Slashdot Mirror


R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008

CorinneI writes "In a way inconceivable in today's marketplace, Usenet was where people once went to talk — in days before the profit-centric Internet we have today. The series of bulletin boards called 'newsgroups' shared by thousands of computers, which traded new messages several times a day, is now a thing of the past."

113 of 625 comments (clear)

  1. Usenet is dead... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Netcraft confirms it!

    1. Re:Usenet is dead... by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Netcraft confirms it!

      ME TOO!

    2. Re:Usenet is dead... by zmollusc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh please please please let the spammers realise that the informed aren't their target audience, and leave too.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  2. It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Think of the children who read alt.startrek.furrydom.localgettogethers

  3. Google Groups by Shuh · · Score: 5, Insightful



    Just like MTV is now Youtube, USENET is now Google Groups.


    Same thing, different name.

    1. Re:Google Groups by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or yahoo groups or Myspace groups or ......
      Just not the same thing to be honest. The real problem for usenet and the Internet in general is that it is just to easy.
      A lot of the good stuff from usenet has now migrated to mailing lists and online forums but it still isn't the same.. Ahh the good old days.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Google Groups by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually Google Groups *is* the same thing as Usenet, because that is exactly what it is, a easy to use web front end to Usenet.

      That is why Google Groups is infinitely better than Yahoo groups and the others you mention.

    3. Re:Google Groups by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually Google Groups *is* the same thing as Usenet, because that is exactly what it is, a [sic] easy to use web front end to Usenet.

      That's awfully subjective. I find the GG interface to be an exercise in masochism.

    4. Re:Google Groups by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While it might be a pretty modern front end to usenet it doesn't help the fact that the back end feed is slowly being strangled by spam, and now legislation.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    5. Re:Google Groups by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google Groups *is* the same thing as Usenet, because that is exactly what it is, a easy to use web front end to Usenet.

      Where "easy to use" means "one tenth the features of a decent newsreader, but slower and more awkward". Long live Gnus.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Google Groups by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I do hope not.

      For one thing, Google Groups is currently acting as the equivalent of an open relay to all of Usenet, resulting in a vast increase in the amount of junk messages. They should be treated by other Usenet servers in the same way that we treat any other open relay: ignore anything coming from it until it gets its house in order. I fail to understand why Google being Google exempts them from this treatment. :-(

      For another thing, Google Groups sucks as a Usenet interface, and numerous clients do a much better job of it.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    7. Re:Google Groups by RomulusNR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The demise of Usenet was a long time ago, and coincided with the introduction of the web-based forum.

      And this is the single most damaging thing to the availability of information to happen to the Internet, at least until the Wiki came along (which hasn't necessarily solved the problem in question). When there was Usenet, there was one (okay, maybe two) places to find an answer to a question on a given topic of expertise. Now, with the move to isolated independent web-based forums, of which there may be at least a dozen or more possible places to find information (not to mention a multitude of competing general question sites like Yahoo Answers et al), the odds of finding an answer on the Internet to a question have gone down, because the probability that the person with the answer to your question visits or has visited the web fora you visit has gone down.

      In short: Used to be everyone would use one or two Usenet groups both to ask and answer questions, now everyone uses any given number of the much larger set of web fora on the same topic. It actually has become less likely to find a good answer to a question these days.

      (And at least on Usenet even if no one could answer your question, you'd be certain to get lots of entertaining snark from regulars.)

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    8. Re:Google Groups by ettlz · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's awfully subjective. I find the GG interface to be an exercise in masochism.

      Well I'm sure there's something in the alt.* tree for you!

    9. Re:Google Groups by dougmc · · Score: 4, Informative

      To be fair, google groups does contain groups that are not part of Usenet. And Usenet contains groups that are not in google groups.

      So while related, they're not the same.

    10. Re:Google Groups by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > The demise of Usenet was a long time ago, and coincided with the introduction of the web-based forum.

      Uh, no. It coincided with the flood of spammers who discovered that it costs nothing to post on the newsgroups and that most people use their *gasp* actual email addresses in the posts. Now if you post anything, you are guaranteed to be spammed on the newsgroup and off. At least the forums are too numerous to attack effectively and are at least somewhat moderated. They are also more anonymous as you get to use different identities, with no public email address for each one. Sure, if spam were outlawed, usenet might come back, but as for me, I haven't posted on a newsgroup in almost a decade.

    11. Re:Google Groups by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google groups is indeed the source of a lot of spam posted to Usenet. But it's also the source of a lot of non-spam posted to Usenet.

      For example, about 27% of the posts to the Big-8 come from Google Groups now. If less than 27% of the spam posted to the Big-8 comes from google, then it's doing a better job of controlling it's users than Usenet as a whole. (I don't know if this is the case or not. Posts are easy to count. Classifying them as spam or not is harder.)

      Either way, Google Groups is such a big contributor of noise and spam to Usenet because it's such a big contributor of _posts_ to Usenet.

      No argument about the interface, however. But the retention is nice!

    12. Re:Google Groups by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      MTV is basically just HSN without an 800 number.

      You can buy cheap 18-year-old sluts on HSN now?

    13. Re:Google Groups by houghi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is anybody who wants proof that 'Do no evil' is just marketing he must look at how Google raped dejanews.com.

      It encourages top posting or no quoting at all. It pretends to own Usenet, so that people think it is the same as Usenet. It is horrible to search anything. There are way too many spam postings coming from google groups. The users are so ignorant of any Usenet netiquete, because it is promoted as a forum, which it isn't. This is so bad that many groups just killfile all GG posters. They are the new AOL users.

      OTOH what they could filter out is all the binaries. That would not only stop childporn, it would make it easier for providers to actualy provide it. All the illegal content will be gone. The bit of legal binary content that is out there should be somewhere else anyway.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Google Groups by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wasn't Google Groups the old Deja usenet frontend originally?

