|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 by Sascha Segan of PC Magazine 07.31.08
Edward Dolan wrote:
Here is an article from PC Magazine that I found interesting and I suspect some the rest of you might too. If JimmyMac can stop stalking me momentarily, he could perhaps explain what binaries are. He is a computer expert and would probably know about this. I do not believe I have ever encountered it. It is sometimes referrered to as alt.binaries. Most groups prohibit posting of anything but plain text. Binary groups allow posting of various attachments (pictures, video clips, etc). I believe the only member of ARBR who could be classified as an an old-timer and who is still with us is Tom Sherman. Perhaps he could tell us if ARBR was any different back then than it is now? Yes, the conversation was not dominated by the incessant arguments between just a couple of people. I came to Usenet rather late and after a year or so I could clearly see that it was doomed. Usenet was for the cognoscenti and NOT the general public. It requires a high level of civility and restraint on the part of its members in order for it to work. It is now nothing but an asylum for the insane. Child-porn investigations have doomed one of the last remnants of a smaller, kinder Net. by Sascha Segan ... On the text-only Usenet of my memory, nobody knew whether you were a dog, or a kid, or Finnish-only what you wrote. There wasn't the obsession with photos and video that overruns today's social networking sites. Yeah, I know that sounds like "get off my lawn you darn kids" crotchetiness, but there's something really nice about just talking to people and not caring what they look like. If you can not get your point across with plain text, work on your writing skills. Serious conversations went on in forums like comp.sys.atari.8bit; more frivolous chatter appeared in groups whose names started with "alt," a freewheeling free-for-all that nobody owned, nobody managed, and nobody policed. It was a more innocent time on the Net, before most of the spammers, the crooks, or even the general public showed up. People hewed to a loosely agreed-upon set of net.manners enforced by self-appointed cops. The society worked-at least for a while. Usenet was what the Web is missing nowadays: a genuinely public space, with unclear ownership. While different people hung out in different groups, everyone accessed the same group list and there was plenty of cross-fertilization. Control came down to a bickering cabal of scattered IT administrators who generally preferred to leave well enough alone. Compared to chat systems like IRC (and later, instant messaging and texting), Usenet encouraged thoughtful, long-form writing with lots of quotation and back-and-forth. Indeed. Most of the forums on the web are full of posts that would not pass on a 4th grade English exam. And yes, the beauty of Usenet is that no one owns and controls it. Truly a democratic forum, unlike a web based message board with an owner/moderator/dictator. Usenet has been dying for years, of course. Some people date Usenet's decline as early as 1993, when millions of AOL users dropped into what was previously a geek paradise. As the '90s went on, the eye candy of the Web and the marketing dollars of Web site owners helped push people over to profit-making sites. Usenet's slightly arcane access methods and text-only protocols have nothing on the glitz and glamour of MySpace. It is a sad commentary on society that the printed work which has sufficed for thousands of years is no longer good enough. The Web also gave Usenet a new life through the mid-90s as a searchable database of questions and answers, via DejaNews and Google. But searchability also killed off some of Usenet's social functions. More chaotic and ad-hoc groups functioned through a sort of security in obscurity; as long as nobody bothered to click on them, nobody would know what people were talking about. With Google Groups, every word you wrote became enshrined and eternally searchable. The biggest improvement to Usenet would be if everyone had to use their real name. Meanwhile, as multimedia became popular over the past ten years, Usenet started to become a way for pirates and pornographers to distribute massive quantities of binary files in a decentralized, untraceable manner; in other words, it became a proto-BitTorrent. That was likely when Usenet became truly doomed. Newsgroups had exchanged code along with text for years, but by the late '90s the "binaries" groups began taking up huge amounts of space and Net traffic, and since Usenet libraries reside on each ISP's server, service providers sensibly started to wonder why they should be reserving big chunks of their own disk space for pirated movies and repetitive porn. Many news-servers carry text only groups for this reason, or charge for downloading high-bandwidth binary files. It's the porn that's putting nails in Usenet's coffin. AOL dropped Usenet in 2005, but many other large ISPs kept carrying newsgroups. Now major providers are dropping the full alt. hierarchy, and even Usenet entirely, as part of a New York State government crusade against child pornographers who've been using the alt.binaries groups to distribute their wares. Dropping all of Usenet to lose alt.binaries.videos.of.criminal.acts is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but at the same time I don't have much pity for the binaries crowd. Usenet is a hideously inefficient way to distribute binary file-you end up making thousands of unused copies on various servers and encoding your files in inefficient ways. And way too much of the binaries traffic consists of piracy and warez. That is a really stupid approach. Just drop the high bandwidth binary groups and keep the text groups. 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. Obviously, people lead lives, converse, and learn on the Internet far more broadly than they did in 1993. But give me a moment's nostalgia for a Net that had one place to go, that everybody knew about, but nobody owned. Maybe this is not a bad thing. The quality of Usenet (excluding the commercial spammers) is actually improved when those who can not not use the written word properly head off to web based forums. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 by Sascha Segan of PC Magazine 07.31.08
