NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question? - Ubuntu ; What NNTP package is included in ubuntu? INN? http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/inn.html#S1 I know usenet is not as populer as it once was but looking at the many groups some still have decent post counts like this one. I was thinking of building ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65

Thread: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

  1. NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    What NNTP package is included in ubuntu? INN?
    http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/inn.html#S1

    I know usenet is not as populer as it once was but looking at the many
    groups some still have decent post counts like this one. I was thinking of
    building a nntp server inhouse in our private vlans. as a way for user to
    interact and help each other and for techs/geeks to moniter and help. and
    then maybe build out a web base infrastucture all based on NNTP.

    anyone else build NNTP servers for private companys/corps?



    -Nex6

  2. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Nex6 wrote:
    > What NNTP package is included in ubuntu? INN?
    > http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/inn.html#S1
    >
    > I know usenet is not as populer as it once was but looking at the many
    > groups some still have decent post counts like this one. I was
    > thinking of building a nntp server inhouse in our private vlans. as a
    > way for user to interact and help each other and for techs/geeks to
    > moniter and help. and then maybe build out a web base infrastucture
    > all based on NNTP.
    >
    > anyone else build NNTP servers for private companys/corps?
    >
    >
    >
    > -Nex6



    Yes. I have created several INN servers, and still have one running
    online ( news://brisbee.us ), plus several that ran RumorMill on a Mac.

    (See the following Section 5.4 anchor at your linked site at
    http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/inn.html#S5.4 )

    INN is not an easy NNTP server to configure. It is very complicated with
    the many components, but it runs forever once it is set up correctly.

    There are several newsgroups ( news://news.software.nntp is the main one
    for INN) and a mailing list for when you need help.

    --
    John

    No Microsoft products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  3. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Thanks,

    I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups are
    very deminished as far as traffic goes. and thought an internal only nntp
    server would slove alot of issues at once.

    on that note,


    this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects have
    usenet based groups?

    and is usenet still going to be arround for awhile? and the software still
    supported?


    -Nex6


  4. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Nex6 wrote:
    > Thanks,
    >
    > I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups
    > are very deminished as far as traffic goes. and thought an internal
    > only nntp server would slove alot of issues at once.
    >
    > on that note,
    >
    >
    > this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects
    > have usenet based groups?
    >
    > and is usenet still going to be arround for awhile? and the software
    > still supported?
    >
    >
    > -Nex6



    Allow me to gaze into my crystal ball....

    I see a vast majority of computer users knowing only how to use the Web,
    not only for Websites, but also for e-mail, and if they do use netnews,
    even that.

    These n00bs are not like the original pioneers, the same people that
    used the CLI instead of the GUI. N00bs usually don't know what a real
    e-mail client is, and definitely haven't even heard of NNTP.

    They evidentially enjoy wasting their time trying to search through
    Web-based e-mail and news, trying to follow some type of threading if it
    even exists.

    I can't stand Web-based e-mail or news. I also can't stand IRC or
    mailing lists. My opinion is NNTP netnews is THE place for discussion
    groups.

    But I'm not a dictator, and realize it's different strokes for different
    folks.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  5. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:34:24 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:

    > Nex6 wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups
    >> are very deminished as far as traffic goes. and thought an internal
    >> only nntp server would slove alot of issues at once.
    >>
    >> on that note,
    >>
    >> this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects
    >> have usenet based groups?
    >>
    >> and is usenet still going to be arround for awhile? and the software
    >> still supported?

    >
    > Allow me to gaze into my crystal ball....
    >
    > I see a vast majority of computer users knowing only how to use the Web,
    > not only for Websites, but also for e-mail, and if they do use netnews,
    > even that.
    >
    > These n00bs are not like the original pioneers, the same people that
    > used the CLI instead of the GUI. N00bs usually don't know what a real
    > e-mail client is, and definitely haven't even heard of NNTP.
    >
    > They evidentially enjoy wasting their time trying to search through
    > Web-based e-mail and news, trying to follow some type of threading if it
    > even exists.
    >
    > I can't stand Web-based e-mail or news. I also can't stand IRC or
    > mailing lists. My opinion is NNTP netnews is THE place for discussion
    > groups.
    >
    > But I'm not a dictator, and realize it's different strokes for different
    > folks.


    Try crossposting between web-forums. Heh.

    --

    Usenet is a strange place.

    < Dennis M. Ritchie



  6. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?