      Well, that started off as "Deja News", during which time it was quite good, although IIRC it still had annoying banner ads. By the time it was renamed to "Deja.com" though, it had begun to suck, with fruit-machine-like ads down both sides of the page and branching out into other stuff.

      The news archives side got sold to Google later on, which was actually a major improvement over deja.com's annoying Las Vegas style pages...

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    15. Re:Google Groups by synthespian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google is doing all of great service in having bought the early Usenet archives. This is a human knowledge base.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    16. Re:Google Groups by u38cg · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, you want soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm.

      Usenet's slow decline was inevitable with the invention of the webforum. The main newsgroup I used to inhabit (not the above, btw) was freewheeling and ubiquitous: nobody posted somewhere else because they didn't like some other poster, because there was nowhere else. I eventually moved off elsewhere after a few determined individuals trashed the group. Now it's just a dumping ground.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    17. Re:Google Groups by slyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

  4. this was never about porn by night_flyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    it was about alt.binaries.mp3s

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:this was never about porn by waffledoodle · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, be cool!!!

    2. Re:this was never about porn by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Funny

      While I know you're right, I feel much better and safer knowing that it is no longer possible to trade kiddy porn online anymore.

      The ends justify the means. Thank you, Mr. Cuomo.

    3. Re:this was never about porn by barzok · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ends justify the means. Thank you, Mr. Cuomo.

      Just yesterday, Cuomo was out posturing and making sure he was strengthening his political future.

      The office asked Internet providers both small and large to strip their servers of child pornography Web sites and child pornography newsgroups, which are a major supplier of illegal images. ...

      If companies don't voluntarily comply, Cuomo said in his announcement Wednesday, legal action will be taken by his office. ...

      One of the Rochester area's largest Internet service providers, Frontier/Citizens Net, declined to sign the agreement, Cuomo said, adding that he sent a letter to Frontier and LocalNet, which also declined to sign the agreement, stating that his office will take legal action against those companies that do not voluntarily comply.

      Explain to me how the hell this is "voluntary". This is the same things as the "mandatory volunteer work" that many high schools are requiring now. It's not voluntary if you'll be punished for not doing it!

      "I made the case that I believe they can be held responsible... child pornography is illegal," Cuomo said.

      Then let's start holding all those ISPs responsible for copyright infringement RIGHT NOW because they're still making it possible to do it. Or will he wait until it's feasible to put the brakes on the most public, most easily-blocked methods and THEN make it a mandatory voluntary program?

  5. Web 2.0 ftw by aredubya74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Usenet was where people once went to talk â" in days before the profit-centric Internet we have today."

    Internet company profits have zero to do with the decline of USENET as a discussion forum. In its heyday, it was the only Internet-wide forum. It's been supplanted by web forums of every conceivable niche. Web 2.0 beat it out, plain and simple.

    --

    RW

    1. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that no Web 2.0 forum comes close to matching the features that any decent USENET client had 15 years ago. Things like real threading, filters, kill files, etc.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think either explanation really matches reality. Usenet started to seriously deteriorate to the point most people I knew who were regulars started to drop it around 1995-1998. At that time, while there were web forums, they were still in the teething stage and no replacement for Usenet. That, for me, is the time Usenet "died". It began to be re-invented as a binaries distribution network shortly thereafter.

      Why did it die? Spam. Spammers began to make swathes of Usenet unreadable. After a few managable carpetbombs, the serious spammers first attacked in earnest the alt.sex hierarchy (it's an interesting fact that comes as a surprise to many that back in the early nineties, alt.sex contained some of the most respected newsgroups in Usenet. alt.sex.bondage, for example, was originally started after a prank revealed massive interest in such a group, and it became one of the more respected groups thereafter.) The groups became unusable within two years, with a few migrating to "safer" areas out of the alt.* hierarchy. After that the rest of Usenet started to get similarly hit.

      A few attempts were made to protect Usenet, from serious attempts to hold ISPs to account for their users (which caused more damage than it helped, as the legitimate customers of those ISPs were cut off from Usenet too and as a result drifted away, reducing the S/N ratio even further) to attempts to introduce various forms of moderation that, ultimately, also caused more damage.

      People just gave up. Even the spammers started to give up after a few years largely because it wasn't worth their time any more, but by that time Usenet was dead anyway.

      What's dying today isn't Usenet, at least not the network in operation back from 1980. It's a binaries distribution system, the one that took over from the mid-nineties onwards.

      And frankly, I don't know about you, but I don't care about that one.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of the more respectable groups started moderation systems back when the spam onslaught started, but they were afterthoughts on a system not designed for them. The problem with moderator systems is that it requires a small handful of trusted moderators, and what do you do when they grow tired of the subject and leave? Electing a small group of moderators (technically, it's rarely an election, they're usually self appointed) always seems to start the slow death of a newsgroup.

      It's really a shame because as people have pointed out, the tools built into your average usenet client completely blow away most web forums for features, especially with threading, scoring, tracking, etc... Plus, the Usenet is fast, being a simple text protocol with built-in multicasting you can support communities of millions with virtually no drain on your personal resources. Web forums frequently crash and burn when they start to become popular because the centralized hardware requirements and the fact that you have to run a database means that once you start getting more than a few readers per second you have to start looking at specialized solutions or lose your community to database overload crashes and general slowness. Unfortunately, it is this feature that guarantee that any two bit joker with an internet connection could clobber a group with spam.

      As it is so often true in life, we can't have nice things because some jackass will always try to mess it up.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    4. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's dying today isn't Usenet, at least not the network in operation back from 1980. It's a binaries distribution system, the one that took over from the mid-nineties onwards.

      And frankly, I don't know about you, but I don't care about that one.

      Frankly, that's the only one I care about. Sure, there is TONS of porn, but there are also respectable (non porn) files out there as well. When my wife missed an episode of "Dancing With the Stars" a while back, where did I find a copy? Newsgroups. When the latest Ubuntu was released and my ISP was slowing BitTorrent to a crawl, where did I turn? Newsgroups. When I wanted some ideas for how to set up my garden, where did I turn to? You guessed it, Newsgroups!

