who wants/needs something C-based. Far, far better than having do dig
out something useful from the likes of tin or slrn.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-09 16:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lkiv7r$4c$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59201 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
> > Huh? Daily traffic is steadily increasing, and has gone from
> > about 3GB back when I worked on tin (ca 1994) to past 15TB(!)
> > today. How do you get to "continues to slide into obscurity"
> > from that?
>
> By looking at reality; not all traffic is equivalent. For someone
> who sees Usenet as limited to what tin can show
Tin (and presumably any other newsreader) can show anything and
everything that exists on any particular news server. Oh - you
want photos, or video? Fire up a web browser, video player, etc.
Tin can also save this junk to a file, for those who can't live
without it. Then, there are probably some web hosts that decode
all this stuff and offer it - an old friend had one (News2Me.COM)
up for a while, but I see it's no longer there. Just a guess,
but I'd suspect it was croaked by the DMCA.
> it is disingenuous for you to try to claim that massive binary
> postings support your point.
Why? When traffic is continually increasing, "slide into obscurity"
does not follow...
> Its function as a CDN is part of *my* argument.
...even when it's unwanted, abusive crap. People _are_ using it.
> As a social/information network, though, web sites have been kicking
> Usenet's ass for quite some time.
You should find that informative -- the audience you're seeking to
serve prefers web sites. Not to mention I personally would greatly
prefer they use them.
Usenet is doing quite well where access restrictions effectively reduce
the crap to a tolerable level. The Panix hierarchy (local groups only
available to Panix customers) is an excellent example.
> > Well, building a "better" newsreader is not going to solve that
> > problem, at all.
>
> It will if you can give people what they actually want from discussions.
> Especially now that we're seeing mobile apps replacing web sites as the
> front-end. A fresh coat of paint would do wonders for the public
> perception of Usenet.
I think you're confusing & conflating the quality of the tools with the
quality of the users. A "better" newsreader is not going to suddenly
transform an idiot into a polite, well-spoken human being.
> > And, there are already plenty of email user agents, and web browsers.
> > Not to mention web sites. What value do you see in distributing, for
> > example, web log content via Usenet? Or video, etc? Most of the 15TB
> > daily traffic is material that'd far better served elsehwere, by the
> > way.
>
> Would it, though? I again point to podcasts as a prime example.
> Especially video podcasts, which see a high rate of failure when the
> producer has to absorb all the distribution costs directly when they
> offer it through their own web site.
Well, pushing those costs onto third parties is not my idea of a
solution. If something fails, I think that's because it wasn't good
enough to carry its own weight. Usenet is not a charity...
> There could be better protocols for accomplishing the same task, but
> then we could also argue whether email is a good way to send files
> around. The point will remain that people will use the tools they have
> to get the job done. Usenet is a tool that can do *a lot* of things
> people keep reinventing on HTTP and other protocols. That's why it's a
> shame that so many people are stuck using software that hasn't really
> been updated in the last decade to appeal to new users.
Again, it's not the software, it's the content.
Why would we (maintainers of Usenet) pursue anything that's only going
going to pile yet more inappropiate load on a system that is not meant
to support any of it?
By the way... The Panix reader servers only carry (at this moment) 9550
text groups. There may be a few binary groups in these, but I doubt it.
> > In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I know it's
> > due to the generousity of many organizations hosting feeds that are not
> > (directly, at least) generating enough revenue to cover their costs.
>
> Like email, Usenet is not inherently a commercial medium, so nobody
> should expect it to have a return on investment.
Huh? I'm a very heavy user of email for commercial purposes. I pay
for it. How much do you think 15TB a day of email would cost?
Email is a mission-critical service, and is handled accordingly.
Usenet is not. Usenet is a best-effort service.
> Same is true of web support boards or social media outreach.
Anyone can generate income with a web site. Usenet is not a
commercial service. The charters of most groups forbid, or at
least discourage, commercial use.
> The key, I think, is that Usenet has failed to really make its
> case for ISPs to keep running a server. Functioning as a
> (legitimate) CDN would be one way to do that
Again, Usenet is not a commercial service. Further, I suspect
the massive load created by traffic Usenet was never intended to
support is a significant factor in many ISPs deciding to just
stop providing it, at all.
> and much of that mainly *is* about building a better newsreader.
> A newsreader so seamless that people don't even need to know that
> NNTP is used instead of HTTP.
What exactly is wrong with using HTTP to serve HTTP content?
Is it that it costs too much...
> > If I want to follow a URL in a Usenet article, I can easily invoke a
> > web browser. The site hosting it can pay for the resources necessary
> > to deliver it (video, photos, etc). Works for me.
>
> That's not sustainable without detailing the "pay for" economic model.
...so it seems.
Well, I don't want to pay for it, either.
> For most distribution/caching of content, a system like Usenet is going
> to be re-invented in one form or another. Either the case should be
> made for using Usenet going forward, or we should all completely abandon
> these groups for whatever is out there that does the job better.
I don't see any mutual exclusivity here.
> > Tin is just a newsreader. It's not a web browser, it's not an email
> > user agent, nor is it anything else. It does allow one to invoke a
> > web browser, and it does support some basic email functions (I can
> > easily mail myself articles I want to save, for example). It works
> > now, and will continue to work fine, even if it was not actively
> > maintained.
>
> It does not "work" for my mother.
She should use a web browser.
> It does not "work" for most Mac users.
Most can't build it, true, but it does compile fine on Mac OS. I
suppose I could build and offer the binaries to those who'd like to
use it. If someone hasn't already (I haven't looked). I could also
easily add a script to invoke the terminal emulator and run it.
> It *definitely* does not work for people with an iPhone.
Well, yea, of course not.
> The only question the developers should be asking is whether or not
> any *part* of their code could be functionally useful to other users
> or developers. If so, it would be beneficial to re-factor out the
> parts that can be decoupled and reused, instead of having the legacy
> code be an anchor around the whole thing. Clearly *every other*
> newsreader developer has seen fit to ignore that basic principle of
> software design.
Here you want us to be charitable, but elsewhere you want us to buy
(or at least fund the development of) your "open source." Nobody is
paid anything for their work on tin, or slrn. Nothing. Not one cent.
> Not me, though. NNTP.framework is what I started on Day 1:
>
> drwxr-xr-x@ 1 droleary staff 264 Mar 3 15:54
>
> compared to when I finally got around to starting to put an app on top
> of it:
>
> drwxr-xr-x@ 1 droleary staff 264 Mar 30 16:58
And this will execute under how many different operating systems?
Tin builds and runs on plenty of them - http://www.tin.org/builds.html
> > I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more easily
> > parsed by you.
> Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article"
Again, I must say, geez. Feel free to fire up your prefered search
and replace tool and regex your way to happiness.
> and just looking at art.h makes it clear they have no abstraction
> of what a article/message is independent of their newsreader. What
> I'm looking to find is something that could be reasonable factored
> out to create a libnntp. I didn't see that in *any* open source
> newsreader, and so I had to write my own.
You can't call it open source if you want to sell it.
> > Tin pre-dates Next Step.
>
> If you're pushing it as something people should be using today, you
> don't get to point to tin's birthday as being an excuse for its current
> state.
Why not? It still works perfectly.
> [...] using the label "bitmap" to describe any of that should not
> have passed review.
Well, after you've patched art, have a whack at bitmap.