    "mimus" wrote in message
    news:bYOdnTTUX6PmTHvbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    > On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:34:24 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> Nex6 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thanks,
    >>>
    >>> I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups
    >>> are very deminished as far as traffic goes. and thought an internal
    >>> only nntp server would slove alot of issues at once.
    >>>
    >>> on that note,
    >>>
    >>> this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects
    >>> have usenet based groups?
    >>>
    >>> and is usenet still going to be arround for awhile? and the software
    >>> still supported?

    >>
    >> Allow me to gaze into my crystal ball....
    >>
    >> I see a vast majority of computer users knowing only how to use the Web,
    >> not only for Websites, but also for e-mail, and if they do use netnews,
    >> even that.
    >>
    >> These n00bs are not like the original pioneers, the same people that
    >> used the CLI instead of the GUI. N00bs usually don't know what a real
    >> e-mail client is, and definitely haven't even heard of NNTP.
    >>
    >> They evidentially enjoy wasting their time trying to search through
    >> Web-based e-mail and news, trying to follow some type of threading if it
    >> even exists.
    >>
    >> I can't stand Web-based e-mail or news. I also can't stand IRC or
    >> mailing lists. My opinion is NNTP netnews is THE place for discussion
    >> groups.
    >>
    >> But I'm not a dictator, and realize it's different strokes for different
    >> folks.

    >
    > Try crossposting between web-forums. Heh.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Usenet is a strange place.
    >
    > < Dennis M. Ritchie
    >
    >






    well, your powers are strong,


    and with google grooups and microsoft nntp groups and microsoft doing there
    online support via the usenet, maybe nntp/usenet will not only stay arround
    but thrive.
    but who knows. and maybe if more OSS projects supported a usenet presence...






    -Nex6




  7. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:33:52 -0700, Nex6 wrote:

    > "mimus" wrote in message
    > news:bYOdnTTUX6PmTHvbnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@giganews.com ...
    >
    >> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:34:24 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>> Nex6 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Thanks,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups
    >>>> are very deminished as far as traffic goes. and thought an internal
    >>>> only nntp server would slove alot of issues at once.
    >>>>
    >>>> on that note,
    >>>>
    >>>> this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects
    >>>> have usenet based groups?
    >>>>
    >>>> and is usenet still going to be arround for awhile? and the software
    >>>> still supported?
    >>>
    >>> Allow me to gaze into my crystal ball....
    >>>
    >>> I see a vast majority of computer users knowing only how to use the Web,
    >>> not only for Websites, but also for e-mail, and if they do use netnews,
    >>> even that.
    >>>
    >>> These n00bs are not like the original pioneers, the same people that
    >>> used the CLI instead of the GUI. N00bs usually don't know what a real
    >>> e-mail client is, and definitely haven't even heard of NNTP.
    >>>
    >>> They evidentially enjoy wasting their time trying to search through
    >>> Web-based e-mail and news, trying to follow some type of threading if it
    >>> even exists.
    >>>
    >>> I can't stand Web-based e-mail or news. I also can't stand IRC or
    >>> mailing lists. My opinion is NNTP netnews is THE place for discussion
    >>> groups.
    >>>
    >>> But I'm not a dictator, and realize it's different strokes for different
    >>> folks.

    >>
    >> Try crossposting between web-forums. Heh.

    >
    > well, your powers are strong,


    The routing algorithm's supposed to be nuke-proof, too . . . .

    > and with google grooups and microsoft nntp groups and microsoft doing
    > there online support via the usenet, maybe nntp/usenet will not only
    > stay arround but thrive.
    > but who knows. and maybe if more OSS projects supported a usenet
    > presence...




    Based on the observation that news.*, comp.* and alt.binaries.* will be
    the last to go, I've already developed a last-ditch scheme whereby
    everybody moves to the binaries group of their choice and includes
    yEnced binaries in their .sigs.

    --

    This is a feature, not a bug.

    < The fetchmail FAQ


  8. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
    , Nex6 wrote:

    >"mimus" wrote


    >>John F. Morse wrote:


    >>> Nex6 wrote:


    >>>> I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many groups
    >>>> are very deminished as far as traffic goes.