      There are some things that no Web site can offer that you can only find on Usenet. That stupid Dancing with the Stars thing is an example. It was not available on any website because it is protected (even though there was absolutely no other way of retrieving it). With ISP's starting to block P2P, we should always be able to fall back on good ol' usenet.

      Which brings me to the point you mentioned about spammers. Spammers are relatively easy to avoid on Usenet. The bigger problem is spyware, viruses and trojans. However, the beauty of Usenet is that someone can reply to a post with bad intent and say something like, "Do not download! VIRUS!!!" You can't do that on a non reputable or hijacked website. All you can do is hope that the file you downloaded really is the XP drivers for a new "Vista Only" system and not a virus that will zap your HDD.

         

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    5. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except that no Web 2.0 forum comes close to matching the features that any decent USENET client had 15 years ago. Things like real threading, filters, kill files, etc.

      That's actually quite doable. Making forum software that is feature-competitive with newsreaders is totally viable. That's not what concerns me.

      A bigger problem (which web mail suffers from, as well) is that web forums are a way for a server operator to make decisions about the features you get (as well as how/if it is integrated with other content, whether for good (I won't go into that, here) or ill (ads)), rather than leaving those decisions to the client.

      I really see it as technological step backwards.

      As an exercise in absurdity, imagine if we applied the same trend to the web itself. In addition to "web mail" and "web forums", imagine "web web", where your browser window contains a widget consisting of code loaded from someone else's server, and that widget has features similar to a web browser. Oh wait, we have that: Flash and Silverlight.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by tkinnun0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yet here we are, on a web forum, and not on USENET. Makes you wonder whether those features were just a crutch to get around USENET's design flaws.

    7. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by Khelder · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Completely agree. Spam was the bane of Usenet and the fundamental cause of its demise. I "was there" for the Green Card Lawyers spam (got the t-shirt, etc.), and in my mind that was the beginning of the end.

      comp.sys.apple2 and rec.humor.funny, how I've missed you.

    8. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "Usenet's greatest feature is its decentralized nature. I don't think that most people, or even most geeks truly appreciate the genius of Usenet's structure, however unintended that may have been. It took only a sever and a half decent connection to join the Usenet server pool, and it still takes nothing more than dial up and a reader to access a worldwide forum for discussion and debate."

      You know..I've got extra boxes laying around, and with disk space getting so cheap...I was thinking about setting up a news server out there for free use, but, I'm wondering what MY liabilities legal or financial might be in doing so? If you run a server like that...in the US, would you be like the ISP's that run them...and not be liable for what runs through them?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yet here we are, on a web forum, and not on USENET.

      But this isn't a universal forum. USENET encompassed any topic and was the most widely read set of forums. If you wanted an answer to a complicated technical question, it was the best place to go. If you wanted to discuss obscure music theory, it was the place to go. If you just wanted to sell your old sofa to local people, it was the place to go. It was frequented by geeks and non-geeks.

      Web forums don't do that. They're all specialized and there are too many of them. Slashdot only covers topical news of interest to geeks. Web forums have always been complex to use, almost always requiring registration to write, sometimes even requiring registration to read. You'll find tens of forums all devoted to the same topic. One newsreader would keep track of all your news groups you were interested in, and you could add and remove them as you wish; what keeps tracks of the hundreds of forums I may be interested in and provides the same interface to them?

      The problem with USENET dying is that there is no replacement for it! This isn't the case of horse and buggy being usurped by the automobile. It's more like playgrounds being replaced by televisions.

      I think USENET started going downhill when the spammers and advertisement took over. There's still activity on USENET, it's just been declining steadily.

      Personally, I never liked the Google/Dejanews twist to archive postings for eternity. In the old days (get off my lawn!) it was a place just for discussion, not to get your words down for posterity. Once I learned things were being archived and searchable, I definately felt I had to ask less stupid questions...

    10. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by dougmc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ease of use is very debatable. Adding a new Usenet group is far easier for me than finding a new forum, registering, learning it's interface and quirks, etc.

      As for accessibility, OK, at least until your favorite forum's server loses power. Or forgets to pay it's registrar bill. Or the admin decides to shut it down. Or decides he doesn't like you and blocks you.

    11. Re:Web 2.0 ftw by dougmc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I take it you want to be sent an email when your posts are replied to? Or you want a popup to appear when you log into Usenet and your post has been responded to?

      It's a simple matter to get an agent of some sort to scan Usenet groups for this sort of post and inform you about it. Your news reader may also offer this functionality -- it's pretty easy to make trn flag any posts in reply to your posts for reading, for example.

      But Usenet wasn't designed as a `post and forget' sort of thing. It's meant for having discussions -- you post, and your post is sent out to the world, they post, sent to the world, etc. The server is pretty simple -- most of the fancy stuff happens in your client, and it's up to your client (or another client) to look for things that interest you, like replies to your post.

      Besides, perhaps even older than the `Read the FAQ!' rule of Usenet, and certainly older than the oft-repeated `The first rule of Usenet is you don't talk about Usenet' mantra (but that's about binaries, not text groups) is `read the group before you post.' And the corollary is `if you can't be bothered to read the group, don't post to it.'.

      Hopefully the web forums will catch up, eventually. So far, it doesn't look promising ... :)

  6. WHAT? by olliec420 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I use it all the time!

    1. Re:WHAT? by ClaraBow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So do I! It is still a great place to exchanges ideas and stuff. Just because mainstream internet providers are dropping it doesn't mean it is dying. Usenet is immortal, like Dracula, it will never die.

    2. Re:WHAT? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmmm, so we have to stake Usenet through its heart, or at least hurt it with garlic?

  7. yellow journalism at it's worst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    please stop posting the opinions of bloggers as fact.

