Another Nail In Usenet's Coffin?

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?"

Comments

Google Groups

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Google Groups

[Old Wolf]

Google groups, fine? What planet are you on.

It's beyond me how they can't hire a programmer who knows how to make the text that the poster types, appear without being mangled! (newlines inserted, newlines deleted, lines of the new post interpreted as quoted text from the old...

Also it's annoying to see a reply listed in the tree view as the parent of the post that it's replying to, or a reply listed as a child of a previous reply to the same parent.

Not to mention the un-intuitive user interface which encourages posting without quoting the parent.

Re:Google Groups

[Another MacHack]

It got worse when they went into their new beta. In thread listing mode, I can't find a way to jump to the next ten posts without scrolling through the left-hand pane to find the right one to click on.

Re:Google Groups

[ari_j]

I have to disagree. Google Groups is great for reading anything over a week old, but for keeping up-to-date or having any kind of discussion, it is abysmal at best. What took me less than 24 hours when I had Cox cable internet with Usenet access in Phoenix can take upwards of two weeks using Google Groups.

But it is phenomenal for read-only access to things a week or more old, and by "or more" I mean back to the Pleistocene era.

Re:Google Groups

[EnronHaliburton2004]

That's not even the worst part, the fact it takes 12 hours for what you say to show up, and by then you have gotten 30 replies.

That's wierd. Usually when I post via Google Groups, my post is there a few minutes later.

Are you talking about the time that it takes for the article to be propogated to other NNTP servers? That's been a problem with some Usenet server since the beginning :)

Re:Google Groups

[bigberk]

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.

Re:Google Groups

[commodoresloat]

You really think Usenet is dying? Anyone got the link to netcraft?

There's only one way to tell for sure if usenet is truly dying.

Count the number of posts to usenet that mention usenet.

Re:Google Groups

[drsquare]

Google groups is fucking awful. For example:

1) There's no way to follow threads properly. When you go into a group, it doesn't mark which ones you've already read or not, so you have to go through the entire lot.
2) It doesn't show long posts all at once, you need to click on 'Read the rest of this message' to read it all, which is fucking torture on long threads.
3) You can't change your settings once you've signed up.
4) Frames.
5) Different threads with identical subjects are lumped together.
6) Posts with no-archive set don't appear at all, making a lot of threads completely unreadable.

And that's just with the old version. The new version is a hundred times worse. They haven't fixed the problems with the old one, but they've taken away all the GOOD bits instead. The previously simple, compact thread-list which made browsing the newsgroup pretty easy, is now replaced with a completely bloated list which takes up EIGHT lines per thread, rather than the usual ONE.

You can go to the old version at groups.google.co.uk, but they've crippled it so you can't reply to a post. When you try to reply, it gives an error about not being able to retrieve the post you're replying to. I mean come on, all those fucking genius PHDs and master-programmers, and they can't get something right that Deja was doing right ten years ago? I can't believe that a company that constantly boasts how clever and talented they are, can actually make an interface go BACKWARDS.

The motive is obvious: profit. If they dumb it down, fuck over all the 'old' users, and try to attract the drooling masses with a bloated cartoon interface, they can get more ad-hits. Bollocks to usability or functionality, bollocks to the integrity of one of the Internet's oldest services, nothing is sacred from the latest dot-com raping it for profit.

People are always saying how great the gmail interface is, but I don't see how that can be when google groups is so poor, unless they're concentrating all their resources on gmail, because it's the new 'glamour' service. Although I suppose eventually it will go the same way as google groups: They'll come out with a new and improved 'beta' version, with a crippled awful interface ten times worse than the original, then put some bug in the old one so people can't go back to it.

What?

[jim_v2000]

What's this Usenet thing again?

Re:What?

[nizo]

It is like email only spammier. Viva el spam!

Re:What?

[rlp]

It's some sort of primitive RSS interface for a group blog. :-)

Re:What?

[IronChef]

we're all discussing this on alt.usenet.crying.bye.bye.bye.

Re:What?

[dgallard]

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

Death of Usenet predicted! Film at 11.

[winkydink]

I've been hearing this, since, oh, just after The Great Renaming, which was when? '85, '86?

Let's hope it goes away...

[MillionthMonkey]

...and takes with it those stupid posts to alt.drugs I wrote in college...

Re:Let's hope it goes away...

[sterno]

Nope. Google has them all. Your career in politics is toast.

Free Usenet via web

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out http://www.talkaboutnetwork.com/

No.

[Trillan]

Those who like it, like it a lot. Enough, say, to find another Usenet feed. It just ain't that big a deal.

At the moment, I'm using the google groups beta. If they'd add reply quoted, I'd probably stick with it. As it is, I'll probably get an account with supernews or something sooner or later...

Re:No.