> > [Usenet is] a _text_ CDN, yes.
>
> No, it is a *legacy* 7-bit CDN. It moved away from both plain text and
> on to a full 8-bit a long, long time ago. Again, it's not my fault if
> tin hasn't been keeping up with how people in 2014 make use of Usenet.
Tin is not going to cater to how people _ABUSE_ Usenet. Not in 2014,
not ever. I seriously doubt slrn ever will, too.
I think you need some experience maintaining NNTP and NNRP servers.
> The best thing you can do for it is stop making excuses for it and push
> for it to be better (or do as I've done and start writing something new).
I'm very happy with it as it is. I _don't want_ photos, video, et cetera.
Just say it with words, and perhaps a cite or two, and I'll be happy.
> > > And the people who use it deserve to be more than a few characters
> > > in a From: header.
> >
> > For example, what?
>
> Photos, for a start. With a camera on every phone, you just can't have
> a social network without *at least* allowing users to post a picture of
> themselves in some manner. X-Face only goes so far, and updates like
> Face are also horribly limited, so the right solution is to support
> external standards.
This is what HTTP does so well.
> In general, the presentation of Usenet is group-centric, but a lot of
> how people approach social networks these days is user-centric. Just
> like Kibo demonstrated long ago, performing a pivot in perspective can
> radically change how people participate.
So, use a non-group-centric protocol.
> > And what about all the other technologies, protocols, et cetera?
>
> What about them? They all have their niches. That fact that Usenet
> traffic is still growing in some areas shows that it does certain
> things well. Unfortunately, much of that is illicit/illegal use
Yes, it is. Does that justify your piling yet more load on a service
never intended to support (any of) it?
> The fact is that I could put an important file up on Usenet today and
> be fairly certain I could get at it from the other side of the world
> both tomorrow and for at least the next 5 years.
No - most servers expire stuff, and in particular, expire the material
you'd like to clog them with quite rapidly. There are some archives,
but for the the text groups.
> The cost is lower than any of the "cloud storage" that's out there
No, the cost is essentially the same. Just because no one is forcing
you to pay for it does not mean no one at all has to cover the costs.
Somebody is absolutely, positively paying for it.
> and who knows if the company you went with will even be around next
> year?
DejaNews. R.I.P.
There are some people who save things, ala olduse.net - but are they
going to want to archive massive amounts of your data? I think not.
> Usenet is *fucking great* for that sort of thing. The possibilities
> are there, for anyone willing to look beyond what tin does.
Again, who is going to pay for all this?
> > Nobody has ever gotten rich implimenting or maintaining Usenet.
>
> And that's the shame of it all. Facebook gets to throw around piles of
> cash for invading their user's privacy, but Usenet gets no love. I'd
> hope the reasons for the disparity are obvious by now but, hell, I
> expected there'd be a libnntp by now, too.
We don't care. We're happy with what we have, and don't like freeloading
interlopers piling on the work, and expenses, of maintaining the system.
> > I'm speaking about, in this particular case, dealing with various server
> > quirks. You can read, and learn, or do it that hard way - write something
> > and then deal with complaints and bug reports from your users when they
> > enounter the same stuff.
>
> But nobody is going to deep-dive into tin's code to find those things.
Huh? All it takes is a quick, and shallow, perusal of the sources.
> > > Go ahead and try and talk your tin friends into getting them to factor
> > > out a libnntp that can used, at the very least, to simply process Usenet
> > > URLs.
> >
> > I'm just speculating, but I'd expect they'd say, "You're the one who wants
> > it, so get busy and write it yourself."
>
> In other words, exactly the kind of unprofessional behavior that plagues
> most open source projects.
Huh? You want to sell your own code, but you want us to write it for free?
Speaking of unprofessional.
> But if they show no signs of wanting to *themselves* improve the core
> of their project, when I decide to write it myself, it should be no
> surprise that my efforts won't be based on tin.
I merely suggested you give it a look, and benefit from their decades of
experience creating a newsreader that works well in the real world.
> > Well..... If you can get the IETF and others involved to add what you
> > want to the Usenet standards and best practices, I'm quite confident
> > tin and slrn will follow. To their credit, tin's maintainers adhere
> > to them extremely well. And I'd bet slrn does, too.
>
> All the more reason that it's a shame nobody involved had the foresight
> to factor out a libnntp before they started.
How does the existence a transportable library relate to getting the
IETF, et al., to agree to support your intended uses of Usenet?
> Because, having to start from scratch, I can pretty much guarantee
> that I'm going to have some silly bugs and non-standard behavior in
> my framework.
Again, you can avoid a lot of that by simply observing what others have
done to fix or work around them.
> > > Like I said, my experience with poorly run software development
> > > is that the people involved aren't interested in fixing what's
> > > wrong, and so I prefer not to get involved with their mutual
> > > back-patting sessions. I just laugh and walk away from
> > > "brogrammers" who think committing code is the most important
> > > thing in the world, yet the code they're cranking out is all
> > > garbage that they think "works, and works well".
> >
> > ...but, I've got to say I think this is a rather distorted point
> > of view.
>
> But that's my experience. You can see it played out not so long ago in
> the GNUstep newsgroups after their failed Kickstarter. The problem with
> tin, too, probably isn't with the code itself, but simply with its
> organization and/or the aims of the project/management itself.
I don't see how you can say that - you don't know any of them, nor how
they work, nor what they want to accomplish. Speaking of disingenuous.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-10 13:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <droleary-369FD2.13431710052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59217 |
In article <lkiv7r$4c$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Tin can also save this junk to a file, for those who can't live
> without it. Then, there are probably some web hosts that decode
> all this stuff and offer it - an old friend had one (News2Me.COM)
> up for a while, but I see it's no longer there. Just a guess,
> but I'd suspect it was croaked by the DMCA.
>
> > it is disingenuous for you to try to claim that massive binary
> > postings support your point.
>
> Why? When traffic is continually increasing, "slide into obscurity"
> does not follow...
Your argument is not consistent. If you call the bulk of traffic
"junk", you don't get to hold it up as a success story. The landscape
is much more complex than that, as we all know. Your flawed logic
aside, the fact remains that text discussions on Usenet peaked long ago.
The decline is so bad that, hell, I can't even find detailed statistics
anymore that could either support or refute me!
> > Its function as a CDN is part of *my* argument.
>
> ...even when it's unwanted, abusive crap. People _are_ using it.
Right . . . using it for things that tin does *not* support very well.
> > As a social/information network, though, web sites have been kicking
> > Usenet's ass for quite some time.
>
> You should find that informative -- the audience you're seeking to
> serve prefers web sites. Not to mention I personally would greatly
> prefer they use them.
I disagree. Those same masses have flocked to mobile apps as well.
What they want clearly is not web-centric, so the rational mind would
look to what features are offered by other services that are not
commonly offered by Usenet clients.
> I think you're confusing & conflating the quality of the tools with the
> quality of the users. A "better" newsreader is not going to suddenly
> transform an idiot into a polite, well-spoken human being.
That's your straw man, not mine. My only desire is to increase the
*number* of people on Usenet. A better client *will also* go a long way
to attracting people who are discerning but don't have the technical
skills/desire to run command line tools. That includes a feature not
offered by most web sites: the ability to filter out the morons.
> > Would it, though? I again point to podcasts as a prime example.