    1. Re:yellow journalism at it's worst by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A rumor repeated often enough eventually becomes fact......or at least a Wikipedia edit.

      Layne

    2. Re:yellow journalism at it's worst by Randwulf · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've heard the number of Usenet users has tripled in the last six months.

  8. Bullcrap by fnj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stupid headline. Usenet is still there. Stupid idiots who are slaves to only what their ISP spoon feeds them may drop off. So what.

    1. Re:Bullcrap by Roberticus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Certainly misleading. Between the headline and the summary, I assumed this was a story about some official cancellation of Usenet. Instead, it's someone pining for the good ol' days (of free pron, if I understood right after skimming TFA).

    2. Re:Bullcrap by saschasegan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, I'm pining for the really good ol' days before the binaries groups suffocated the rest of Usenet.

      --
      I'm Sascha Segan. Who are you?
    3. Re:Bullcrap by saschasegan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As other posters have pointed out, there have been multiple causes for the decline of Usenet as a social and discussion forum. The appearance of Web 1.0 and 2.0 fora, the automated spam plague of the 1990s, the way younger people seem to like photos and video in their social messaging, etc etc etc.

      But I think the way Usenet became a massive carrier for warez and pr0n binaries made it a liability for ISPs in a way it wouldn't have been otherwise. The way the binaries groups tend to dominate byte traffic also leads/led ISPs to see Usenet as, basically, a gigantic flow of binaries with some tiny text stuff tacked on. They didn't like what they saw.

      You see the same problem with P2P. There's nothing inherently illegal or evil about P2P, as we all know, and it has many excellent uses. But enough P2P traffic is/was pirated movies/music that the whole protocol gets tarred with the brush, and then you have ISPs cracking down.

      I know a lot of posters here have been celebrating that handful of third party news servers, but to me one of the big pluses of Usenet was its extremely decentralized nature. Because it was on every ISP, because it was local to everyone, nobody could really control it. It was as close as we get to "public space" on the privately run Net. If everyone's using Giganews, then they're just basically using a proprietary bulletin board system that happens to use NNTP as a protocol.

      --
      I'm Sascha Segan. Who are you?
  9. That's Interesting... by feyd-rautha · · Score: 4, Informative

    My 1+ year subscription to EasyNews would indicate otherwise...

    1. Re:That's Interesting... by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Subsciptions are only realy needed for binaries and that is the one thing that should move elsewhere.
      There are plenty of free servers out there. Below some I use. Most you need a subscription that is free to get:
      root@penne : grep ^server /etc/leafnode/config|awk '{print $NF}'
      news.cnntp.org
      forums.opensuse.org
      news.dommel.be
      news.motzarella.org
      news.sunsite.dk
      newszilla.xs4all.nl
      news.xs4all.nl
      fb1.euro.net
      news.readfreenews.net
      nntp.aioe.org
      news.news4us.nl

      There are many more out there.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  10. Premature by clang_jangle · · Score: 4, Informative

    The obit is premature. Usually when a service "dies" it would mean it's no longer available, but anyone can still buy usenet access here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here.
    And that is by no means a complete list. If anything, usenet may actually return to a more usable medium again, now that it won't be free for all the spammers and trolls anymore. Then again, it may well not -- it's not like all the illegal traders will just give up and go away, so I guess it depends on how much money the **IA, the BSA, and the morality police want to spend on "eradicating the problem".

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:Premature by Sarcasmooo! · · Score: 3, Informative

      You forgot Astranews, which probably belongs in the middle there somewhere. (I like it anyway).

    2. Re:Premature by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 3, Informative

      > now that it won't be free for all the spammers and trolls anymore.

      Indeed, there are at least two Usenet providers that drop all posts originating from Google Groups, so that we can enjoy spam-free feeds today.

      I previously paid for a feed from Giganews, but they did not support the NNTP commands required to drop GG at the server so I was paying for their downloads as part of my monthly quota.

      I have subsequently found a free Swedish provider with an agreeable degree of snobbery...

    3. Re:Premature by pecosdave · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trolls were a part of usenet, just like they're a vital part of Slashdot (yes, I mean that). It's the whole Yin/Yang thing, a couple of trolls are good for comic relief and keeping things going. I'm not advocating turning EVERYTHING into 4chan, just a statement that trolls aren't so bad.

      No, what killed usenet, at least for me, was spammers.

      You didn't DARE use an email address you actually used anymore (being able to email individuals was sort of a feature back in the day). Every site got spammed by off topic spam, and yes, when you were looking in alt.titties.redheads there was always some jerk posting loads of homo's (beyond the reasonable troll that is).

      Usenet was killed by the same thing that's currently killing email. Seriously, how bad is it when Facebook is a better way to communicate than a normal email address?

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    4. Re:Premature by maztuhblastah · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even better, I'd recommend Motzarella for totally free Usenet access. Well over 40K groups, and although they don't carry binaries, retention and fill on the text groups is outstanding. Oh, and they support SSL, even SSL on port 443 (for those at work behind "fascist firewalls.")

  11. Pffft, been dying for years. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I worked in ISP support for years and USENET was dying well before child porn was a nail in it's coffin. Probably has something to do with message boards with much friendlier interfaces, or that ISPs never went out of their way to try to explain what usenet is.

    Either way, the newsgroup support call was kind of a rare thing, like finding a Yeti or something.

    people stopped caring, and now it's going away as essential from an ISP POV. There are still ways to get NNTP feeds, so it's not completely toast.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Pffft, been dying for years. by Rainer · · Score: 5, Informative

      Probably has something to do with message boards with much friendlier interfaces

      I'd say dumbed down interfaces. A good newsreader is much friendlier than a webforum. The problem is that you have to install it first.