    1H 2003 2H 1H 2004 2H 1H 2005 2H 1H 2006 2H 1H07
    comp.os.linux.hardware 7827 6969 5795 4511 4211 3019 3410 3323 2490
    comp.os.linux.misc 18310 20195 18747 15349 15236 18409 18265 14150 12625
    comp.os.linux.networking 11668 10318 8849 6072 7717 5179 4716 4110 3019
    comp.os.linux.setup 7796 6481 5680 4479 4586 4263 3467 2669 2073
    news.software.readers 11637 13705 11813 8069 8382 10274 8368 6952 7179

    Yes, the trend is down. One reason c.o.l.m hasn't shown as much of a decrease
    is that it's a frequent target of trolls. This is one reason why some are
    using newsreader killfiles to block posts from groups.google.com (as one
    example).

    >>>> this group seems to be pretty active, why doesnt more OSS projects
    >>>> have usenet based groups?


    [compton ~]$ grep -c ^comp.os.linux .newsrc
    30
    [compton ~]$ grep -c comp.os.linux .newsrc
    116
    [compton ~]$ grep -c ^alt..*linux .newsrc
    96
    [compton ~]$ grep -c alt..*linux .newsrc
    104
    [compton ~]$ grep -cw linux .newsrc
    1089
    [compton ~]$ grep -cw bsd .newsrc
    49
    [compton ~]$ wc -l .newsrc
    107171 .newsrc
    [compton ~]$

    I dunno - maybe it depends on the news server you are tapping into. To
    set things straight, the monthly listing of valid "Big Eight" newsgroups
    only lists 17 Linux groups:

    [compton ~]$ zgrep linux ../big.8.list.08.15.07.gz | cut -f1 | column
    comp.os.linux.advocacy comp.os.linux.misc
    comp.os.linux.alpha comp.os.linux.networking
    comp.os.linux.announce comp.os.linux.portable
    comp.os.linux.answers comp.os.linux.powerpc
    comp.os.linux.development.apps comp.os.linux.security
    comp.os.linux.development.system comp.os.linux.setup
    comp.os.linux.embedded comp.os.linux.x
    comp.os.linux.hardware comp.os.linux.xbox
    comp.os.linux.m68k
    [compton ~]$

    and a few of those are virtually dead.

    >>> Allow me to gaze into my crystal ball....
    >>>
    >>> I see a vast majority of computer users knowing only how to use the Web,
    >>> not only for Websites, but also for e-mail, and if they do use netnews,
    >>> even that.


    There's another Interweb application besides LookOut Excess or Intersnot
    Exploiter???

    >>> But I'm not a dictator, and realize it's different strokes for different
    >>> folks.


    You have to understand that a lot of users are at (and perhaps beyond)
    their skill limits just trying to find the power switch on the computer.

    >> Try crossposting between web-forums. Heh.


    There are a vast number of other places on the net - for example on the
    news server I'm using, there are 325 "newsgroups" whose names begin with
    the word 'linux'. Nearly all of them are mirrors of mailing lists.

    >> Usenet is a strange place.
    >>
    >> < Dennis M. Ritchie


    --------
    Usenet is one of those "Good News/Bad News" comedy routines.

    Half the world is composed of people who have something to say and can't,
    and the other half who have nothing to say and keep on saying it.

    Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
    typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare.
    --------

    >and with google grooups and microsoft nntp groups and microsoft doing there
    >online support via the usenet, maybe nntp/usenet will not only stay arround
    >but thrive.


    With google groups, I'm seeing a growing reaction by the more experienced
    readers to killfile _all_ postings. I haven't quite reached that state
    yet (only killfiling google posts in six of the 84 Usenet groups I try to
    scan daily). As for microsoft, I use a blanket kill of any group with the
    string 'microsoft' or 'windows' in the group name (just as I do for the
    string 'advocacy'). I don't find anything of interest in those groups
    (there are over 4500 on the news server I use), and except for a single
    MS Mouse (series 2.0 from 1988) don't have anything in the house from
    Redmond.

    >and maybe if more OSS projects supported a usenet presence...


    Define "projects". If you mean applications, or even specific Linux
    distributions, I think that may be counter-productive. Look again at
    how many newsgroups are on the larger news servers. Heck, most people
    can't even _find_ a list of newsgroups that their server offers. How do
    you expect them to find an application or distribution specific group?

    Old guy

  9. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    In Moe Trin:

    [Snip...]

    > skill limits just trying to find the power switch on the computer


    What they want is an appliance, and there's certainly nothing "wrong" with
    that. But Linux isn't an appliance, although it can be *used* in one.

    [Snip...]

    > reaction by the more experienced readers to killfile _all_ postings.




    I haven't seen lunatic spews like GoogleGropers since H*pcr*me and Bl*xy.

    And like all the spews, I keep telling myself This Too Shall Pass...

    [Snip...]