> > Especially video podcasts, which see a high rate of failure when the
> > producer has to absorb all the distribution costs directly when they
> > offer it through their own web site.
>
> Well, pushing those costs onto third parties is not my idea of a
> solution. If something fails, I think that's because it wasn't good
> enough to carry its own weight. Usenet is not a charity...
It's not "pushing" costs, it's simply more efficient allocation of
resources. It is *stupid* to have every leaf node individually go to a
central server to get the same content over and over. It's better for
everyone to pull from a local cache instead. Again, we could argue
about whether or not NNTP is the best way to build such a CDN, but
that's another discussion.
> > There could be better protocols for accomplishing the same task, but
> > then we could also argue whether email is a good way to send files
> > around. The point will remain that people will use the tools they have
> > to get the job done. Usenet is a tool that can do *a lot* of things
> > people keep reinventing on HTTP and other protocols. That's why it's a
> > shame that so many people are stuck using software that hasn't really
> > been updated in the last decade to appeal to new users.
>
> Again, it's not the software, it's the content.
For most people, there is NO difference. Most people don't know HTTP
from NNTP from XMPP from RSS/XML from EIEIO. All they know is that they
want to *do* something, and some software makes it easy where other
software makes it hard.
> Why would we (maintainers of Usenet) pursue anything that's only going
> going to pile yet more inappropiate load on a system that is not meant
> to support any of it?
Wrong perspective. You're in a *service* industry, so do your fucking
job and start better serving the needs of the people. If you don't,
then you should not be at all surprised when they flock away to services
that do. Nor should you be surprised when even *more* "inappropriate"
traffic takes over the network. It is *you* who is to blame for the
neighborhood going to hell.
> By the way... The Panix reader servers only carry (at this moment) 9550
> text groups. There may be a few binary groups in these, but I doubt it.
Great, for those that are part of that special in-crowd. But there is a
large continuum between that and Penny Arcade's "Shitcock".
> > > In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I know it's
> > > due to the generousity of many organizations hosting feeds that are not
> > > (directly, at least) generating enough revenue to cover their costs.
> >
> > Like email, Usenet is not inherently a commercial medium, so nobody
> > should expect it to have a return on investment.
>
> Huh? I'm a very heavy user of email for commercial purposes. I pay
> for it. How much do you think 15TB a day of email would cost?
Reread your own post. You said "directly, at least". I don't know
about you, but *I* certainly don't have anyone sending me money directly
in email (or Usenet). They are a loss leader, lumped in with other
support and/or communication cost that are a part of doing business.
So the problem with Usenet binaries is not that there are 15TB daily,
but that there *may* be wasteful overhead on the distribution of that
content. That problem, if it exists, is something that could easily be
addressed if the "maintainers of Usenet" really cared to.
> Email is a mission-critical service, and is handled accordingly.
> Usenet is not. Usenet is a best-effort service.
It's all very fluid. Some people now consider Twitter or Facebook to be
more mission-critical. Or web SEO. Hell, there are a ton of web sites
that would rather have to use a contact form than send them an email.
Again, once you stop cherry picking, the evidence is actually against
your position.
> > Same is true of web support boards or social media outreach.
>
> Anyone can generate income with a web site. Usenet is not a
> commercial service. The charters of most groups forbid, or at
> least discourage, commercial use.
Then it's a shame that new groups can *never* be created . . .
> > The key, I think, is that Usenet has failed to really make its
> > case for ISPs to keep running a server. Functioning as a
> > (legitimate) CDN would be one way to do that
>
> Again, Usenet is not a commercial service. Further, I suspect
> the massive load created by traffic Usenet was never intended to
> support is a significant factor in many ISPs deciding to just
> stop providing it, at all.
Please. As I have noted and linked to, the changes are mainly due to
"questionable" content more than the bandwidth or disk space used. I
burn through more bandwidth these days streaming video
(Hulu/Netflix/YouTube/etc.) than I ever did (or ever will) with Usenet.
> > and much of that mainly *is* about building a better newsreader.
> > A newsreader so seamless that people don't even need to know that
> > NNTP is used instead of HTTP.
>
> What exactly is wrong with using HTTP to serve HTTP content?
There is no such thing as HTTP content. Like NNTP, HTTP is merely a
protocol that can be used to *deliver* content. Now, you could
certainly argue that it does a better job for delivering binary content
than Usenet, but it's all debatable depending on the needs you have.
Given all the "cloud" BS that get thrown around, you'd think people
might take a closer look at how NNTP might better serve their needs.
> Is it that it costs too much...
Again, it's that it is limited to favor what it was designed to do,
which might not be what people *really* want to do. I don't *want* to
shove news into a big XML file that an RSS reader has to poll regularly
and download entirely over HTTP, and then jump through hoops to track
what is or isn't "new". But somehow that became preferable to just
making a post to Usenet, despite the obviously increased overhead and
costs.
> Well, I don't want to pay for it, either.
Tough. Everybody pays, and the cost is usually *higher* when you can't
account how you're paying for something.
> > For most distribution/caching of content, a system like Usenet is going
> > to be re-invented in one form or another. Either the case should be
> > made for using Usenet going forward, or we should all completely abandon
> > these groups for whatever is out there that does the job better.
>
> I don't see any mutual exclusivity here.
It's not, but the rational thing to do is follow best practices wherever
possible.
> > It does not "work" for my mother.
>
> She should use a web browser.
Point to me a good web-based Usenet client. Must support subscriptions
and filtering.
> > It does not "work" for most Mac users.
>
> Most can't build it, true, but it does compile fine on Mac OS. I
> suppose I could build and offer the binaries to those who'd like to
> use it. If someone hasn't already (I haven't looked). I could also
> easily add a script to invoke the terminal emulator and run it.
I hope you're being obtuse on purpose. It's not that it won't *build*
on a Mac, it's that a Mac user expects a Mac app to run in some place
other than Terminal. They want WIMP, and you know it.
> > It *definitely* does not work for people with an iPhone.
>
> Well, yea, of course not.
No! Again, it's only "of course not" because the developers are stuck
with some crappy ol' code they can't be bothered to modernize. The fact
that tin is increasingly brittle is not something that should be
acceptable.
> > The only question the developers should be asking is whether or not
> > any *part* of their code could be functionally useful to other users
> > or developers. If so, it would be beneficial to re-factor out the
> > parts that can be decoupled and reused, instead of having the legacy
> > code be an anchor around the whole thing. Clearly *every other*
> > newsreader developer has seen fit to ignore that basic principle of
> > software design.
>
> Here you want us to be charitable, but elsewhere you want us to buy
> (or at least fund the development of) your "open source." Nobody is
> paid anything for their work on tin, or slrn. Nothing. Not one cent.
They are, just not in any way that's been accounted for. I mean, I
absolutely *could* release what I'm doing for free, too, but not without
having some way to otherwise pay my bills. I respect people enough to
present them with the reality of economics, not hide it behind a day job
or advertising or whatever other ways "free" things get paid for.
> And this will execute under how many different operating systems?
All the ones I'm being paid to get it running on. :-)
> Tin builds and runs on plenty of them - http://www.tin.org/builds.html
Great for people who still use tin on fringe systems. You sound a lot
like the OpenSSL goons who couldn't bear to excise similar crap from
their code. Hell, I'm not even going to bother testing what I'm doing
on Macs prior to 10.9. Not unless somebody is going to cover supporting
older systems, of course.