  12. Plenty of big 8 and alt groups get traffic still by dtolman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they end up dropping the binary groups... who cares? Google hasn't announced that they are dropping their mediocre (but useful) usenet client service. There are plenty of usenet groups still active - usenet may be in decline.. but hasn't that but true for so long already its practically a joke? Lets face it - there is still a need for readily available, easily searched (and filtered), unmoderated discussion groups.

  13. alt.terrible.news.horrify.cringe.wail by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny

    alt.beloved.usenet.gone?.withered?.dead?
    alt.black.day.is.is.ever-shall-be

    alt.thoughtful.pause.pause.pause.pause

    alt.brief.check.make.perform.check
    alt.noble.usenet.remains!.lives!.cheers!
    alt.brave.usenet.!surrenders.!bows.!gone!

    alt.silly.blog.!informs.!researches.!educates
    alt.dumb.blogger.drools.mashes-keys-at-random.drools
    alt.credulous.slashdot.reports.dramatises.alarms

    alt.trusty."alt.adjective.noun.verb.verb.verb".remains.endures.twinkles

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  14. Article summary by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Before the Eternal September, but after the Great Renaming, I learned about sex on Usenet."

    No need to read any further...

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  15. USENET always had a lot of porn by CPE1704TKS · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the early 90s, there was this one classmate who was a brilliant programmer. He wrote a pascal program that somehow continuously downloaded porn from newsgroups, ie. alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.*. This was in the days of the 9600 baud modems, and before the Internet was even a household word. I didn't understand at the time what he was doing, or how he was doing it, but enjoyed the fruits of his labor. This was even before video on computers was prevalent, so it was all just images. Actually I remember downloading one "video" that was really just an ascii-fied version of a pr0no. sigh.. the good ol' days.

  16. Glory days by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing I love about reading old Usenet posts is how innocent and safe it all seemed before the Internet boom of the 1990s. People often had their full names and even phone numbers in their sigs. You could sign into a worldwide network and still be trading messages in your own little clique of a dozen or so people who shared an interest.

    Then Eternal Spetember happened, and chased most of the decent discussion to quieter and more moderated email lists and web forums.

    Usenet's current status as a haven for spam and pirated binar^H^H^H NOTHING ELSE is a far cry from what it used to mean to a lot of people.

  17. Uh... by snarfies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From TFA: "It's the porn that's putting nails in Usenet's coffin."

    That would seem to fly in the face of everything I know about both human nature and the internet.

    For me, the reasons my (once extensive) Usenet usage dropped off was 1) insane amounts of spam, and 2) ease of use of torrents (at least with regards to binaries).

  18. Re:Usenet thrives for those willing to pay by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You are part of the problem

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  19. I'm speechless by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Wow, I don't even know what to say to this. This is probably the most stupid, irritating and infuriating article I've ever not read.

    Mind boggling. USENET. Dead. It doesn't even need an explanation as to why it's retarded, at least not to someone who has interesting (technical) discussions there on a regular basis.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  20. This article is sensationalist crap by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Usenet is alive and quite well. Actually I was on it this morning (before I read this article).
    The fact that less-informed internet users don't generally know about it is IMHO a good thing.

  21. Somebody's got to say it by Oloryn · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Imminent Death of the Net predicted. Film at 11."

  22. Isn't it ironic by Mononoke · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This show of force by the morality police is actually going to help the pornographers make more money. How? Virtually all of the pornographic images posted to the .binaries groups were stolen from pay-to-view pornography sites, thus devaluing the images. Some of those who have had their 'free' source cut off will spend what it takes to continue their viewing habits.

    Prohibition didn't work then, and it still doesn't work.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  23. Irksome summary by Verdatum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wish there was some indication in the summary that this isn't really news. It's just a lamentation of the bygone days of Usenet. The details about ISPs dropping alt.* have already been repeatedly reported on /.

    As with all the other stories on this: Boo-hoo, ISPs aren't giving away free usenet. If you really want it, find a 3rd party usenet server. If my ISP took away email, I wouldn't notice because I use a different address. Verizon took away my usenet and I didn't notice, because I use a 3rd party usenet server.

    And again if you haven't read it in the comments of previous postings on this story, a 3rd party usenet server is practically REQUIRED for anonymous viewing/posting of the illicit content they are trying to prevent. The pedos all sign up with offshore providers and pay for it with anonymously mailed money-orders, and access it through anonymizing proxies. The ones who don't are quickly and easily arrested with a single warrant to the ISP. The smart ones, who survive, and are thus the big-time posters, are not and can not be prevented in this manner.

    alt.binaries.* isn't killed by ISPs, it's killed by spam and superior communication mechanisms.

  24. So what was your favorite newsgroup name? by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Funny

    Coz your post is dead accurate about the whole usenet sense of humor.

    I loved:
    alt.fan.tonya-harding.whack.whack.whack
    alt.sex.bestiality.barney.die.die.die
    and all the many alt.*.whilst.wearing.rubber.knickers groups.

    Not that I ever *read* any of them, but it made my heart warm knowing they existed.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:So what was your favorite newsgroup name? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      alt.swedish-chef.bork.bork.bork
      alt.barney.die.die.die
      alt.party-of-five.puke.puke.puke
      alt.impeach.bush

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  25. Re:It deserved to die by saschasegan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't disagree. But there's a place in the world for nostalgia. In my case, it's nostalgia for a centralized/decentralized discussion system that nobody owned and nobody controlled, but that everybody went to and behaved relatively well in. I was just writing an email to someone about how basically, this column is about being a little wistful that the small town I grew up in is now a big city. The big city has many advantages but it's still valid to miss some of that small town charm. The hammer - I mean the town - is the Internet, by the way.

    --
    I'm Sascha Segan. Who are you?
  26. Don't bother reading the article... by fprintf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't bother reading the article. It is a non-interesting opinion/blog piece with very little supporting data.

    My own little anecdote, I was on usenet (rec.windsurfing) earlier today. If it wasn't for the overwhelming spam, I'd continue to use some of the other groups as the people who are left are a pretty committed and knowledgable group.

