rhaig wrote: > As for dumping the archives? I think it sucks > too, but they were having to support more than > 100 servers to hold all that news.
If that's a factual statement, then I withdraw every positive comment I've ever made about Dejanews (excuse me, Deja). And I certainly hope no one is really paying them any money for services, or investing in them as an organization, as it's plain that they've neglected to spend any money hiring or retaining skilled technical staff.
> the old news was on of course the older machines > that tended to break, and all those machines > were being supported for the benefit of less > than 5% of the searches being performed, 0% of > people who didn't use power-search (as it's the > only search on their site that goes all the way > back) and 0% of the people who read day to day > news.
There is some merit to what you're saying here, though I still think there are likely some inaccuracies to it. The full dejanews archive was always used by people who read day-to-day news, though not necessarily through deja.com exclusively.
However, the major point you skirt around slightly is this: the focus of the organization has gone through a radical shift since its inception, when it was dejanews, a searchable archive of USENET. And today, it is "Deja.com -- before you buy."
In other words, being a searchable archive of USENET is now an afterthought for Deja. And since it's not where they're expecting to make any money, maintenance and scaling of that aspect of their service is no longer a priority -- whether the old USENET community, such as it is anymore, likes that or not.
> Does it suck that 4 years is off the net > until they can come up with a better way to > support it? Yes. Do I blame them? No.
Well, I personally can find plenty of fault with the decision and their strategic direction, even though I understand their business decision, and even though I suspect the real story behind that stuff being offline is a little more like, "Crap, we can't seem to get those machines back up -- okay, quick, damage control: we decided to do this!"
> You don't like it? offer to pay for co-locate > space for those 80+ servers that hold those 4 > years of news and maybe they'll listen.
Here, I think, is the real ironic tragedy: were Deja willing to say to the USENET technical community at large, "Okay folks, we're going to lose this archive and have to take it down if we can't come up with something to do with it -- we aren't capable of maintaining it any longer," it is not at all implausible that a large number of USENET veterans, true believers, and computer professionals would indeed have come up with a technical solution that would have allowed the archive to remain functional. After all, USENET itself (which is really nothing but a money sink in practical terms) remains operational -- why? Because of the freely-donated time and other resources of those who believe it's important.
jxxx wrote: > However, calling a poster's relation to a post > a copyright is going a bit far.
Why do you feel that it does?
> Doing so brings > into question the legality of quoting for a > reply.
In the many lengthy discussions on this subject which have been routinely held in USENET for years, it has generally been felt that proper USENET quoting falls within fair use, a provision in copyright law whereby it's permissible to quote portions of another's writing (attributed) for such purposes as review or response.
> Do you have to name the person you are > quoting?
Absolutely. This has _always_ been considered good and proper USENET style. That hordes of users descended on USENET completely uneducated about the norms and practices does not mean the norms and practices aren't good, solid ones. It has always, always, always been considered highly important to not only include attributions in a followup, but make sure you get them right. This is a major complaint USENET veterans have with USENET newbies, and with a large amount of software now used to read news.
> I know Ive quoted several people in a > reply, nested at times. Naming each of them > every time sucks.
Then you're guilty of poor USENET postership. It may not be entirely your fault -- you may not have a real newsreader, for instance, which makes it easy to get attributions right, or which would encourage you to reply at the top. Or you may frequent newsgroups populated with newer USENET posters who never became familiar with what we all used to consider basic style and courtesy, and those posters may create a morass of lost attributions, replies at the top, excessively quoted text, and so forth. Or you may use software which doesn't preserve linebreaks and causes properly posted articles to show up all out of whack, or you may post to newsgroups where nobody even knows what a line length is. Things like that have certainly cut down on my USENET postership, and I used to be as staunch a USENET defender as there was.
In any case, yes, attributing quoted text and making sure that you've got the attributions right is inarguably a core part of being a good USENET poster according to all the newbie docs that today's newbies obviously never bother to read.
Slashdot Mirror
rhaig wrote:
> As for dumping the archives? I think it sucks
> too, but they were having to support more than
> 100 servers to hold all that news.