> > > I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more easily
> > > parsed by you.
>
> > Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article"
>
> Again, I must say, geez. Feel free to fire up your prefered search
> and replace tool and regex your way to happiness.
Again, I point to it as a symptom of a project's underlying disease.
There are *scores* of ugliness that I'd have to undo to make the code
reasonable. And if *they* cared, they'd already have taken steps to
make it better. Since that's not the case, they have self-selected for
a poor developer community, and should not be surprised when I don't
want to be a part of that.
> You can't call it open source if you want to sell it.
Incorrect.
> > If you're pushing it as something people should be using today, you
> > don't get to point to tin's birthday as being an excuse for its current
> > state.
>
> Why not? It still works perfectly.
You're not lying to me.
> > [...] using the label "bitmap" to describe any of that should not
> > have passed review.
>
> Well, after you've patched art, have a whack at bitmap.
Already done. Like I said previously, I based it on NSScanner and
NSIndexSet. Blazingly fast compared to MT-NW on a 2MB newsrc I tested
with; can't say how it'd compare to tin. The code is *way* more
readable, though. Perhaps you'll see it someday.
> Tin is not going to cater to how people _ABUSE_ Usenet. Not in 2014,
> not ever. I seriously doubt slrn ever will, too.
Look, we get it! Anything that makes tin still relevant is the True
Scotsman of Usenet usage, and anything that makes tin look bad is
horrible abuse. Bury that dead horse already.
> I think you need some experience maintaining NNTP and NNRP servers.
I'd rather update the protocol to something more in line with how the
CDN is being used.
> I'm very happy with it as it is. I _don't want_ photos, video, et cetera.
> Just say it with words, and perhaps a cite or two, and I'll be happy.
Good for you, old man. But the world has moved on, what with the kids
and their Twattering and FaceBorking. Again, it's all a question of
whether or not what you've built in the past can be built on in the
future. If not, say goodnight Gracie.
> > Photos, for a start. With a camera on every phone, you just can't have
> > a social network without *at least* allowing users to post a picture of
> > themselves in some manner. X-Face only goes so far, and updates like
> > Face are also horribly limited, so the right solution is to support
> > external standards.
>
> This is what HTTP does so well.
No, it doesn't. I'm not going to go too far down another protocol
branch in this thread, but it will be clear to anyone who has ever tried
to get structured content off of a website knows that there is *nothing*
it brings to game for standardizing contact information.
> > What about them? They all have their niches. That fact that Usenet
> > traffic is still growing in some areas shows that it does certain
> > things well. Unfortunately, much of that is illicit/illegal use
>
> Yes, it is. Does that justify your piling yet more load on a service
> never intended to support (any of) it?
Yes. The proper perspective is to *fix* the service to support its
actual utility. Clearly you'd prefer to fossilize.
> > The fact is that I could put an important file up on Usenet today and
> > be fairly certain I could get at it from the other side of the world
> > both tomorrow and for at least the next 5 years.
>
> No - most servers expire stuff, and in particular, expire the material
> you'd like to clog them with quite rapidly. There are some archives,
> but for the the text groups.
What "most" servers do is not the issue. As long as there is still a
market for *any* service with long retention times, you have a means to
that end.
> > The cost is lower than any of the "cloud storage" that's out there
>
> No, the cost is essentially the same. Just because no one is forcing
> you to pay for it does not mean no one at all has to cover the costs.
Again, you've got the economics all wrong. A shared cost is not
necessarily a *higher* cost; it is more often just the opposite.
> Somebody is absolutely, positively paying for it.
I am. And you are. As are thousands of others. Because we're all
pooling our resources, we exploit economies of scale and things are
cheaper for us. Compare that to the crappy double-dipping that
companies are screwing around with and it should be clear that you're
completely wrong on these issues.
> > and who knows if the company you went with will even be around next
> > year?
>
> DejaNews. R.I.P.
You support my point. My file is on *Usenet*, not DejaNews.
> There are some people who save things, ala olduse.net - but are they
> going to want to archive massive amounts of your data? I think not.
They do. You can argue that maybe they shouldn't, or that they might
not in the future. But that *is* the state of things today for Usenet,
which is far more than can be said for all the newcomer cloud services.
> > Usenet is *fucking great* for that sort of thing. The possibilities
> > are there, for anyone willing to look beyond what tin does.
>
> Again, who is going to pay for all this?
We all are. It's not a problem, because it's a better way to do this
than the alternatives.
> > But nobody is going to deep-dive into tin's code to find those things.
>
> Huh? All it takes is a quick, and shallow, perusal of the sources.
As someone who has bothered to go farther than that myself, you're full
of it. I already gave a simple example: I want to use tin as the basis
for nntp support in cURL. Show me the quick, shallow hooks that can
make it happen.
> Huh? You want to sell your own code, but you want us to write it for free?
> Speaking of unprofessional.
Straw man again. I never said you should be doing anything for free. I
merely said it is unprofessional to be a "brogrammer".
> I merely suggested you give it a look, and benefit from their decades of
> experience creating a newsreader that works well in the real world.
And I told you what I saw. Either you can take a step back and look at
it from a neutral perspective, or you can continue to bury your head in
the sand and think that everything is just perfect. It's all to clear
which choice you're making.
> > > Well..... If you can get the IETF and others involved to add what you
> > > want to the Usenet standards and best practices, I'm quite confident
> > > tin and slrn will follow. To their credit, tin's maintainers adhere
> > > to them extremely well. And I'd bet slrn does, too.
> >
> > All the more reason that it's a shame nobody involved had the foresight
> > to factor out a libnntp before they started.
>
> How does the existence a transportable library relate to getting the
> IETF, et al., to agree to support your intended uses of Usenet?
It doesn't. That was just another straw man *you* threw in there as a
distraction. My point was that tin and slrn probably *do* adhere to the
standards much better at their place in the SDLC than any new
implementation does, and that is why it is a shame that what has been
done by them cannot be reused.
> > Because, having to start from scratch, I can pretty much guarantee
> > that I'm going to have some silly bugs and non-standard behavior in
> > my framework.
>
> Again, you can avoid a lot of that by simply observing what others have
> done to fix or work around them.
Again, not if those fixes are buried deep in spaghetti code.
> > But that's my experience. You can see it played out not so long ago in
> > the GNUstep newsgroups after their failed Kickstarter. The problem with
> > tin, too, probably isn't with the code itself, but simply with its
> > organization and/or the aims of the project/management itself.
>
> I don't see how you can say that - you don't know any of them, nor how
> they work, nor what they want to accomplish. Speaking of disingenuous.
I know them by how they interact with other people, and how they
approach criticism. For example, one person who claimed to be a core
FreeBSD developer flat-out stated that they didn't care about anyone who
didn't submit code to the project. What a shitty way to be dismissive
of people who could otherwise help! That's a toxic environment, and I
will not be a part of a community that is like that.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 04:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lkmtq4$37h$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59252 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
> > When traffic is continually increasing, "slide into obscurity"
> > does not follow...
>
> Your argument is not consistent. If you call the bulk of traffic
> "junk", you don't get to hold it up as a success story.
No -- you don't get hold up what I've said as something completely
different. Not sliding into obscurity != success story.