    --
    This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
  27. 2 points by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. the government anti-child porn crusade did not kill usenet. alt.binaries bloat, child porn included, killed usenet

    2. if the government is more precise in what they shut down (ie, if they shut down just alt.binaries), then the effect will be counterintuitive: usenet can experience a rebirth

    it wouldn't be that hard to remove all encoded material from usenet. just set up a simple rule and restrict by size. once you do that, and usenet becomes text only again, usenet can be reborn to satisfy what made it so great in the first place. its social networking lite

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  28. Just a bad summary by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 4, Informative
    TFA doesn't say Usenet is dead, just that it's past its best. It says:

    It's hard to completely kill off something as totally decentralized as Usenet; as long as two servers agree to share the NNTP protocol, it'll continue on in some fashion. But the Usenet I mourn is long gone, anyway, or long-transformed into interlocking comments on LiveJournals and the forums boards on tech-support Web sites.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  29. Bob by bobjr94 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funny, I was on there yesterday, some of the groups had 100,000 posts since the day before. When they say the newsgroups are dead, they are incorrect. They should have said real discussions on the newsgroups are moving to yahoo groups or google or specific forms or web sites. Actually that move to web based discussions happened about 4 or 5 years ago. So this article is rather late and meaningless.

  30. USENET will be around for a long time to come by killmenow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hell, Gopher isn't even dead.

  31. Hmm...Giganews and other services are still there by sgant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, and look, they have all the alt.* forums there too!

    So, unless the entire Usenet network gets taken offline..which is unlikely, then no, it's far from dead.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
  32. e-mail and YouTube to follow by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the same thing is happening to e-mail, at least e-mail over public mail servers. With the advent of new communications methods, it's just getting less and less worth the energy required to cope with the parasites (spam and such). People can still exchange interesting stuff via YouTube, but I bet that gets destroyed by spam soon enough, too.

    It's probably some rule of evolutionary biology: if you create a pool of low entropy, a cloud of parasites will spontaneously arive, like maggots to meat, to eat it and destroy it. Then I guess you move on to the next thing, huh?

    Pity we don't simply hunt down and destroy the parasites in our own midst, so that we can spend less time and cleverness keeping ahead of them.

  33. USENET is doing just fine by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Usenet is doing quite well. The programming-related newsgroups are in fine shape. "comp.lang.python", "comp.lang.javascript", and "comp.databases.mysql" have heavy traffic from knowledgeable people, including developers of the underlying systems. It's much faster to see the day's updates on Usenet than to page through the inflated dreck on a half dozen PHP-based forum systems.

    I was a bit disappointed when the C++ standards committee moved their discussions off USENET, but that committee isn't getting anywhere anyway.

  34. Re:I didn't get on USENET until 1995 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ME TOO!

  35. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy Shit! Usenet is dead. For some reason my Xnews, open right now, seems to not have noticed.

    Death Of Usenet has been predicted since its birth. Nothing to see here.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  36. Mourning the end of September... by argent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This bloke isn't mourning Usenet, he's mourning the end of the September that Never Ended.

    Usenet's biggest problems really started when AOL joined Usenet. The other ISPs followed on from that... people said that September ended when AOL left... not so, it won't end until the last big ISP is gone. Then maybe it'll be time for Usenet 2.0...

  37. alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die (sorry Wil) by Anonymous+Codger · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a.e.w.d.d.d had lots of imaginative posts on how Wesley should be done in, plus plenty of flame wars when people started conflating Wesley the character (yuck) with Wil the actor (cool frood).

    --
    No sig? Sigh...
  38. It's not dead by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's resting (sorry, had to).

    But more seriously, where's the #1 forum to discuss C programming? comp.lang.c. Where's the #1 forum to discuss DSP? comp.dsp, so much that other DSP "forums" only provide an interface to it. Where's the #1 spot to tell people your new theory as to how FTL travel is possible using hidden dimensions in the aether? sci.physics.

    So you see, it's not dead, or even resting, some of its branches died, some others are still thriving.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  39. Re:How is Usenet dead? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Child-porn investigations have doomed one of the last remnants of a smaller, kinder Net."

    Can some one please tell me what investigations have doomed Usenet and how?

    The Attorney General of NY started pushing on ISP's like Time Warner and AT&T to filter/moderate alt.* groups and/or hand over the names of the posters. Time Warner dropped alt.* altogether and the pressure is building for the rest to do the same.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  40. Netcraft is wrong; we need hard data by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Informative

    As all followers of the *BSD troll understand, the only way to truly know if something is dead is to look at the numbers. So we must measure the number of posts to usenet that mention usenet and see if that number has gone up or down over the past few years.

    1. Re:Netcraft is wrong; we need hard data by synthespian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It probably went down, because there's a whole generation that thinks PHP forums and Google will help you find *all* the answers when, in fact, early internet engineers were pretty smart guys and designed something in which you would go to one place to concentrate your searches. Furhtermore, the posting would be replicate to all servers.

      Personally, I think googling for a technical answer in particular regarding programming languages is a PITA. Too many forums to search for. Usenet makes it much simpler, but witness the moronity level when Ubuntu and Apple don't propagate their mailing list to Usenet (which just about every other self-repecting OS crowd does - Debian, FreeBSD, etc.)

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  41. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by clamantis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess I should have quoted something for that to make sense.

    >First top-post! [wikipedia.org] Usenet started
    >dying for me when that became a crime worthy of
    >vituperation.

  42. Response from alt.fan.monty-python by g2devi · · Score: 4, Funny

    > Just because mainstream internet providers are dropping it doesn't mean it is dying. Usenet is immortal,
    > like Dracula, it will never die.