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: Here is an article from PC Magazine that I found interesting and I suspect some the rest of you might too. If JimmyMac can stop stalking me momentarily, he could perhaps explain what binaries are. He is a computer expert and would probably know about this. I do not believe I have ever encountered it. It is sometimes referrered to as alt.binaries. Most groups prohibit posting of anything but plain text. Binary groups allow posting of various attachments (pictures, video clips, etc). I do not much like even links to be posted. I believe the only member of ARBR who could be classified as an an old-timer and who is still with us is Tom Sherman. Perhaps he could tell us if ARBR was any different back then than it is now? Yes, the conversation was not dominated by the incessant arguments between just a couple of people. All Usenet conversation is an argument of sorts. It is just that some arguments are more raucous than others. I came to Usenet rather late and after a year or so I could clearly see that it was doomed. Usenet was for the cognoscenti and NOT the general public. It requires a high level of civility and restraint on the part of its members in order for it to work. It is now nothing but an asylum for the insane. Child-porn investigations have doomed one of the last remnants of a smaller, kinder Net. by Sascha Segan ... On the text-only Usenet of my memory, nobody knew whether you were a dog, or a kid, or Finnish-only what you wrote. There wasn't the obsession with photos and video that overruns today's social networking sites. Yeah, I know that sounds like "get off my lawn you darn kids" crotchetiness, but there's something really nice about just talking to people and not caring what they look like. If you can not get your point across with plain text, work on your writing skills. Serious conversations went on in forums like comp.sys.atari.8bit; more frivolous chatter appeared in groups whose names started with "alt," a freewheeling free-for-all that nobody owned, nobody managed, and nobody policed. It was a more innocent time on the Net, before most of the spammers, the crooks, or even the general public showed up. People hewed to a loosely agreed-upon set of net.manners enforced by self-appointed cops. The society worked-at least for a while. Usenet was what the Web is missing nowadays: a genuinely public space, with unclear ownership. While different people hung out in different groups, everyone accessed the same group list and there was plenty of cross-fertilization. Control came down to a bickering cabal of scattered IT administrators who generally preferred to leave well enough alone. Compared to chat systems like IRC (and later, instant messaging and texting), Usenet encouraged thoughtful, long-form writing with lots of quotation and back-and-forth. Indeed. Most of the forums on the web are full of posts that would not pass on a 4th grade English exam. And yes, the beauty of Usenet is that no one owns and controls it. Truly a democratic forum, unlike a web based message board with an owner/moderator/dictator. I have never really looked into a web based message board. Are they really as bad as you say they are? What would be a good one to investigate so I can see what you are talking about? Usenet has been dying for years, of course. Some people date Usenet's decline as early as 1993, when millions of AOL users dropped into what was previously a geek paradise. As the '90s went on, the eye candy of the Web and the marketing dollars of Web site owners helped push people over to profit-making sites. Usenet's slightly arcane access methods and text-only protocols have nothing on the glitz and glamour of MySpace. It is a sad commentary on society that the printed work which has sufficed for thousands of years is no longer good enough. Writing anything is hard work. Most folks are way too lazy to write anything consisting of more than a few words. It is much easier to just send links, pictures and videos. The Web also gave Usenet a new life through the mid-90s as a searchable database of questions and answers, via DejaNews and Google. But searchability also killed off some of Usenet's social functions. More chaotic and ad-hoc groups functioned through a sort of security in obscurity; as long as nobody bothered to click on them, nobody would know what people were talking about. With Google Groups, every word you wrote became enshrined and eternally searchable. The biggest improvement to Usenet would be if everyone had to use their real name. AGREED! Meanwhile, as multimedia became popular over the past ten years, Usenet started to become a way for pirates and pornographers to distribute massive quantities of binary files in a decentralized, untraceable manner; in other words, it became a proto-BitTorrent. That was likely when Usenet became truly doomed. Newsgroups had exchanged code along with text for years, but by the late '90s the "binaries" groups began taking up huge amounts of space and Net traffic, and since Usenet libraries reside on each ISP's server, service providers sensibly started to wonder why they should be reserving big chunks of