Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another Nail In Usenet's Coffin?

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the don't-usenet dept.

Karamchand writes "Today news.individual.net in an email to its more than 250.000 registered users announced that they won't be able to continue offering free Usenet access. While it provided text-only groups many people relied on individual.net's service to take part in one of the Internet's older services. In a time were a working news server is not a selling point for ISPs and most internet users never heard about this service, will this be another nail in the coffin of Usenet?"

4 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. Google Groups by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, for text usenet group access, Google Groups is fine. For binary access, well, you probably have to pay but it is worth it.

    1. Re:Google Groups by bigberk · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Not to mention the un-intuitive user interface which encourages posting without quoting the parent.
      I agree with you, Google's groups service (the beta) really isn't impressive at all. There is no quoting of parents, and the threads are difficult to navigate. I still use the old groups system, which was far superior. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I really hope Google reverts to their old interface.
  2. Usenet once again an underground geek hangout? by vandrad · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Between the decline of Kazaa (possible logging of downloads. RIAA lawsuits) and AOL terminating Usenet access, I can't help but think that Usenet might make a comeback among geeks now that it's off the mainstream radar.

    Sucks about Individual.net, but network services ain't free to provide. I'm quite happy with a Supernews account at $5.95 a month.

    --
    Nosce Te Ipsum
  3. Re:What? by dgallard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Unlike ad hoc Web forums, USENET is based on an
    IETF standards. See:
    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0977.txt?number=977
    http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0850.txt?number=850

    Unlike the web, USENET articles include a
    subject, date, and author as part of the
    formalism and are intrinsically threaded.

    Unlike forums, news articles have their own
    URL (news://...) so can be linked to.

    Unlike mailing lists, newsgroup articles
    reside on servers so they do not encumber
    your mail box. You go to them, they do not
    come to you.

    Almost all email readers come with a news reader.

    Finally, although public forums are subject to
    spam, the spam problem will be solved eventually,
    it is possible to set up moderated newsgroups,
    and, one of the least used possibilities of
    the internet, private newsgroups make for an
    excellent means to collaborative project
    management.

    GoogeGroups is good. Some posts here point out
    that the default reply operation does not
    include the quoted post being replied to. But
    the 'show options > reply' method of creating
    a reply *does* quote the post being replied to.

    I consider the lack of that in the default
    reply to be design flaw but not a condemnation
    of either GoogleGroups or USENET.

    Cheers,
    Dennis Allard