    SPAM: [after SPAM's cut off both of the UseNet's arms] Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
    UseNet: Yes I have.
    SPAM: *Look*!
    UseNet: It's just a flesh wound. ....
    SPAM: Look, I'll have your leg. [Recieves a very sharp kick] Right! [Chops off one of the UseNet's legs]
    UseNet: Right! I'll do you for that!
    SPAM: You'll what?
    UseNet: Come here!
    SPAM: What are you going to do, bleed on me?!
    UseNet: I'm invincible!
    SPAM: You're a looney.
    UseNet: The UseNet always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then. [Hopping on one leg towards SPAM]
    [SPAM chops his other leg off, leaving his body upright on the ground.]
    UseNet: Alright, we'll call it a draw.
    SPAM: Come, Patsy!
    UseNet: Oh, oh I see. Running away, eh?! You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!!

    [Fade to black.]

    Netcraft: Bring out yer dead. [Hits gong]
    Mass Media: Here's one.
    Dead UseNet: I'm not dead!
    Netcraft: What?
    Mass Media: Nothing. Here's your ninepence.
    Dead UseNet: I'm not dead!
    Netcraft: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
    Mass Media: Yes he is.
    Dead UseNet: I'm not!
    Netcraft: He isn't!
    Mass Media: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
    Dead UseNet: I'm getting betta!
    Mass Media: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.
    Netcraft: I can't take 'im like that! It's against regulation!
    Dead UseNet: I don't want to go on the cart!
    Mass Media: Oh, don't be such a baby!
    Netcraft: I can't take him.
    Dead UseNet: I feel fine!
    [Mass Media knocks UseNet dead]

  43. First Ammendment rights by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If we wanted to don our tinfoil hats, we could come up with an alternative reason for killing Usenet, instead of kiddy porn or the mafiAA.

    Usenet may be one of the few remaining places on the Internet that might pretend to have First Ammendment protections. Here at Slashdot there are discussion forums, but Slashdot has some form of control/culpability for them despite any disclaimers. If I were to post the Secrets of Scientology here, the Church of Scientology would certainly be after me, but they'd first go after Slashdot to get those secrets removed. (Of course then they're inviting the Streisand Effect, and they'd have to remember the Wayback Machine, but I'm sure they'd try.) But the essence is that Slashdot is a commercial entity hosting contributed content on its servers. The same can be said about pretty much any weblog out there.

    The same cannot be said of Usenet. There is no single choke point for Usenet, like there is for a weblog. There is no single point to send a C&D letter to. Furthermore, it's fully possible that the author on Usenet is carefully anonymous, and is therefore untracable. Even finding the original feedpoint may be problematic, and require serious geek assistance.

    On the other hand...

    I was there on "Green Card Day". I remember seeing it the first time, then seeing it again in the next group that I followed, then again and again.... There may be something inherently unworkable about mixing anonymity with complete freedom speech. I suspect our founding fathers thought that we'd use our free speech more wisely than I do. I still believe that it is at times important to be anonymous, while at the same time retaining first ammendment protection, but I also believe that claiming those dual rights is FAR more important than Viagra or Nigerian bank accounts. I have no idea what a solution might be, other than to make some "cost of anonymity" great enough to prevent spam, but have no idea how to do that.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  44. I have nostalgia for the good old days too by shoor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My first usenet post was in 1984. The company I worked for had usenet access, and yes I have nostalgic memories of those days. Some of it was just the novelty, the sense of discovery. I understand and sympathize with a lot of what the article is talking about.

    But things changed, as they always do. To me the change became noticeable as more dreck, noise and flaming one had to filter out to get to the interesting posts, and I started to disengage. Then my provider became more difficult to work with. I can remember not too long ago, after a long absence, going on sci.physics with a question. A physicist answered it, but the thread was full of crazy talk from various people with wacko theories. That kind of thing always happened to some extent, but I was a bit shocked by the sheer volume this time and wondered how that serious physicist could bring himself to devote time to perusing sci.physics for legitimate questions.

    In the past, there was no other place to go for the kind of things usenet provided. Now, there are other places to go and I get the feeling that usenet is being left more and more to the loonies. Granted, sci.physics is probably more of a target than most groups. Something like comp.sci.c++ would probably have a better signal to noise ratio (if it exists, I haven't checked). The last group that I used to regularly engage was sci.econ, and by engage I mean I'd lock horns in arguments with others that were not just flamefests. I remember sci.bio.evolution was heavily moderated for obvious reasons, creationists were always trying to infiltrate with their own ideas.

    Actually, slashdot has a bit of the old flavor. Sure there's lots of noise on the channel, but good stuff as well. However, slashdot doesn't have the breadth of usenet and it's up to the higher authorities to decide what topics get selected.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  45. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by click2005 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The year of linux on the desktop"..
    "The next search engine to beat google"..
    "Windows is dead"..
    "Usenet is dead"..

    It seems like more and more people are making more and more outrageous predictions & claims.

    I guess with all the noise out there people need a way for their blog to stand out.

    If they're wrong its a case of "oh well, maybe next year" but if they're right they'll claim they're prophetic or something and use it to get more advertizing/readers/whatever... and yet nothing changes, the internet goes on.

    Hold on.. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/31/1316257 OMG!! the internet is gonna end.

    --
    I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  46. The first two rules of USENET by bryansj · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is just resetting USENET so that the first two rules are back in place. Move along please.

  47. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by salmosri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you read the article you'd realize the writer was speaking "metaphorically"

    it's hard to completely kill off something as totally decentralized as Usenet; as long as two servers agree to share the NNTP protocol, it'll continue on in some fashion. But the Usenet I mourn is long gone, anyway, or long-transformed into interlocking comments on LiveJournals and the forums boards on tech-support Web sites.

  48. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by Floritard · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the interest of the first rule of USENET, my post shall be quick and somewhat vague. As a former user and lover of Xnews I must ask you, have you not heard of GrabIt? Though you'll have to get used to NZBs instead of crawling the group, the ability to shutdown and startup long queues anytime without having to wait for the software to wake up from what seems like a catatonic coma is quite valuable. Of course, I had less than a gig of ram back then.