> > ...even when it's unwanted, abusive crap. People _are_ using it.
>
> Right . . . using it for things that tin does *not* support very well.
Again, people are also using it for things tin *does* support.
> > You should find that informative -- the audience you're seeking to
> > serve prefers web sites. Not to mention I personally would greatly
> > prefer they use them.
>
> I disagree. Those same masses have flocked to mobile apps as well.
> What they want clearly is not web-centric, so the rational mind would
> look to what features are offered by other services that are not
> commonly offered by Usenet clients.
Nor are they commonly offered by Usenet servers.
Duh.
The rational mind would A) not belittle a system and software that
have functioned very well for decades, B) not make wildly presumptive
and erroneous statments about the people implimenting them, and most of
all, C) not ignorantly assume that massive amounts of illegal traffic
mean the system will cheerfully support yet more of it.
As things are now, you are not going to transmit binary data via Usenet
without 'encoding' it into text. There are various size limits. It's
likely you'd have to use the alt.binaries hierarchy, the propagation
and retention of which are nowhere even close to your stated goals.
Further, it's now obvious you'd rather argue about it with me instead
of doing even a modest amount of research.
> we could argue about whether or not NNTP is the best way to build
> such a CDN, but that's another discussion.
No, that's the discussion we're having now.
> > Why would we (maintainers of Usenet) pursue anything that's only
> > going to pile yet more inappropiate load on a system that is not
> > meant to support any of it?
>
> Wrong perspective. You're in a *service* industry, so do your fucking
> job and start better serving the needs of the people.
If the people have other, grossly imcompatible needs...
> If you don't, then you should not be at all surprised when they flock
> away to services that do.
...let them find something that _can_ handle them.
If I'm a fisherman, and someone walks up and asks me for some beef,
they're going to get told, "Hey - you're looking in the wrong place."
Hopefully that's dumbed down enough that you can grasp the concept.
> Nor should you be surprised when even *more* "inappropriate" traffic
> takes over the network. It is *you* who is to blame for the
> neighborhood going to hell.
Oh, bullshit. Your 'logic' here is not only completely wrong, it's
thoroughly twisted.
Most everyone even remotely familiar with the history of Usenet places
the blame on _too many people gaining access to it._
> > By the way... The Panix reader servers only carry (at this moment)
> > 9550 text groups. There may be a few binary groups in these, but I
> > doubt it.
>
> Great, for those that are part of that special in-crowd. But there
> is a large continuum between that and Penny Arcade's "Shitcock".
So, invent something for them. Call it, say, Usenet 2. Oh, wait...
Better go with Usenet 3. 2's already been tried. It was an utter
failure.
> > > > In spite of this, propagation is quite good, but as far as I
> > > > know it's due to the generousity of many organizations hosting
> > > > feeds that are not (directly, at least) generating enough
> > > > revenue to cover their costs.
> > >
> > > Like email, Usenet is not inherently a commercial medium, so
> > > nobody should expect it to have a return on investment.
> >
> > Huh? I'm a very heavy user of email for commercial purposes. I
> > pay for it. How much do you think 15TB a day of email would cost?
>
> Reread your own post. You said "directly, at least". I don't know
> about you, but *I* certainly don't have anyone sending me money
> directly in email (or Usenet).
Huh? I pay for email service. I don't use it for receiving any sort
of payments. That's what banks do. What part of that do you not grasp?
I'm not going to suggest you reread anything, but I will ask -- what the
hell is going on with you...?
> > Anyone can generate income with a web site. Usenet is not a
> > commercial service. The charters of most groups forbid, or at
> > least discourage, commercial use.
>
> Then it's a shame that new groups can *never* be created . . .
New groups can be, and are, created. The only problem for you
is the kind of groups you'd like to use can not be created in the
hierarchies that would provide the kind of propagation you'd like.
> > Again, Usenet is not a commercial service. Further, I suspect
> > the massive load created by traffic Usenet was never intended to
> > support is a significant factor in many ISPs deciding to just
> > stop providing it, at all.
>
> Please. As I have noted and linked to, the changes are mainly due to
> "questionable" content more than the bandwidth or disk space used. I
> burn through more bandwidth these days streaming video (Hulu/Netflix/
> YouTube/etc.) than I ever did (or ever will) with Usenet.
Served by whom? And at who's expense?
> > > For most distribution/caching of content, a system like Usenet is
> > > going to be re-invented in one form or another. Either the case
> > > should be made for using Usenet going forward, or we should all
> > > completely abandon these groups for whatever is out there that
> > > does the job better.
> >
> > I don't see any mutual exclusivity here.
>
> It's not, but the rational thing to do is follow best practices
> wherever possible.
Oh, really? How about Usenet's best practices?
[about tin...]
> > > It *definitely* does not work for people with an iPhone.
> >
> > Well, yea, of course not.
>
> No! Again, it's only "of course not" because the developers are stuck
> with some crappy ol' code they can't be bothered to modernize. The
> fact that tin is increasingly brittle is not something that should be
> acceptable.
Huh? Where exactly do you get "brittle?" There must be thousands of
programs that not only do not, but never will run on an iPhone.
> > And this [your code] will execute under how many different operating
> systems?
>
> All the ones I'm being paid to get it running on. :-)
In other words, two. Or, actually, about 1.5.
> > Tin builds and runs on plenty of them - http://www.tin.org/builds.html
>
> Great for people who still use tin on fringe systems.
So, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, and Windows are
fringe systems? Yea, right...
> You sound a lot like the OpenSSL goons who couldn't bear to excise
> similar crap from their code.
You're sounding quite intensely bigoted. It does not become you.
Nor will it inspire any cooperation from those whose help you need
to get your concept off the ground.
> Hell, I'm not even going to bother testing what I'm doing on Macs
> prior to 10.9. Not unless somebody is going to cover supporting
> older systems, of course.
I write under contract. You, on the other hand, might want to research
your market. As a retailer, that'd be a prudent pursuit for you.
> > > > I think slrn's sources may be more instructive, at least more
> > > > easily parsed by you.
> >
> > > Ugh, no. They, too, seem unable to spell out "article"
> >
> > Again, I must say, geez. Feel free to fire up your prefered search
> > and replace tool and regex your way to happiness.
>
> Again, I point to it as a symptom of a project's underlying disease.
> There are *scores* of ugliness that I'd have to undo to make the code
> reasonable. And if *they* cared, they'd already have taken steps to
> make it better. Since that's not the case, they have self-selected
> for a poor developer community, and should not be surprised when I
> don't want to be a part of that.
At this point I'd be shocked were any of them not profoundly grateful
for your absence.
> > Tin is not going to cater to how people _ABUSE_ Usenet. Not in
> > 2014, not ever. I seriously doubt slrn ever will, too.
>
> Look, we get it! Anything that makes tin still relevant is the True
> Scotsman of Usenet usage, and anything that makes tin look bad is
> horrible abuse. Bury that dead horse already.
You're blinded by your own light. It's ugly.
> > I think you need some experience maintaining NNTP and NNRP servers.
>
> I'd rather update the protocol to something more in line with how the
> CDN is being used.
Well, then, stop posting all this nonsense, and get busy and make it
happen. I've already given you all the info you need to begin.
> > I'm very happy with it as it is. I _don't want_ photos, video,
> > et cetera. Just say it with words, and perhaps a cite or two,
> > and I'll be happy.