    > MS Mouse (series 2.0 from 1988) don't have anything in the house from
    > Redmond.


    Hey, check out this answer in search of a question:

    Press Release Source: Microsoft Corp.

    Microsoft Unveils First Notebook Mouse With 1 GB of Flash Memory Built
    Into Transceiver
    Wednesday September 12, 9:00 am ET

    Full story:

    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070912/aqw054.html?.v=25

    --
    Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
    Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
    Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
    Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

  10. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Moe Trin illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > <...>
    > With google groups, I'm seeing a growing reaction by the more experienced
    > readers to killfile _all_ postings. I haven't quite reached that state
    > yet (only killfiling google posts in six of the 84 Usenet groups I try to
    > scan daily).


    Google Groups is simply the new AOL.

    What goes around comes around. I remember deja being the "darling"
    as it gave browser posting access to newsgroups. Oh, how little did we
    know.

    Anyway, just to bring a little fun into it, why not try the AOLer.
    It may bring back some memories.
    http://ssshotaru.homestead.com/files...ranslator.html
    It's a work of pure genius and can always come in handy for taking the
    piss out of trolls and GGers.

    For instance everything I've written above is translated as......

    "GOGLE GROUPS SI SIMPLEY TEH NU WUT!1!!!!!!! OMG GOES AROUND COMES
    AROUND!1!!1 WTF LOL I RAMEMBR D3JA BNG TEH DARLNG
    AS IT GAEV BROWSER POSTNG ACAS 2 NEWSGROUPS!!!!11! LOL O HOW LITLE DID
    WE KNOW
    ANYWAY!!11! LOL JUST 2 BRNG A LITLA FUN IN2 IT Y NOT TRY TEH AOLA2R
    IT!!!11! LOL MAY BRNG BAK SOME M3MOREIS
    HTP/SSHOTARUHOM3STEADCOM/FIELS/AOLERTRANSLA2RHTML
    ITS!11!!1!!! OMG WTF A WORK OF PURE G3NIUS AND CAN ALWAYS COMA IN
    HANDY FOR TAKNG THA
    PIS OUT OF TROLS AND GARS!1!11 OMG WTF LOL"

    Not too different from a googlegroper now, is it?
    ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
    leather straps."

  11. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
    , Harold Stevens wrote:

    >In Moe Trin:


    >> skill limits just trying to find the power switch on the computer

    >
    >What they want is an appliance, and there's certainly nothing "wrong"
    >with that. But Linux isn't an appliance, although it can be *used* in
    >one.


    There are a vast number of .sigs I've seen about this. Probably most
    apropos is the "Linux is not for people whose VCR is blinking 12:00"

    >> reaction by the more experienced readers to killfile _all_ postings.

    >
    >


    I've started including the following at the start of responses I make
    to those posting from google:

    NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
    reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

    and some people have been responding saying that _they_ haven't seen
    a problem posting from there. Or expressing disbelief. For an example
    of the latter, see the thread "How can it be: cannot login as root when
    connected directly , but can login from other machines!" from Friday
    in the Usenet group 'comp.os.linux.setup'.

    >I haven't seen lunatic spews like GoogleGropers since H*pcr*me and Bl*xy.


    What finally triggered it for me was some troll who has been spewing in
    c.o.l.m with garbage ads purporting to come from a Chinese vendor of
    athletic shoes, pr0n, and windoze mal-ware. Quite off-topic for that
    group (which even has a specific charter), but repeated complaints
    by many to the google abuse address result in auto-replies from an
    ignore-bot.

    >And like all the spews, I keep telling myself This Too Shall Pass...


    [compton ~]$ sep_date
    Today is 5126 September, 1993 UTC
    [compton ~]$

    I'm still waiting.

    >Hey, check out this answer in search of a question:


    > Microsoft Unveils First Notebook Mouse With 1 GB of Flash Memory Built
    > Into Transceiver


    > With the added convenience of 1 GB of storage in the mouse transceiver,
    > users can easily store the information they need on the go -- whether
    > it's their favorite photos, PowerPoint presentations or even music
    > files.


    Oh, so the DRM rootkit is built right in. Great. And some people wonder
    why we don't have company systems going walkies, and by company decree,
    ALL boxes that have been outside the building get a wipe and reload when
    they return. No, the market-driods don't work out of engineering or
    research facilities, so that's not a problem. As I've mentioned several
    times in the past, we do not allow ANY non-company owned systems in our
    facilities (yes, it is a termination offense, and in a very few cases can
    be a [US] federal felony).