[Hal_Porter]

At the moment, I'm using the google groups beta. If they'd add reply quoted, I'd probably stick with it

Click on Show Options at the top of a post, then click on Reply.

Then you get a text box with the quoting done.

Why be so dramatic?

[Ckwop]

Usenet will be here for another 20 years.. These stories about the "death" of these things are hugely over-rated.

Next it'll be that AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger are killing IRC.

There are plenty of good groups on usenet with loyal posters - it's like trying to kill fortran - it'll only happen over dead bodies..

Simon.

Re:Why be so dramatic?

[js7a]

Heh. More articles claiming a service linked to from the front page of Google.com is suffering, please! [tt]

Re:Why be so dramatic?

[cnettel]

There are plenty of good groups on usenet with loyal posters - it's like trying to kill fortran - it'll only happen over dead bodies..

Yeah, but in case you haven't noticed, the Fortran coders aren't getting any younger... So, dead bodies, true - not happen, false. :-)

Re:Why be so dramatic?

[Minstrel Boy]

I've got three in my trunk (they don't take much space if you're willing to stack them creatively.

Just PUSH them in until they POP, eh? ;)

KeS

Finding web forums

[yahyamf]

Web based forum software offer a lot more features than newsgroups. However they are not indexed by centralized servers like Usenet, so it's as easy to find web forums. It would be nice if the most popular forum software like phpBB, VBulletin etc, have some sort of common standard that allows them to be listed by topic, indicating some statistics like number of members, posts, activity so people can quickly choose a forum.

Re:Finding web forums

[Phurd Phlegm]

Web based forum software offer a lot more features than newsgroups.

Yeah, like you can attach cute smileys to your posts.

Well, I guess that's the only clear advantage I've ever seen. Maybe after sixteen years on USENET I'm just set in my ways, but with careful kill file management, you can still find interesting stuff to read and interesting people to interact with.

It has not escaped my notice that Slashdot is a web-based forum. I can't really say that it offers "a lot more features than newsgroups." The only extra feature it offers is moderation, which on USENET is done on an individual (or I should say in-duh-vidual) basis. That way, I make my own decisions about who to ignore, instead of relying on possibly-biased moderators. Not necessarily better, just different.

Re:Finding web forums

[aardvarkjoe]

Web based forum software offer a lot more features than newsgroups.

Like "reading trough a web browser", "no threads" and "you remember what you have read, not your computer"?

Here's a good article on this subject. Even the worst of newsreaders -- say, OE -- still beat out the best of the web forums. I keep on thinking that it would be nice to write a Slashdot->news program, but I've never found time to do it.

Re:Finding web forums

[sploo22]

It looks like the author of that article never used a really well-designed web forum like Invision Power Board. Now I can't speak very much from an administrator's perspective, but having used a number of forums based on IPB and its contemporaries (mainly vBulletin and phpBB) most of the issues raised in the article seem to be not only groundless, but in any case very superficial.

• On a typical web forum, messages are linearly displayed, as a result different topics are intermingled. It's impossible to be sure who is responding to who. True, most web forums are linear, but that doesn't make it confusing at all. On the contrary, it tends to encourage discussions to stay on track and keeps outdated posts from being brought up over and over again.
• There is no way to look at an old thread and only see new messages. Click the "See New Posts" icon.
• There is no way to filter out topics and people you're not interested in. Click the "Ignore" button.
• Every piece of popular forum software feels the need to replace traditional text smileys like :-) with little yellow graphics. It seems like a good idea, but a screen full of little yellow dots draws your eye away from the text, making reading a page straining. Click the "Disable Emoticons" checkbox.
• Users are also typically allowed to include graphics in their posts. While sometimes useful, it's all too often used to include their favorite two or three megabytes of pointless, self-aggrandizing graphics. The administrator can disable images.
• Of course, no forum supports actually hosting the graphics themselves... Most of them provide attachment capabilities, if enabled by the administrator.

And the list goes on. Honestly, this is just a pure troll.

Re:Finding web forums

[dougmc]

On the contrary, it tends to encourage discussions to stay on track and keeps outdated posts from being brought up over and over again.

Who are you to decide when a post is outdated? If people want to bring it up again, they should.

As for staying `on track', the only reason web forums stay `on track' is because the moderators will usually smack you down if you don't. (A double edged sword, more on that later.)

Click the "See New Posts" icon.

Assuming that this particular software has it, and it works as you expect. Every one is different. Also, none of these options that you list work *at all* unless you actually register with the site and log in.

Click the "Ignore" button.

Assuming that this particular software has it, and it works as you expect. Every one is different. And often this option isn't available unless you pay for an account (more on that later.)

Click the "Disable Emoticons" checkbox.