>
> Good for you, old man. But the world has moved on, what with the kids
> and their Twattering and FaceBorking. Again, it's all a question of
> whether or not what you've built in the past can be built on in the,
> future. If not, say goodnight Gracie.
Oh, bullshit. Yet again. There's nothing mutually exclusive going on
here. And, all the kiddies in my neighborhood (West Los Angeles area)
are doing fine. They've done Snapchat and who knows what else, and I'm
sure there's plenty more to come.
[about photos and other binary data]
> > > What about them? They all have their niches. That fact that
> > > Usenet traffic is still growing in some areas shows that it does
> > > certain things well. Unfortunately, much of that is illicit/
> > > illegal use
> >
> > Yes, it is. Does that justify your piling yet more load on a
> > service never intended to support (any of) it?
>
> Yes. The proper perspective is to *fix* the service to support its
> actual utility. Clearly you'd prefer to fossilize.
Clearly you'd prefer to make up shit I've never said, and then criticise
me for it, instead of actually making an effort towards fixing anything.
Including coming up with a viable scheme to cover the added costs.
> > > The fact is that I could put an important file up on Usenet today
> > > and be fairly certain I could get at it from the other side of the
> > > world both tomorrow and for at least the next 5 years.
> >
> > No - most servers expire stuff, and in particular, expire the material
> > you'd like to clog them with quite rapidly. There are some archives,
> > but for the the text groups.
>
> What "most" servers do is not the issue. As long as there is still a
> market for *any* service with long retention times, you have a means to
> that end.
Aren't you the guy who's so intent on avoiding Google-like central
control?
You can not have your cake, and eat it, too.
> > > and who knows if the company you went with will even be around next
> > > year?
> >
> > DejaNews. R.I.P.
>
> You support my point. My file is on *Usenet*, not DejaNews.
You are one very confused guy. Usenet *expires* everything.
> > Again, who is going to pay for all this?
>
> We all are. It's not a problem, because it's a better way to do this
> than the alternatives.
First you'll need to get the protocol modified. Then you'll need to
generate enough interest and usage to perhaps pursuade the feeder sites
to handle your traffic. Then it'll either generate some profit, or go
meet the dinosaurs.
> I already gave a simple example: I want to use tin as the basis for
> nntp support in cURL. Show me the quick, shallow hooks that can
> make it happen.
>
> > Huh? You want to sell your own code, but you want us to write it
> > for free? Speaking of unprofessional.
>
> Straw man again. I never said you should be doing anything for free.
Yes, you did. I was quite clear in explaning Neither tin nor slrn are
commercial software.
> > How does the existence a transportable library relate to getting the
> > IETF, et al., to agree to support your intended uses of Usenet?
>
> It doesn't. That was just another straw man *you* threw in there as a
> distraction. My point was that tin and slrn probably *do* adhere to
> the standards much better at their place in the SDLC than any new
> implementation does, and that is why it is a shame that what has been
> done by them cannot be reused.
The only shame here is your writing new code that'll be utterly useless
without an infrastructure upon which to run it.
> > > But that's my experience. You can see it played out not so long
> > > ago in the GNUstep newsgroups after their failed Kickstarter.
> > > The problem with tin, too, probably isn't with the code itself,
> > > but simply with its organization and/or the aims of the project/
> > > management itself.
> >
> > I don't see how you can say that - you don't know any of them,
> > nor how they work, nor what they want to accomplish. Speaking
> > of disingenuous.
>
> I know them by how they interact with other people, and how they
> approach criticism. For example, one person who claimed to be a core
> FreeBSD developer flat-out stated that they didn't care about anyone
> who didn't submit code to the project. What a shitty way to be
> dismissive of people who could otherwise help! That's a toxic
> environment, and I will not be a part of a community that is like
> that.
If you're so damned smart, and such a wonderful, and quick, software
engineer, what exactly is wrong with giving them a patch?
You obviously have no experience, of any kind, with the maintainers
of tin, or slrn. I think you'd do well to at least tone down your
bitterness and bigotry, if not entirely drop it, but based on your
behaviour over time, I don't expect that to happen.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-11 15:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <droleary-7A7C5B.15012411052014@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #59273 |
In article <lkmtq4$37h$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes, quoting me:
>
> > > When traffic is continually increasing, "slide into obscurity"
> > > does not follow...
> >
> > Your argument is not consistent. If you call the bulk of traffic
> > "junk", you don't get to hold it up as a success story.
>
> No -- you don't get hold up what I've said as something completely
> different. Not sliding into obscurity != success story.
Sorry, but your Fox News tactics leave me unfazed. You have to be
consistent on the principles you hold, not adopt a relative morality
based on whether or not it suits your needs at the moment. Spam and
other junk *cannot* be put forward as an argument for the popularity of
Usenet. If you can't see why that's the case, there is no point in
continuing this discussion with you.
> Again, people are also using it for things tin *does* support.
In dwindling numbers. Unless you can give me some usage statistics that
show otherwise, your entire argument is without basis.
> > I disagree. Those same masses have flocked to mobile apps as well.
> > What they want clearly is not web-centric, so the rational mind would
> > look to what features are offered by other services that are not
> > commonly offered by Usenet clients.
>
> Nor are they commonly offered by Usenet servers.
>
> Duh.
What's the "Duh" part of that? The purpose of Usenet is *not* to offer
users-centric accounts. That doesn't mean newsreaders can't step up to
the plate and fill out the features that users want. To do that, we
have to move beyond X-Face and beyond tin. Sad that it is upsetting for
you to hear, but that is the nature of technological progress.
> The rational mind would A) not belittle a system and software that
> have functioned very well for decades, B) not make wildly presumptive
> and erroneous statments about the people implimenting them, and most of
> all, C) not ignorantly assume that massive amounts of illegal traffic
> mean the system will cheerfully support yet more of it.
A. Past performance is not a predictor of future results.
B. People are known by the company they keep.
C. Straw man; I have never called for an increase in illegal use.
> As things are now, you are not going to transmit binary data via Usenet
> without 'encoding' it into text. There are various size limits. It's
> likely you'd have to use the alt.binaries hierarchy, the propagation
> and retention of which are nowhere even close to your stated goals.
Reality disagrees with your assessment, and *all* my "goals" were is a
statement of reality. My aim is *not* to offer anything to do with
binaries; my 1.0 version will barely be a functional text reader. Even
so, I'm not blind to the fact that a lot of people *do* (and *could* for
more legitimate purposes) use Usenet to move around binary files using
things like yEnc, NZB, PAR, RAR, etc. And, as a CDN, it makes sense for
it to be used that way *even if it wasn't initially designed to do
that*. The reasonable thing to do is move the standard towards what the
people want, not bitch and moan that the people are doing it wrong.
> Further, it's now obvious you'd rather argue about it with me instead
> of doing even a modest amount of research.
No, rather I've done the research and come to conclusion that you don't
like, so you get all Fox News on me. Don't blame me if reality is not
to your liking. It would benefit you, and everyone around you, to
change your position to something more reasonable.
> > we could argue about whether or not NNTP is the best way to build
> > such a CDN, but that's another discussion.
>
> No, that's the discussion we're having now.