    Old guy

  12. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Moe Trin wrote:
    > Nex6 wrote:
    >> "mimus" wrote
    >>> John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>> Nex6 wrote:

    >
    >>>>> I have used usenet on and off for years but have noticed many
    >>>>> groups are very deminished as far as traffic goes.

    >
    > 1H 2003 2H 1H 2004 2H 1H 2005 2H 1H 2006 2H 1H07
    > comp.os.linux.hardware 7827 6969 5795 4511 4211 3019 3410 3323 2490
    > comp.os.linux.misc 18310 20195 18747 15349 15236 18409 18265 14150 12625
    > comp.os.linux.networking 11668 10318 8849 6072 7717 5179 4716 4110 3019
    > comp.os.linux.setup 7796 6481 5680 4479 4586 4263 3467 2669 2073
    > news.software.readers 11637 13705 11813 8069 8382 10274 8368 6952 7179
    >
    > Yes, the trend is down. One reason c.o.l.m hasn't shown as much of
    > a decrease is that it's a frequent target of trolls. This is one
    > reason why some are using newsreader killfiles to block posts from
    > groups.google.com (as one example).


    I have no such detailed examples, but day in and day out
    comp.lang.c seems to exceed 100 messages, which would work out to
    about 20,000 per half. Comp.arch.embedded has about 1/3 that
    traffic (6000 per half) while comp.programming has less than 1/7
    the c.l.c level, or about 3000 per half. Comp.lang.pascal.* seems
    to have dropped off to almost zero. They are all fairly troll free.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On 2007-09-13, Moe Trin wrote:
    > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007, in the Usenet newsgroup alt.os.linux.ubuntu, in article
    >, Harold Stevens wrote:
    >>What they want is an appliance,

    >
    > There are a vast number of .sigs I've seen about this. Probably most
    > apropos is the "Linux is not for people whose VCR is blinking 12:00"


    damn ... i have to give Shuttleworth all his bytes back now ... no wait! I
    don't have a vcr - its the nuke-it appliance clock that's always blinking!

    --
    l'air du temps


  14. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:02:46 -0400, Kimbelyn wrote:

    > i picked up and started using my first linux distribution in 1996, a
    > time when there were no wizards, and the install program was nothing
    > more than copying packaged files to a certain location. leaving you to
    > do the rest. it took quite some time to learn this and get everything
    > working and setup perfectly the way i wanted it to be, but i got it
    > done. this was a time when reading documentation was the only way to get
    > things done.


    With Gentoo you can still recreate exactly that experience, only the
    kernel version has been changed to protect innocent hardware involved.

  15. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > The discussion is about NNTP, not GUI v. CLI, nor about n00bs, which
    > possibly seems like a derogatory label by you?


    you brought it up. your post seemed to indicate that you use what you
    use and that anyone doesnt is a "n00b". this is an open and free world,
    there are many people and each person has their own idea of what things
    should be like and their own things that they like and enjoy. just
    because they do not agree or use what you do, doesnt make them any less
    of a person.

    no, 'n00b' is not derogatory to me, it is a perfectly valid label for
    those that may be completely new to something. however, your post
    indicated that by using a gui or not using a "real email client", that
    you are in fact a 'n00b'. im merely pointing out that your use is
    completely incorrect. being new and using certain applications to
    accomplish your goal are not even in the same category of grouping. im
    not sure where you got that idea.

    > May I ask just how much do you consider your paid dues to be? Do you
    > believe you can have it so "it just works" without some kind of
    > assistance on your part?


    thats exactly what i believe. as i said earlier, i came into linux when
    it was still very young...although i do admit not young enough. i would
    have loved to have seen it earlier. i think my first version was redhat
    5 or slackware 3 i think it was, running the 2.0.3X kernel series. i did
    so on a p200 w/96mb of ram and a pair of 4gb drives, hooked up to the
    internet through a blazing 14.4k modem.

    back then stuff didnt just work. slackware i downloaded and installed
    via the floppy system, since thats all i had available...some 20 or more
    floppies if i recall correctly. quite a pain. after installation you
    were left on your own. other than booting up to the console...nothing
    just worked. you had to install the kernel source, then read the docs to
    figure out how to get into make menuconfig to configure the kernel then
    build it and copy that kernel image over to /boot and update LILO to
    read in the new image before rebooting. then you prayed not only that
    your system came back up without issue, but that you chose the right
    options for the hardware support you needed. once done you then had to
    figure out what user land application to install to control that piece
    of hardware and hope it wasnt to hard to figure out ala minicom for
    dialup (that was fun...not).

