"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote at 13:15 this Tuesday (GMT):
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason
behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Can't you control what ng's you carry and how old the data you carry is?
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote at 13:15 this Tuesday (GMT):
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason
behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Can't you control what ng's you carry and how old the data you carry is?
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:40:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote at 13:15 this Tuesday (GMT):
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason
behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older >>> data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Can't you control what ng's you carry and how old the data you carry is?
Yes, you can. I don't know where the idea comes from that you can't host
your own server. I'm an idiot and I host one.
On 25/02/2025 22:47 Retro Guy <retroguy@novabbs.com> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:40:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote at 13:15 this Tuesday (GMT): >>>> "Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason >>>> behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older >>>> data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't >>>> want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from >>>> using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Can't you control what ng's you carry and how old the data you carry is?
Yes, you can. I don't know where the idea comes from that you can't host
your own server. I'm an idiot and I host one.
Why would you want to?
Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on the >quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not going
to visit Reddit to read the info.
Question for Paul Schleck: what was your interpretation or opinion of
this author's writing, and his knowledge of Usenet?
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason
behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older
data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Isn't it already possible? You can just setup usenet yourself, with
your own set of conventions, and start to find peers. I don't think
that should be so difficult.
Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server.
On 2/25/25 7:15 AM, Paul W. Schleck wrote:
Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server.
Hold it! Flag on the play!!!
Yes, you can host your own server.
Full stop.
It's considerably easier now that the Google spam source is gone.
I have done it for many years.
I've helped multiple set up their own news server.
The only difference in Usenet and a private news network is 1) the groups and 2) the peers that feed you.
Could you recommend a small, simple news server? I looked at leafnode
and it works. I don't need peering functionality. Are there any others
that are similar to leafnode?
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
[...]
Could you recommend a small, simple news server? I looked at leafnode
and it works. I don't need peering functionality. Are there any others
that are similar to leafnode?
You already know noffle, right? It's very easy to use. It's able to download articles from the USENET and you have local groups too. It
stores articles in a GDBM, not on the file system.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
[...]
Could you recommend a small, simple news server? I looked at leafnode
and it works. I don't need peering functionality. Are there any others
that are similar to leafnode?
You already know noffle, right? It's very easy to use. It's able to download articles from the USENET and you have local groups too. It
stores articles in a GDBM, not on the file system.
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 21:40:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
Paul W. Schleck <pschleck@panix.com> wrote at 13:15 this Tuesday (GMT):
"Usenet, having been around for several decades now has gotten to the
point where you can't just host your own server. While I get the reason
behind that, why is not a good idea, to perhaps split away from the
current dataset and start a new feed of Usenet servers without the older >>> data and without binaries? The current Usenet would still be present,
but it would allow for people not only to go back to self-hosting
Usenet, but would also get rid of some of the 'junk' that people don't
want. And removing binaries from the new one, doesn't stop people from
using the old Usenet to continue doing so.
Why would this be a bad idea?" - quilnux
https://www.reddit.com/r/ClassicUsenet/comments/1it5bf5/why_cant_we_just_reset_usenet/
Can't you control what ng's you carry and how old the data you carry is?
Yes, you can. I don't know where the idea comes from that you can't host
your own server. I'm an idiot and I host one.
Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on the quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not going
to visit Reddit to read the info.
newsgroup. If your newsgroup is dying, you can revive it by posting
material from other sources. You have to admit that the article that
you are disparaging has resulted in a flurry of activity in the target >newsgroups.
Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on the quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not going
to visit Reddit to read the info.
Could you recommend a small, simple news server?
I looked at leafnode and it works. I don't need peering
functionality.
Are there any others that are similar to leafnode?
On 2/27/25 7:26 AM, D wrote:
Could you recommend a small, simple news server?
InterNetNews (INN) has been my go-to news server for nearly two decades.
I don't think it's as hard as some make it out to be. In fact, I think
there is more to learn about running a Usenet server independent of the
news server software chosen than there is to learn about said news
server software. -- Sort of like learning how to drive, the rules of
the road and paying attention to others takes more mental energy than
how to drive a (most) given car.
I looked at leafnode and it works. I don't need peering
functionality.
I'm not sure what you're going to do with a news server without peering.
But that's your choice.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
[...]
Could you recommend a small, simple news server? I looked at leafnode
and it works. I don't need peering functionality. Are there any others
that are similar to leafnode?
You already know noffle, right? It's very easy to use. It's able to download articles from the USENET and you have local groups too. It
stores articles in a GDBM, not on the file system.
Retro Guy wrote:
Also, I don't know why someone is posting short quotes, not opinion on the >> quote, and links to Reddit. I, and I'm guessing some others, are not going >> to visit Reddit to read the info.