That's all in your head. I'm not going to devolve this even further
into talk about P2P networks or various cloud service providers/stacks
or any other ways to build a CDN. My interest here is strictly in
client-server message passing protocols like NNTP, IMAP, POP, etc.
> > Wrong perspective. You're in a *service* industry, so do your fucking
> > job and start better serving the needs of the people.
>
> If the people have other, grossly imcompatible needs...
You might find yourself out of a job.
> If I'm a fisherman, and someone walks up and asks me for some beef,
> they're going to get told, "Hey - you're looking in the wrong place."
If you want to be unhelpful, yeah, you can treat people so briskly. For
those of us who aren't dicks, we tell them where we get our beef or to
look around meat market where we sell our fish. I'm guessing you'd
demand that they eat fish, because it "works, and works well".
> Hopefully that's dumbed down enough that you can grasp the concept.
When you dumb things down for people, you're moving in the wrong
direction. That applies both in the general and the specific in this
case.
> > Nor should you be surprised when even *more* "inappropriate" traffic
> > takes over the network. It is *you* who is to blame for the
> > neighborhood going to hell.
>
> Oh, bullshit. Your 'logic' here is not only completely wrong, it's
> thoroughly twisted.
It's borne out of many psychological studies. A great way to get all
your windows broken out is to not fix the first one that gets broken
out. Small problems compound as norms get shifted. It's not right or
fair, but it *is* what happens. Face the reality and you'll have a
better shot at fixing the problems.
> Most everyone even remotely familiar with the history of Usenet places
> the blame on _too many people gaining access to it._
I'd say it was the fairly of Usenet to evolve *when* people started
coming online. What got called the Eternal September here happened
*everywhere*. You only have to spend a few minutes looking around the
comments of YouTube or Twitter to see that there are simply a great
number of "Shitcock" people in the world. If that's not something
you're looking to encourage, you have to change your tools and your own
behaviors to create a better neighborhood.
> So, invent something for them. Call it, say, Usenet 2. Oh, wait...
> Better go with Usenet 3. 2's already been tried. It was an utter
> failure.
I've thought about that, but it isn't necessary at this point. The main
problem with Usenet is not the protocols or propagation. It is with
client tools, like tin, that are so outdated that they are no longer
useful for what people want to do. The *reason* I abstract Usenet to a
generic CDN is because I want to focus on the needs/wants of the people,
not the particulars of the technology. People who use Twitter or
Instagram don't really *care* how they work, for better or worse.
> I'm not going to suggest you reread anything, but I will ask -- what the
> hell is going on with you...?
Clearly, if I can't recognize tin as the perfect be-all, end-all of
Usenet, I must be going crazy.
> > > Anyone can generate income with a web site. Usenet is not a
> > > commercial service. The charters of most groups forbid, or at
> > > least discourage, commercial use.
> >
> > Then it's a shame that new groups can *never* be created . . .
>
> New groups can be, and are, created. The only problem for you
> is the kind of groups you'd like to use can not be created in the
> hierarchies that would provide the kind of propagation you'd like.
My likes are not a factor. People are already using plenty of services
that don't share data. Using a CDN like Usenet simply opens up the
*possibility* of more efficient propagation. But because the existing
tools make it hard for the little guys to use it that way, the big guys
usually go with proprietary tools so that they can keep the little guys
from becoming big guys too.
> > > Again, Usenet is not a commercial service. Further, I suspect
> > > the massive load created by traffic Usenet was never intended to
> > > support is a significant factor in many ISPs deciding to just
> > > stop providing it, at all.
> >
> > Please. As I have noted and linked to, the changes are mainly due to
> > "questionable" content more than the bandwidth or disk space used. I
> > burn through more bandwidth these days streaming video (Hulu/Netflix/
> > YouTube/etc.) than I ever did (or ever will) with Usenet.
>
> Served by whom? And at who's expense?
Are you one of those double-dipping jerks? If not, it's an open
network. You pay for your access and I pay for mine. It is in the
interest of my access provider to have network content as "close" as
possible, so a semi-universal CDN operating behind the scenes makes
sense for everyone. Usenet is an open way to provide that.
> > It's not, but the rational thing to do is follow best practices
> > wherever possible.
>
> Oh, really? How about Usenet's best practices?
How about it? If you have a point to make, make it.
> > No! Again, it's only "of course not" because the developers are stuck
> > with some crappy ol' code they can't be bothered to modernize. The
> > fact that tin is increasingly brittle is not something that should be
> > acceptable.
>
> Huh? Where exactly do you get "brittle?" There must be thousands of
> programs that not only do not, but never will run on an iPhone.
Just because you keep company with thousands of other brittle projects
doesn't mean you're not brittle. Hell, even Apple's Mail is itself
brittle because it cannot easily be used as a Usenet client.
Again, my long-standing objection to newsreaders like slrn and tin are
that *no part* of them is written for reuse, despite the fact that it is
clear to anyone with even the most lackluster CS education that two big
components of what they do, transporting messages and displaying
messages, are completely independent operations.
> > > And this [your code] will execute under how many different operating
> > systems?
> >
> > All the ones I'm being paid to get it running on. :-)
>
> In other words, two. Or, actually, about 1.5.
Sure. Unlike you with tin, I have no need to color the reality of the
situation. I'm going Mac-first (because that's where the greatest need
is given the death of MT-NW) with a likely extension to iOS support.
Whether or not GNUstep makes it possible to run on other systems is
something I don't expect I'll deal with, but I'll look into it if you
write me a big enough check.
> > > Tin builds and runs on plenty of them - http://www.tin.org/builds.html
> >
> > Great for people who still use tin on fringe systems.
>
> So, Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX, and Windows are
> fringe systems? Yea, right...
Again, you continue to be disingenuous. A reality-based approach would
be to dedicate resources to meet the needs of your actual user base
rather than acting as if you're supporting everything that makes for an
easy bullet point. Most of the systems on that page are for vastly
outdated versions of tin so, yes, I feel entirely comfortable calling
you out for acting like "plenty of them" isn't 90% fringe. Get back to
me when you have a 2.x version of tin running on NEXTSTEP, with more
regular users than the developer themselves.
> > You sound a lot like the OpenSSL goons who couldn't bear to excise
> > similar crap from their code.
>
> You're sounding quite intensely bigoted. It does not become you.
> Nor will it inspire any cooperation from those whose help you need
> to get your concept off the ground.
What you see as bigotry is actually professionalism in this case. In
truth, when people come to *me* and say my code sucks, I am professional
enough to take a step back and see it from their perspective, and likely
agree with them. Then I'd ask them how we could work together to make
things better.
That's the exact opposite of bigotry. Bigotry would be if I built a
newsreader *without* creating a libnntp and then try to browbeat anyone
who would dare to suggest that my newsreader isn't the most perfect
newsreader that was ever made to read the news EVER!
So, you see, you're projecting. It is your ilk that has failed to
inspire my cooperation. If you look with open eyes, you'll see your
same flaws in OpenSSL, GNUstep, and so many more open source projects
that it saddens me.
> > Hell, I'm not even going to bother testing what I'm doing on Macs
> > prior to 10.9. Not unless somebody is going to cover supporting
> > older systems, of course.
>
> I write under contract. You, on the other hand, might want to research
> your market. As a retailer, that'd be a prudent pursuit for you.