Assuming that this particular software has it, and it works as you expect. Every one is different ...

The administrator can disable images.

Assuming that this particular software has it, and it works as you expect. And assuming that the administrator has actually done this -- it doesn't seem to happen very often.

Most of them provide attachment capabilities, if enabled by the administrator.

Most is a stretch. Some is probably more accurate. And generally they don't offer you that unless you actually pay them for an account. Which makes sense, as images do suck up the bandwidth.

Paying for an account to get access to the features that Usenet has given me for decades is even worse. I wouldn't mind paying $5/month or so, but that $5/month only covers one board. Alas, I don't just follow one group in Usenet, but instead a few dozen. If these all moved to web forums, that would be probably be like $100/month just for some of the functionality I have now with Usenet.

Honestly, this is just a pure troll.

No, I don't think your (you = sploo22) post is pure troll. You've brought up some useful points, but it seems that maybe you just haven't gotten used to a good Usenet newsreader, or have forgotten how functional they are ...

I can add to the list of web forum deficiencies as well :

It's not easy to run a spell checker. Perhaps they offer some java one, but what if you don't let your browser run java? And every forum is different ...

(For example, I suspect I mispelled deficiencies. I before E, except after C?) I could grep /usr/dict/words for it, but I think I'll just write this paragraph instead.)

I guess I could type my post up in emacs, run my spell checker, then post it to the forum ...

How do you save a thread to your disk? Make a bookmark? That might work for a week or two, but sooner or later, the forum will get upgraded, or moved, or shut down, or the content will be expired -- and the link you saved is dead. Same goes for trying to keep a record of everything you've posted. With Usenet, it's trivial.

Suppose you recall seeing something on a forum a year ago. But don't recall exactly where. How will you find it? It's probably expired off the forum, if the forum still exists at all. If so, google probably won't find it. The Internet Archive might have a copy, but that's iffy. With Usenet, you just hit google and enter some phrases and you'll probably find it quickly enough.

Suppose the forum administrator doesn't like you or your views. So he deletes your posts, or worse -- edits them. And there's nothing you can do about it but go somewhere else. Perhaps open your own competing forum?

Of course, I'm typing this into a web forum now. (In

Hasn't Usenet been about to die for years, but...

[whoever57]

there are more newsgroups than ever. This is just one free service. There are still other free services -- just because one company can't compete does not mean the medium is dying.

Valued Service

[DrKyle]

As long as there are people using usenet to download movies, music, tv shows, games, applications, ebooks, and just about anything else that can be posted on usenet, there will be companies willing to let us pay for that access. Maybe you won't be able to get it bundled with your ISP anymore, but I for one will always have a use for it.

Re:Death of Usenet predicted! Film at 11.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're old.

Ouch

[DNS-and-BIND]

Ooo, this hurts. I've used this service for years to read news. Used to be, your ISP would provide a news server the same way that it provides a mail server, web server, etc. Then binaries groups became highly popular, and the cost of a news server skyrocketed. This was seen as an outsourcable expense.

Well, what's next? You used to be able to take for granted there were public news servers out there. This service was the best one, and only offered text groups, which was all I wanted anyway. Now...I don't know. There's just no beating reading real submariners discuss the USS San Francisco (hit an underwater mountain at full speed recently) on sci.military.naval.

Re:Ouch

[Tackhead]

> You used to be able to take for granted there were public news servers out there. This service was the best one, and only offered text groups, which was all I wanted anyway.

A full binary feed is about 1.2TB per day; not within the reach of the home user (Joe Sixpack), nor within the reach of the dedicated amateur (The top 1% of Joe Sixpacks who have a 19" rack in their closet) nor even the Really Generous Corporate Sponsor (Hi, OSDN! Thanks for Slashdot!).

A full feed of text groups, however, is probably only about 2 GB per day - a server that can provide 90-day retention of text groups is well within the (bandwidth and hardware cost) reach of the dedicated amateur who lays out $100-200 or so a month for his or her hobbies.

Because USENET is a store-and-forward network, and because bandwidth and hardware are getting increasingly cheap, there'll always be an open text server or two out there. Worst comes to worst (or is it best comes to best?), there may not be any one open text server that "everyone" uses, but a diffuse network of hundreds of 'em, one or two in every city.

Usenet once again an underground geek hangout?

[vandrad]

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.

free usenet

[stel]

http://www.yottanews.com/ has been offering free 1GB per month accounts. There are plenty of other ones out there as well.

that's not all...

[mz001b]

they also stated that they will discontinue gopher access, since this new world wide web thing looks like it may take off.

seriously, usenet still is one of the best ways to exchange information with people on a specific subject. Some of the comp.lang ones are quite good.

Maybe it's a good thing

[bonch]

Maybe the best thing for Usenet is to go "underground," so to speak, and have traffic die so the noise level diminishes, and at least a little bit of the former glory might return.