their own disk space for pirated movies and repetitive porn. Many news-servers carry text only groups for this reason, or charge for downloading high-bandwidth binary files. It's the porn that's putting nails in Usenet's coffin. AOL dropped Usenet in 2005, but many other large ISPs kept carrying newsgroups. Now major providers are dropping the full alt. hierarchy, and even Usenet entirely, as part of a New York State government crusade against child pornographers who've been using the alt.binaries groups to distribute their wares. Dropping all of Usenet to lose alt.binaries.videos.of.criminal.acts is definitely throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but at the same time I don't have much pity for the binaries crowd. Usenet is a hideously inefficient way to distribute binary file-you end up making thousands of unused copies on various servers and encoding your files in inefficient ways. And way too much of the binaries traffic consists of piracy and warez. That is a really stupid approach. Just drop the high bandwidth binary groups and keep the text groups. Where would I go to find a Usenet binary newsgroup just to see what they are like? 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. Obviously, people lead lives, converse, and learn on the Internet far more broadly than they did in 1993. But give me a moment's nostalgia for a Net that had one place to go, that everybody knew about, but nobody owned. Maybe this is not a bad thing. The quality of Usenet (excluding the commercial spammers) is actually improved when those who can not use the written word properly head off to web based forums. Even so, I feel strongly that the lack of a moderator means the death of Usenet. Ideally, the moderator should not be a single individual, but rather a board. This would eliminate bias and various other idiosyncrasies. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 by Sascha Segan of PC Magazine 07.31.08
Edward Dolan wrote:
... I have never really looked into a web based message board. Are they really as bad as you say they are? What would be a good one to investigate so I can see what you are talking about? Try http://bentrideronline.com/ and click on "Message Board" at the top right of the home page. You will probably see some names to raise your blood pressure. Usenet has been dying for years, of course. Some people date Usenet's decline as early as 1993, when millions of AOL users dropped into what was previously a geek paradise. As the '90s went on, the eye candy of the Web and the marketing dollars of Web site owners helped push people over to profit-making sites. Usenet's slightly arcane access methods and text-only protocols have nothing on the glitz and glamour of MySpace. It is a sad commentary on society that the printed work which has sufficed for thousands of years is no longer good enough. Writing anything is hard work. Most folks are way too lazy to write anything consisting of more than a few words. It is much easier to just send links, pictures and videos. Some of us have the unfair advantage of writing for a living. ... Where would I go to find a Usenet binary newsgroup just to see what they are like? Here is a list on Google: WARNING: While you will not see anything but a listing of groups at the link below, you will note that almost all the binary groups are devoted to explicit sexual content. http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=&q=alt.binaries&start=0&hl=en&. 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. Obviously, people lead lives, converse, and learn on the Internet far more broadly than they did in 1993. But give me a moment's nostalgia for a Net that had one place to go, that everybody knew about, but nobody owned. Maybe this is not a bad thing. The quality of Usenet (excluding the commercial spammers) is actually improved when those who can not use the written word properly head off to web based forums. Even so, I feel strongly that the lack of a moderator means the death of Usenet. Ideally, the moderator should not be a single individual, but rather a board. This would eliminate bias and various other idiosyncrasies. Until the board members loose interest or do not have time to approve messages. Moderating rec.bicycles.off-road killed the group (no new messages in over a year): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.off-road/topics?hl=en. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 by Sascha Segan of PC Magazine 07.31.08
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: ... I have never really looked into a web based message board. Are they really as bad as you say they are? What would be a good one to investigate so I can see what you are talking about? Try http://bentrideronline.com/ and click on "Message Board" at the top right of the home page. You will probably see some names to raise your blood pressure. I do not see all that many names I recognize except for a few. I see Larry Varney is still there there looking as odd and screwy as ever. I also see that Mark Stonich is there. A very dull fellow from the Twin Cities, but smart enough I guess. Here is what Bryant Ball has to say about ARBR under links: "alt.rec.bicycles.recumbents - Once proud recumbent newsgroup. Now mostly full of trolls." Jeez, I wonder who he could be talking about? It is probably an OK website for getting information about recumbents. The message board is worthless. Just chit-chat and extremely dull posts that no one in their right mind would bother reading. Usenet has been dying for years, of course. Some people date Usenet's decline as early as 1993, when millions of AOL users dropped into what was previously a geek paradise. As the '90s went on, the eye candy of the Web and the marketing dollars of Web