  49. Apparently decent reporting is DEAD at PcMag.... by moxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What a horrible article with a sensationalistic title. The only good thing I can say about that article is that at least the writer understands the technical aspects of usenet, unlike some of the articles I have seen lately. Claming "Usetnet is dead" is what makes him an idiot. I hope usenet is dead..FOR HIM.

    I love the newsgroups and have used all aspects of them daily since the mid 90s. When I discovered binaries in 1998 I couldn't believe how ingenious it was. I have had a premium news service for the past 5 years and it's the one bill I pay every month with joy...Usenet is not dead - it's only gotten better. But they WANT to kill it.

    If the ISP want to discontinue them they're stupid. It only bothers me in so much as I feel that is the first step in a campaign to ruin them, but due to the way usenet works, it would be a difficult task and would basically require removing all freedom on the internet (which is something these groups want, that is their goal - make no mistake about it - the corporate/governmental groups that are pushing this sort of thing want to turn the net into some bastardized bowlderized version of a three-way cross between early AOL, the home shopping network and MSNBC. Fuck that.

  50. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For some reason my Xnews, open right now, seems to not have noticed.

    But have you checked the date? It's finally October 1st!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

  51. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by camperdave · · Score: 3, Funny

    I dunno, what's a metafor you?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  52. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by synthespian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some Usenet providers will grant free access or for a very low cost with the caveat that you won't be able to download binaries. So no alt.food for pics of sandwiches.

    Search for free Usenet servers.

    --
    Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  53. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 4, Informative

    www.usenet-access.com. They are 6 bucks a month and you get 2 GB per day. An unholy shitload of groups with the retention from hell. I've been able to snag stuff going back almost 2 years. I know they are a reseller for someone, I just don't know who. I've been using them for almost 6 years and never had issues with them at all.

    Possible issues are, well 2 Gb per day but hell that an average of 60 GB per month. And you can only have 3 simultaneous connections but hell they are only 6 bucks a month.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  54. Web 2.0 not an archive by colfer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also downloading for offline reading & permanent storage is a lot easier with Usenet. Thunderbird is a bit wanky, but does it.

    Usenet can also be adapted for use as a company forum. One big webhosting company uses an NNTP hierchary instead of a user forum, with a universal password to access it. There are pluses & minuses, but it sure is simple. The features are client-side. The downside is you have to have the archives to search for answers.

  55. the web is dead by TomatoMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    It seems like more and more people are making more and more outrageous predictions & claims.

    Sometime in the late 90s, Wired ran a cover story that contained an assertion that "the Web is dead."

    That's about when I canceled my subscription.

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
  56. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by SilentBob0727 · · Score: 3, Funny

    A metaphor is a cool breeze on a hot summer day.

    Or is that a cliche?

    --
    Life would be easier if I had the source code.
  57. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Google groups is a pain in the ass to use. They are great when I'm researching something or just wanting to take trip down memory lane. Take a trip through comp.sys.amiga.* and remember what the big deal was about.

    But compared to a full function news reader with thread control and kill files, it's a poor imitation.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  58. Dark Usenet? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I started on Usenet, right after the flood waters receded, you had to know someone to get a feed from them. I used to get my daily usenet fix over a 2400 bps modem to an amiga 500 running dnews 1.13, I think. I was a collaborative effort.

    Maybe in the future usenet can be reborn but with in a closed system again. You have to know someone to get a feed from.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:Dark Usenet? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was a collaborative effort.

      Tell your mom I said hi.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  59. May I add another: No it's not? by Archon-X · · Score: 3, Informative

    May I add another 'No, it's not!' to the comments?

    ISP-based usenet has always sucked. The retention was lowsy, the propogation was poor (if they even let you post) - or they simply outsourced to one of the Big 3 [giganews,usenetserver,eweka.nl] [http://top1000.org/#stats]

    For those of us who know about it, Usenet is thriving - there's more data passing through it than ever. GN is adding 240days of binary retention (which is insane)

    With the combination of NZB files [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NZB], and SSL, you'd be nuts to ever use a torrent again.
    Speed + security + real files.

    There are bunch of services:

    Combined:
    BitNabber.com [Combines NZB + SSL Usenet access]

    Usenet only:
    Giganews.com [240 days retention, SSL]
    Supernews.com [Cleanest / most spam free usenet server]
    UsenetServer.com [Solid service, SSL]

    NZB Services:
    http://www.newzleech.com/ [Free, but automatic, so results will vary]
    http://www.binsearch.info/ [Free, also automatic, but with SSL]

    NewzBin.com - [Premium + Invite only, but the goliath of NZB sites]

  60. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

    They still have pretty good fetish porn. Chicks in rubber and PVC.

    And here I thought techno chicken was weird!

  61. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by daniel23 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    there is a way though it takes some preparation. On the other hand it may earn you some extra geek points.

    1. get yourself a IPv6 tunnel and get it configured
    2. after you saw the logo jump at ipv6.google.com, check IPv6 Newsservers
    3. ...
    4. free usenet!!! (incl. alt.*)

    where the ... probably involves testing which of the servers actually work, not all of them did when I tried it, and adding one or more of them in pan. Not an ultra fast download but still an excellent reason to start with ipv6.

    --
    605413? Yes, it's a prime.
  62. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by einer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait... So they're preventing AOL'ers and their big ISP ilk from accessing USENET? Is this a return to the golden age?

    This is awesome for usenet.

  63. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by I+don't+want+to+spen · · Score: 3, Funny
    You're right.

    Predictions are dead!

    --
    Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
  64. Re:Hmm...Giganews and other services are still the by breman · · Score: 3, Informative

    I clicked on it cause it sounded like a good deal, but it looks more like...
    Daily-limited newsgroup accounts per month
    500MB/day $2.95 USD
    1 GB/day $5.95 USD
    2 GB/day (recommended level) $11.95 USD
    4 GB/day $23.95 USD