April what?

[OECD]

Effective from April 1th, 2005, all non-converted accounts will stop working.

And they want us to take this seriously?

Man, a day of awful joke stories on /. AND free usenet stops working? Worst April 1st ever...

Are you kidding me?

[Zocalo]

Usenet is still thriving and there still many very active groups out there, some of which actually have comments in them as opposed to "erotica", although there's still plenty of that too, of course. Better yet, now that October is nearly here at last, the signal to noise ratio should go up too. Sure, many ISPs might be giving up their own Usenet servers, but if they don't outsource to a dedicated provider like SuperNews or Giganews, you can always get an account with them yourself. Failing that, you can hunt around for one of the numerous free servers, and there's always Google Groups of course, but they often don't carry as broad a selection of groups.

Re:Signal to Noise ratio review

[StateOfTheUnion]

I remember Usenet fondly. It was a great source of information and discussion, but the signal to noise ratio got way to high.

If the signal to noise ratio gets high, you get lots of (presumably good) signal and relatively little noise. I think that what was meant was that the signal to noise ratio got too low . . . unless spam postings and AOL newbie pollution from Usenet in the 90's is considered signal and original and thoughtful postings from individuals is considered noise.

What an eye roller...

[endus]

The only sad part about this story is that there may not be as many new users of USENET if ISP's aren't offering it for free. Other than that, it's just a bunch of crap.

There are new and old people on USENET constantly. Why, exactly, do you think that this ISP decied not to offer USENET access anymore...because there was no one posting there? Uhm...no. The reason that they stopped offering it is that it is a monster to maintain because of all the traffic. USENET is the most valuable and the most underrated resource on the internet. Yes, I said it, and yes, I mean it. For detailed technical information and answers to tough questions there is nowhere else to go. Product reviews, information on music you want to check out, whatever. It's all there.

Let's keep it real here, okay? Most internet users (including IT "professionals") are too dumb to figure out how to use a newsreader, and FAR too dumb to understand how to evaluate the quality of information you get from google groups. People whine about, "Ohhh, the quality of information on message boards SUCKS, you can't learn ANYTHING from them". What a load of shit. If you have a brain in your head and understand the idea of crossreferencing information before you commit changes on a server that a few thousand people are connecting to, then you can really get a LOT of information from USENET and solve a lot of tough problems quickly. I find good, solid solutions to technical problems CONSTANTLY through google groups. I don't think a week goes by that I don't search it at least 10 times for various things.

Oh, but we have web forums! God forbid people should allow their words to convey their meaning rather than having pretty pictures and fancy emoticons to cover up for the fact that they are just stupid assholes who no one wants to hear from anyway. It's such a joke when you hear people complaining about how "rough" certain web forums are. They don't even know the definition of a "troll" and they think they invented flaming. (Can I get a rolleyes smiley here?).

This is just crap, and everyone cosiging it in this post is an idiot. I'm sorry, but it's true. USENET is a one-stop-shop for all kinds of amazingly valuable information and if you don't see that, then you're missing out. Go download agent and get a clue.

Re:What an eye roller...

[antoy]

Good to see that other people understand how powerful Usenet can be today. Weird technical problems that sound to rare to be documented? You'll find a solution. A good discussion on C++/AI/whatever? You'll find one, or a couple hundred. If this is a dead medium, then show me a real replacement of such size, depth and convenience.

With a negative SNR, what's the point?

[shanen]

Actually, the newsgroups died quite a while ago. I think the historians of epistemology will eventually date it either to the first time the average SNR went negative, or perhaps the last time it touched positive territory. Trivial distinction.

It's not just that the information content has become quite low, but that there is as much disinformation as actual positive content. Add in all the pure noise and various forms of spam, add in a little creamed troll (and I think all trolls should be pureed), and you have a pretty worthless thing.

Since so much of the negative information is political propaganda, my guess would be that the SNR hits the deepest troughs during elections, and in combination with the arrival of perpetual September, I'd guess the first time the average SNR went negative was probably in 1996 or 1998, but without doubt it was dead by 2000, whichever metric you care to use. (Two main metrics would be number of posts or volume.) I suspect it is already in permanent negative SNR territory, though there are still tiny pockets of actual information scattered hither and yon.

Why? I think abuse of anonymity is probably the single largest killer.

Fidonet, here I come!

[nozzle!]

You can't stop me. I'll move to an even slower, more decrepit form of communication.

The Ghost of Usenet Postings Past

[MillionthMonkey]

Suddenly, just as Paul was about to clinch the job interview...

Re:Hasn't Usenet been about to die for years, but.

[arose]

The problem is that you have to sign up with Firstgate to be able to pay.