If that's a factual statement, then I withdraw
every positive comment I've ever made about
Dejanews (excuse me, Deja). And I certainly hope
no one is really paying them any money for
services, or investing in them as an organization,
as it's plain that they've neglected to spend any
money hiring or retaining skilled technical staff.
> the old news was on of course the older machines
> that tended to break, and all those machines
> were being supported for the benefit of less
> than 5% of the searches being performed, 0% of
> people who didn't use power-search (as it's the
> only search on their site that goes all the way
> back) and 0% of the people who read day to day
> news.
There is some merit to what you're saying here,
though I still think there are likely some
inaccuracies to it. The full dejanews archive
was always used by people who read day-to-day
news, though not necessarily through deja.com
exclusively.
However, the major point you skirt around slightly
is this: the focus of the organization has gone
through a radical shift since its inception, when
it was dejanews, a searchable archive of USENET.
And today, it is "Deja.com -- before you buy."
In other words, being a searchable archive of
USENET is now an afterthought for Deja. And since
it's not where they're expecting to make any
money, maintenance and scaling of that aspect of
their service is no longer a priority -- whether
the old USENET community, such as it is anymore,
likes that or not.
> Does it suck that 4 years is off the net
> until they can come up with a better way to
> support it? Yes. Do I blame them? No.
Well, I personally can find plenty of fault with
the decision and their strategic direction, even
though I understand their business decision, and
even though I suspect the real story behind that
stuff being offline is a little more like, "Crap,
we can't seem to get those machines back up --
okay, quick, damage control: we decided to do
this!"
> You don't like it? offer to pay for co-locate
> space for those 80+ servers that hold those 4
> years of news and maybe they'll listen.
Here, I think, is the real ironic tragedy: were
Deja willing to say to the USENET technical
community at large, "Okay folks, we're going to
lose this archive and have to take it down if we
can't come up with something to do with it -- we
aren't capable of maintaining it any longer," it
is not at all implausible that a large number of
USENET veterans, true believers, and computer
professionals would indeed have come up with a
technical solution that would have allowed the
archive to remain functional. After all, USENET
itself (which is really nothing but a money sink
in practical terms) remains operational -- why?
Because of the freely-donated time and other
resources of those who believe it's important.
--Abby Franquemont
jxxx wrote:
> However, calling a poster's relation to a post
> a copyright is going a bit far.
Why do you feel that it does?
> Doing so brings
> into question the legality of quoting for a
> reply.
In the many lengthy discussions on this subject
which have been routinely held in USENET for
years, it has generally been felt that proper
USENET quoting falls within fair use, a provision
in copyright law whereby it's permissible to
quote portions of another's writing (attributed)
for such purposes as review or response.
> Do you have to name the person you are
> quoting?
Absolutely. This has _always_ been considered
good and proper USENET style. That hordes of
users descended on USENET completely uneducated
about the norms and practices does not mean the
norms and practices aren't good, solid ones. It
has always, always, always been considered
highly important to not only include attributions
in a followup, but make sure you get them right.
This is a major complaint USENET veterans have
with USENET newbies, and with a large amount of
software now used to read news.
> I know Ive quoted several people in a
> reply, nested at times. Naming each of them
> every time sucks.
Then you're guilty of poor USENET postership. It
may not be entirely your fault -- you may not have
a real newsreader, for instance, which makes it
easy to get attributions right, or which would
encourage you to reply at the top. Or you may
frequent newsgroups populated with newer USENET
posters who never became familiar with what we
all used to consider basic style and courtesy,
and those posters may create a morass of lost
attributions, replies at the top, excessively
quoted text, and so forth. Or you may use
software which doesn't preserve linebreaks and
causes properly posted articles to show up all
out of whack, or you may post to newsgroups
where nobody even knows what a line length is.
Things like that have certainly cut down on my
USENET postership, and I used to be as staunch a
USENET defender as there was.
In any case, yes, attributing quoted text and
making sure that you've got the attributions right
is inarguably a core part of being a good USENET
poster according to all the newbie docs that
today's newbies obviously never bother to read.
--Abby Franquemont