This is an example of the opinion that re-posts of material from other sources (mailing lists, newsletters, social media) will revive a
newsgroup. If your newsgroup is dying, you can revive it by posting
material from other sources. You have to admit that the article that
you are disparaging has resulted in a flurry of activity in the target newsgroups.
I am not personally a fan of this technique. My impression is that
you end up with low-quality traffic that does not result in any
followups in the newsgroup, to the point where the group becomes an
echo of material available elsewhere. Is there value in consolidating information from several sources into one place? Perhaps, but I
prefer to go to the source and not be dependent on someone else to
choose what I read.
In summary, if you post an article, I assume that you read it and
you enjoyed it, so there's always an implicit comment. There is a
service in that---it's a filter.
I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or >ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our >replies for the past several days?
some of the articles cited in pws's cross-postings have been interesting
and on-topic, "early history of usenet" <ulmoq1$6kl$1@reader2.panix.com> >(links to https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/blog/2019-11/2019-11-14.html) >organized, authoritative, self-explanatory albeit biased and opinionated
but posting links to "reddit" or other social media to usenet newsgroups >seems more like unsolicited advertising . . . junk mail, of little or no
use to anyone...pws may not be troll farm, but shilling for social media?
In <vq4eie$1bg77$1@dont-email.me> D Finnigan <dog_cow@macgui.com> writes:
I question what value Paul Schleck saw in reposting this uninformed or >>ignorant material to the newsgroups. Was it to inform the readers here?
Was it to entertain us? Or was it for his own entertainment, to read our >>replies for the past several days?
A pearl of wisdom from Guy Macon from 2005:
"There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
people have tried it.
What works: Posting articles on the topic you wish to see discussed, and participating in the resulting discussion. Using killfiles and filters
so that you don't see the articles that you dislike. Never, ever
responding to articles that you dislike.
What doesn't work: Responding to articles that you dislike, complaining
about articles that you dislike, complaining about posters that you
dislike, complaining about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
what you want them to post."
(https://groups.google.com/g/news.groups/c/FUdBxpDF_a4/m/mxxyQbk2rrkJ)
On 3/1/25 8:19 PM, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
In summary, if you post an article, I assume that you read it and
you enjoyed it, so there's always an implicit comment. There is a
service in that---it's a filter.
I've seen too much crap posted to be able to have the same faith in a
human filter.
I have to see some comment from the poster about how the article
impacted them as an individual for me to even consider reading it.
In <20250303.153152.b5bca7d7@mixmin.net> D <noreply@mixmin.net> writes:
some of the articles cited in pws's cross-postings have been interesting >>and on-topic, "early history of usenet" <ulmoq1$6kl$1@reader2.panix.com> >>(links to https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/blog/2019-11/2019-11-14.html) >>organized, authoritative, self-explanatory albeit biased and opinionated
but posting links to "reddit" or other social media to usenet newsgroups >>seems more like unsolicited advertising . . . junk mail, of little or no >>use to anyone...pws may not be troll farm, but shilling for social media?
A variation on an old religion joke:
Three men die and go to heaven. St. Peter meets them at the pearly
gates. He says to the first man, "Welcome to Heaven! Back on Earth,
what social media did you use?"
The first man say, "I was a devout Facebook member."
St. Peter says, "Excellent! Then go to door 10, but when you pass door
number 2, be very quiet."
He then asks the second man, "When you were on Earth, what social media
did you use?"
The second man replies, "I was the administrator of my Mastodon
instance!"
St. Peter says, "Wonderful! Make your way to door 6, but when you pass
door 2, be very quiet."
St. Peter asks the last man, "What social media did you use on Earth?"
The man says, "I was on Twitter. Part of the X."
St. Peter says, "You know the drill. Go to door 12, but be very quiet
when you pass door 2."
The last man says, "Why is it we need to be so quiet when we go past
door 2?"
St. Peter replies, "Because that's where the Usenet people are and they
think they're the only ones here."
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> writes:
On 3/1/25 8:19 PM, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
In summary, if you post an article, I assume that you read it and
you enjoyed it, so there's always an implicit comment. There is a
service in that---it's a filter.
I've seen too much crap posted to be able to have the same faith in a
human filter.
I have to see some comment from the poster about how the article
impacted them as an individual for me to even consider reading it.
I think my position is that the persona holds a value. When it
is you who posts, no matter what it is, I always take a look.
I think my position is that the persona holds a value.
When it is you who posts, no matter what it is, I always take a look.
If you just post a pointer, say, I'd take a look, although I would
see the event as unusual.
And one of the strengths of a scoring newsreader like slrn.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 39:33:40 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,189 |