    from there i guess you're free to spend hours or more downloading and
    installing X11R5 and playing with its lovely command line config program
    to try and figure out what you needed to get your display working under
    X...assuming you wanted a gui that is.

    point is, this old style of computing and the early days of linux
    even...it could take days or weeks to get everything setup just the way
    you wanted it to be setup and for everything to work...assuming you had
    compatible hardware. people these days, myself included, are tired of
    it. most people just want to buy a computer, take it home, plug it in,
    power it on, and get to work. personally i still build my own, but its
    the same concept. i buy the hardware i need, it comes to my house, i put
    it together, and from there i want to just be able to pop a cd in,
    install the OS or OS's, and get to playing games/surfing the net/reading
    email/reading news, etc.

    the state of linux these days make this possible. as stated earlier, i
    believe that i have gone through enough with linux and learned a great
    deal. that information i still retain, but i feel that i have earned my
    right to use what i use without being classified by some elitist as a
    'n00b' simply because my choice is graphical and not command line based.

    though...you are FREE to think what you will just like i am...and the
    next person, and the next person, and so on. if you wish to think those
    of us that havent used a "real email client" or use gui's are
    'n00bs'...then so be it.

    by the way, im curious as to what exactly a real email client is? ...and
    no, im not being smart...just curious. as i hope you have picked up i
    *do* love to learn. i do so much enjoy about learning about computing
    history and the software/hardware that they used in the past. i would
    love to see how email used to look and worked.

    > After all, you did pay for your Windows OS, and it certainly is not a
    > "free ride."
    >


    i pay for what i use if i find it useful to me to show my support for
    all the hardwork that has gone into that application or OS. yes, i have
    bought windows and i am not afraid nor ashamed to say it. windows xp is
    a really solid operating system. by the same token, i have purchased
    many linux cd's as well to show my support for the distro's i have
    supported over the years. i will continue to do both as i see fit.

    you were right, however, in that this discussion *was* about
    nntp...however, you changed the subject and i responded. in my opinion
    that is how discussion works. people post, people respond, people
    sometimes get offtopic, and people respond to those offtopic posts.

    welcome to usenet. enjoy your stay.

    kim <3
    http://www.thezengarden.net/blog

  16. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Nex6 wrote:
    > well said,
    >
    > I happen to like usenet, tho I also use many web forums. and I think
    > NNTP will stay arround for awhile. tho it will be less and less of its
    > former self.
    > like for Eamil, I used to use Mutt, now I tend to use mostly
    > thunderbird, tho sometimes evolution. i still use mutt for system mail
    > and such tho.
    >
    > I personally think it would great if maybe NNTP under went a review, and
    > maybe was updated to a NNTPv2 kind of thing and things could be
    > addressed. just my thoughts....
    >
    >
    >
    > -Nex6


    sorry for the bit of a hijack, nex6.

    anyways, my opinion on usenet is a bit different. i think the
    infrastructure is actually fine the way it is. there are also a great
    number of clients to interface with it to accommodate just about every
    ones way of working with it. i personally like it the way it is.

    i can, for instance, ssh into my computer at home and run tin or slrn
    and participate in a nice little window from work. once i get home i can
    launch thunderbird/pan/etc and participate with a nice pretty gui. i can
    also head over to groups.google.com if i am busy and post a quick
    message without having to launch either my newsreader or ssh into a
    machine to launch a newsreader for a quick bit of help if i need it.

    this is what makes usenet so great. you can post from pretty much
    everywhere and everything. it is completely os and hardware independent
    (save for the server software of course) so that you can participate
    from virtually any decide from anywhere in the world.

    i can not offhand think of any other such application or discussion
    method that can do this much and get the message out to so many people
    at the same time.

    even in these days of web forums (phpBB and the like), usenet is still
    going strong because of this support. web forums are great...for web
    browsers...otherwise it just isnt the same.

    there could be some revisions im sure, but im not sure or i cant think
    of anything that could really be added to make it better. the only thing
    i can think of is on the server software front. as mentioned previously
    inn is a monster from what i understand, as i have never personally used
    it...i can only go by what i've heard over the years. i do run leafnode
    at home as a proxy and local cache. leafnode is very simple to
    setup...but it pulls from a parent server. from what you described, you
    need your own server....which is where my point is going. i think what
    we need is better server applications with easy to configure options.

    several server applications have gone to an apache style config, like
    proftpd for instance, and i think something like that would be great and
    useful. just about anyone who plays with unix/linux at some point plays
    with apache and gets familiar with its style of config. i personally
    would love to see more daemons go to that style of setup...especially a
    new server. it would definitely be one more toy that i'd have time to
    play with then.

    kim <3
    http://www.thezengarden.net/blog

  17. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Kimbelyn wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> The discussion is about NNTP, not GUI v. CLI, nor about n00bs, which
    >> possibly seems like a derogatory label by you?