site owners helped push people over to profit-making sites. Usenet's slightly arcane access methods and text-only protocols have nothing on the glitz and glamour of MySpace. It is a sad commentary on society that the printed work which has sufficed for thousands of years is no longer good enough. Writing anything is hard work. Most folks are way too lazy to write anything consisting of more than a few words. It is much easier to just send links, pictures and videos. Some of us have the unfair advantage of writing for a living. ... Where would I go to find a Usenet binary newsgroup just to see what they are like? Here is a list on Google: WARNING: While you will not see anything but a listing of groups at the link below, you will note that almost all the binary groups are devoted to explicit sexual content. http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=&q=alt.binaries&start=0&hl=en&. Lots of porn 'messages', but many other topics also. But who needs pictures? I will go to the web for those, not Usenet. I think alt.binaries must be mostly for teenagers. It is even more of a mess than the rest of Usenet. By the way, Google Groups should cease archiving Usenet messages. It is all worthless crap. 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. Obviously, people lead lives, converse, and learn on the Internet far more broadly than they did in 1993. But give me a moment's nostalgia for a Net that had one place to go, that everybody knew about, but nobody owned. Maybe this is not a bad thing. The quality of Usenet (excluding the commercial spammers) is actually improved when those who can not use the written word properly head off to web based forums. Even so, I feel strongly that the lack of a moderator means the death of Usenet. Ideally, the moderator should not be a single individual, but rather a board. This would eliminate bias and various other idiosyncrasies. Until the board members loose interest or do not have time to approve messages. Moderating rec.bicycles.off-road killed the group (no new messages in over a year): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.off-road/topics?hl=en. What a laugh that group is. Apparently, the Great Mike Vandeman killed it. It essentially died in late 1999. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
R.I.P Usenet: 1980-2008 by Sascha Segan of PC Magazine 07.31.08
Edward Dolan wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message ... Edward Dolan wrote: ... I have never really looked into a web based message board. Are they really as bad as you say they are? What would be a good one to investigate so I can see what you are talking about? Try http://bentrideronline.com/ and click on "Message Board" at the top right of the home page. You will probably see some names to raise your blood pressure. I do not see all that many names I recognize except for a few. I see Larry Varney is still there there looking as odd and screwy as ever. I also see that Mark Stonich is there. A very dull fellow from the Twin Cities, but smart enough I guess. Mark is the kind of guy you want as a neighbor when you need a custom made part for your recumbent. Here is what Bryant Ball has to say about ARBR under links: "alt.rec.bicycles.recumbents - Once proud recumbent newsgroup. Now mostly full of trolls." Jeez, I wonder who he could be talking about? Bryan (no trailing "t") Ball encouraged people to leave this group. It is probably an OK website for getting information about recumbents. The message board is worthless. Just chit-chat and extremely dull posts that no one in their right mind would bother reading. Anything but dull posts get the thread locked by the moderators and/or the users posting privileges revoked. Fine if you like to self-censor everything you write. ... ... Where would I go to find a Usenet binary newsgroup just to see what they are like? Here is a list on Google: WARNING: While you will not see anything but a listing of groups at the link below, you will note that almost all the binary groups are devoted to explicit sexual content. http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=&q=alt.binaries&start=0&hl=en&. Lots of porn 'messages', but many other topics also. But who needs pictures? I will go to the web for those, not Usenet. I think alt.binaries must be mostly for teenagers. It is even more of a mess than the rest of Usenet. Binary groups have the (dis)advantage of people being able to anonymously post copyrighted and/or "obscene" material. ... Until the board members loose interest or do not have time to approve messages. Moderating rec.bicycles.off-road killed the group (no new messages in over a year): http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.off-road/topics?hl=en. What a laugh that group is. Apparently, the Great Mike Vandeman killed it. It essentially died in late 1999. The moderators become too busy to approve posts, so the regulars left and formed alt.mountain-bike. Somehow, the spammers were able to find a way to post. It does serve as an example that moderating a Usenet group will probably lead to its demise. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia “Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.” |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: 3 days Claud Butler Majestic 1980 BIN $200 | Jim Hultman | Marketplace | 1 | December 20th 06 08:33 AM |
1980 Raleigh Competition GS For Sale | Peter | Marketplace | 0 | September 13th 05 12:54 PM |
1980 Modolo sidepull brake questions | JeffWills | Techniques | 6 | September 11th 05 04:05 AM |
1980 Modolo sidepull brake questions | John Thompson | Techniques | 0 | September 4th 05 06:05 AM |
FS: 24" 1980-81 Trek 610 frameset | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | June 3rd 05 09:41 PM |