I don't have a market. I don't expect a Usenet reader to make a profit
in this day and age. I'm mainly scratching my own itch here, and it is
the *market's* choice to decide if they have the same itch that needs
scratching. There are benefits to them doing it as soon as possible,
either via crowdfunding or just throwing money at me in advance, but I'm
not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, and as a result they
have to wait until I release something rather than use what I'm working
on today. Trade-offs all around.
> > Again, I point to it as a symptom of a project's underlying disease.
> > There are *scores* of ugliness that I'd have to undo to make the code
> > reasonable. And if *they* cared, they'd already have taken steps to
> > make it better. Since that's not the case, they have self-selected
> > for a poor developer community, and should not be surprised when I
> > don't want to be a part of that.
>
> At this point I'd be shocked were any of them not profoundly grateful
> for your absence.
And if you think that's a good thing, you're mistaken. I'm not an
asshole for telling them all their windows are going to be broken.
> > > Tin is not going to cater to how people _ABUSE_ Usenet. Not in
> > > 2014, not ever. I seriously doubt slrn ever will, too.
> >
> > Look, we get it! Anything that makes tin still relevant is the True
> > Scotsman of Usenet usage, and anything that makes tin look bad is
> > horrible abuse. Bury that dead horse already.
>
> You're blinded by your own light. It's ugly.
The blinding light of projection . . .
> > > I think you need some experience maintaining NNTP and NNRP servers.
> >
> > I'd rather update the protocol to something more in line with how the
> > CDN is being used.
>
> Well, then, stop posting all this nonsense, and get busy and make it
> happen. I've already given you all the info you need to begin.
You've given me very little but some very sophisticated trolling. Even
though I have issues with the standards as written, my interest right
now is not in changing them. Instead, my interest is in getting Mac
users back on Usenet with a client that reaches back to MT-NW, but is
built to evolve into something much greater.
> Oh, bullshit. Yet again. There's nothing mutually exclusive going on
> here. And, all the kiddies in my neighborhood (West Los Angeles area)
> are doing fine. They've done Snapchat and who knows what else, and I'm
> sure there's plenty more to come.
But they *are* mutually exclusive in that what you put on Snapchat is
*only* on Snapchat. Vendor lock-in is great for the vendor, but not so
great for the user. What is your vested interest in keeping an open CDN
out of the hands of everyone?
> > Yes. The proper perspective is to *fix* the service to support its
> > actual utility. Clearly you'd prefer to fossilize.
>
> Clearly you'd prefer to make up shit I've never said, and then criticise
> me for it, instead of actually making an effort towards fixing anything.
> Including coming up with a viable scheme to cover the added costs.
How am I supposed to characterize you when you point to tin as the
pinnacle of Usenet software? And I'm not sure what added costs you're
referring to, because it seems you can never be bothered to actually
list them. As I have already stated, a CDN benefits everyone and thus
results in a cost *savings* rather than any added expense. If you can
legitimately show otherwise, break out the math.
> > What "most" servers do is not the issue. As long as there is still a
> > market for *any* service with long retention times, you have a means to
> > that end.
>
> Aren't you the guy who's so intent on avoiding Google-like central
> control?
Where did I ever state that? My issue has been with *proprietary*
solutions, not merely centralized ones. I mean, everyone usually has
*a* Usenet provider (the common newsrc format for subscriptions even
assumes it), but the strength of the network is that they communicate
with each other openly. Again, I'm reality-based in my thinking, and I
suggest trying it yourself.
> > You support my point. My file is on *Usenet*, not DejaNews.
>
> You are one very confused guy. Usenet *expires* everything.
You are one very confused guy. Usenet *does* nothing as a whole. As
long as one node in the network has an article, it has not "expired" in
reality. I can find "expired" articles of mine from the early 90s. Mor
reasonably , I can *easily* find Usenet providers that offer 5 year
retention at a good price (<$.08/GB). That's something that no other
"cloud" provider seems to be offering.
> First you'll need to get the protocol modified.
No. I see no pressing reason to do that at this time. Sure, it'd be
*nice*, but there are still Usenet providers out there that don't run a
Version 2 server. Nothing I have in mind requires anything other than
minor tweaking of what exists today.
> Then you'll need to
> generate enough interest and usage to perhaps pursuade the feeder sites
> to handle your traffic.
Or, if the business model warrants it, get ISPs to install my black box
into their network just like Google or Netflix or others offer to do.
There are many paths that can lead to the same destination.
> Then it'll either generate some profit, or go
> meet the dinosaurs.
Yep. That's why it'd be so much nicer if people ponied up the dough in
advance, because the initial struggle for profit means a lot of
compromises get made that often lead to things failing before they can
ever shine. It's also why a lot of darling companies keep losing money
despite being wildly popular. It's a strange game.
> > > Huh? You want to sell your own code, but you want us to write it
> > > for free? Speaking of unprofessional.
> >
> > Straw man again. I never said you should be doing anything for free.
>
> Yes, you did. I was quite clear in explaning Neither tin nor slrn are
> commercial software.
That is *your* choice, not something *I* want, which is what you said up
there. Reality is all around you; pay attention to it.
> The only shame here is your writing new code that'll be utterly useless
> without an infrastructure upon which to run it.
There is no shame in standing on the shoulders of giants. I wish I
could do more of it.
> > I know them by how they interact with other people, and how they
> > approach criticism. For example, one person who claimed to be a core
> > FreeBSD developer flat-out stated that they didn't care about anyone
> > who didn't submit code to the project. What a shitty way to be
> > dismissive of people who could otherwise help! That's a toxic
> > environment, and I will not be a part of a community that is like
> > that.
>
> If you're so damned smart, and such a wonderful, and quick, software
> engineer, what exactly is wrong with giving them a patch?
As I said, my interest is in working with people who actually want to
make their software more useful for people, not people who want to pat
each other on the back for their "brogrammer" series of commits. I am
not going to write a single line of code for someone if they're not
going to buy in to the simple *idea* that factoring out a libnntp is a
useful direction for the project to take. It's not my project, so if
they don't want that, I'd be a moron to do that. If they *did* want
that, their code would be in a state where it is less burdensome a task
that it obviously is.
> You obviously have no experience, of any kind, with the maintainers
> of tin, or slrn.
No, I don't. But if they gave a damn about Mac users, they'd be more
visible and helpful in these newsgroups. It's the same "bigotry" I'll
level at *any* newsreader developer. I'm fairly certain a big part of
why Unison doesn't work very well is that I never see anyone from Panic
here eating their own dog food. I'm *here*, damn it, and that means
something when it comes to developing a newsreader.
--
iPhone apps that matter: http://appstore.subsume.com/
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, teranews.com,
and probably your server, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-05-12 14:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: POP3 vs. IMAP |
| Message-ID | <lkqlnu$qri$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #59290 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@8usenet2013.subsume.com> writes:
> Sorry, but your Fox News tactics leave me unfazed. You have to be
> consistent on the principles you hold, not adopt a relative morality
> based on whether or not it suits your needs at the moment. Spam and
> other junk *cannot* be put forward as an argument for the popularity of
> Usenet. If you can't see why that's the case, there is no point in
> continuing this discussion with you.
Speaking of Fox (for those outside the USA, it's a rather perverted
and heavily biased TV news channel here), your putting your words in
my mouth and then ranting about it is no less disgusting.
"Never wrestle with a pig -- you get dirty and the pig likes it"
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web