    >
    > you brought it up. your post seemed to indicate that you use what you
    > use and that anyone doesnt is a "n00b". this is an open and free
    > world, there are many people and each person has their own idea of
    > what things should be like and their own things that they like and
    > enjoy. just because they do not agree or use what you do, doesnt make
    > them any less of a person.
    >
    > no, 'n00b' is not derogatory to me, it is a perfectly valid label for
    > those that may be completely new to something. however, your post
    > indicated that by using a gui or not using a "real email client", that
    > you are in fact a 'n00b'. im merely pointing out that your use is
    > completely incorrect. being new and using certain applications to
    > accomplish your goal are not even in the same category of grouping. im
    > not sure where you got that idea.
    >
    >> May I ask just how much do you consider your paid dues to be? Do you
    >> believe you can have it so "it just works" without some kind of
    >> assistance on your part?

    >
    > thats exactly what i believe. as i said earlier, i came into linux
    > when it was still very young...although i do admit not young enough. i
    > would have loved to have seen it earlier. i think my first version was
    > redhat 5 or slackware 3 i think it was, running the 2.0.3X kernel
    > series. i did so on a p200 w/96mb of ram and a pair of 4gb drives,
    > hooked up to the internet through a blazing 14.4k modem.
    >
    > back then stuff didnt just work. slackware i downloaded and installed
    > via the floppy system, since thats all i had available...some 20 or
    > more floppies if i recall correctly. quite a pain. after installation
    > you were left on your own. other than booting up to the
    > console...nothing just worked. you had to install the kernel source,
    > then read the docs to figure out how to get into make menuconfig to
    > configure the kernel then build it and copy that kernel image over to
    > /boot and update LILO to read in the new image before rebooting. then
    > you prayed not only that your system came back up without issue, but
    > that you chose the right options for the hardware support you needed.
    > once done you then had to figure out what user land application to
    > install to control that piece of hardware and hope it wasnt to hard to
    > figure out ala minicom for dialup (that was fun...not).
    >
    > from there i guess you're free to spend hours or more downloading and
    > installing X11R5 and playing with its lovely command line config
    > program to try and figure out what you needed to get your display
    > working under X...assuming you wanted a gui that is.
    >
    > point is, this old style of computing and the early days of linux
    > even...it could take days or weeks to get everything setup just the
    > way you wanted it to be setup and for everything to work...assuming
    > you had compatible hardware. people these days, myself included, are
    > tired of it. most people just want to buy a computer, take it home,
    > plug it in, power it on, and get to work. personally i still build my
    > own, but its the same concept. i buy the hardware i need, it comes to
    > my house, i put it together, and from there i want to just be able to
    > pop a cd in, install the OS or OS's, and get to playing games/surfing
    > the net/reading email/reading news, etc.
    >
    > the state of linux these days make this possible. as stated earlier, i
    > believe that i have gone through enough with linux and learned a great
    > deal. that information i still retain, but i feel that i have earned
    > my right to use what i use without being classified by some elitist as
    > a 'n00b' simply because my choice is graphical and not command line
    > based.
    >
    > though...you are FREE to think what you will just like i am...and the
    > next person, and the next person, and so on. if you wish to think
    > those of us that havent used a "real email client" or use gui's are
    > 'n00bs'...then so be it.
    >
    > by the way, im curious as to what exactly a real email client is?
    > ...and no, im not being smart...just curious. as i hope you have
    > picked up i *do* love to learn. i do so much enjoy about learning
    > about computing history and the software/hardware that they used in
    > the past. i would love to see how email used to look and worked.
    >
    >> After all, you did pay for your Windows OS, and it certainly is not a
    >> "free ride."
    >>

    >
    > i pay for what i use if i find it useful to me to show my support for
    > all the hardwork that has gone into that application or OS. yes, i
    > have bought windows and i am not afraid nor ashamed to say it. windows
    > xp is a really solid operating system. by the same token, i have
    > purchased many linux cd's as well to show my support for the distro's
    > i have supported over the years. i will continue to do both as i see fit.
    >
    > you were right, however, in that this discussion *was* about
    > nntp...however, you changed the subject and i responded. in my opinion
    > that is how discussion works. people post, people respond, people
    > sometimes get offtopic, and people respond to those offtopic posts.
    >
    > welcome to usenet. enjoy your stay.
    >
    > kim <3
    > http://www.thezengarden.net/blog



    Thanks for welcoming me. However I've been using USENET since it was
    invented. I've even been running my own NNTP servers since 1999, and
    BBSes since 1978.

    I have Red Hat 5.2 on one of my 50 PCs, but it certainly isn't a Pentium
    200. It is a lowly 486SLC-33. Nor does its 16 MB of RAM compare to your
    96 MB, nor does its 430 MB HDD compare to your pair of 4 GB HDDs (you
    specified 4 gb, but I will give you credit). You are way ahead of me on
    this Red Hat install!

    I don't know why you decided to jump in here and attack what I said.
    However, since you apparently didn't focus on the issue, let me again
    state it: NNTP.

    Not GUI v. CLI, etc.

    You want to know what a "real" e-mail client or news client is? Let me
    refer you back to the original message. Look for the mention of "not
    Web-based" for the clue.

    Nothing was derogatory about GUI, and if you would look at my message
    header you would see I am using Thunderbird.

    I don't intend to get into an argument with you or anybody about your or
    their preferred choices. This is a help group, and not an advocacy
    group. Someone asked a question about NNTP software, and I simply stated
    my thoughts in a roundabout way that a "browser" is not NNTP software.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  18. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > I don't intend to get into an argument with you or anybody about your or
    > their preferred choices. This is a help group, and not an advocacy
    > group. Someone asked a question about NNTP software, and I simply stated
    > my thoughts in a roundabout way that a "browser" is not NNTP software.


    i didnt mean to come off attacking you, just stating my own opinion in
    response to your opinion. however, i still have to disagree. a browser
    can be mail/nntp software as you can use a web based method of
    interfacing with it; ie: gmail/google groups. these are perfectly valid
    methods. this is why we have a server/client software model for such
    things. one server can serve any number of different clients provided
    they follow the server's protocol's.

    ....and i wasnt advocating anything. it appeared (keyword) that you were
    advocating that method X was the only method, and method Y was invalid.
    if i read this wrong i apologize.

    kim <3
    http://www.thezengarden.net/blog

  19. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?


    "Kimbelyn" wrote in message
    news:u9cor4-5ro.ln1@kansai.thezengarden.net...
    > Nex6 wrote:
    >> well said,
    >>
    >> I happen to like usenet, tho I also use many web forums. and I think
    >> NNTP will stay arround for awhile. tho it will be less and less of its
    >> former self.
    >> like for Eamil, I used to use Mutt, now I tend to use mostly thunderbird,
    >> tho sometimes evolution. i still use mutt for system mail and such tho.
    >>
    >> I personally think it would great if maybe NNTP under went a review, and
    >> maybe was updated to a NNTPv2 kind of thing and things could be
    >> addressed. just my thoughts....
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> -Nex6

    >
    > sorry for the bit of a hijack, nex6.
    >
    > anyways, my opinion on usenet is a bit different. i think the
    > infrastructure is actually fine the way it is. there are also a great
    > number of clients to interface with it to accommodate just about every
    > ones way of working with it. i personally like it the way it is.
    >
    > i can, for instance, ssh into my computer at home and run tin or slrn and
    > participate in a nice little window from work. once i get home i can
    > launch thunderbird/pan/etc and participate with a nice pretty gui. i can
    > also head over to groups.google.com if i am busy and post a quick message
    > without having to launch either my newsreader or ssh into a machine to
    > launch a newsreader for a quick bit of help if i need it.
    >
    > this is what makes usenet so great. you can post from pretty much
    > everywhere and everything. it is completely os and hardware independent
    > (save for the server software of course) so that you can participate from
    > virtually any decide from anywhere in the world.
    >
    > i can not offhand think of any other such application or discussion method
    > that can do this much and get the message out to so many people at the
    > same time.
    >
    > even in these days of web forums (phpBB and the like), usenet is still
    > going strong because of this support. web forums are great...for web
    > browsers...otherwise it just isnt the same.
    >
    > there could be some revisions im sure, but im not sure or i cant think of
    > anything that could really be added to make it better. the only thing i
    > can think of is on the server software front. as mentioned previously inn
    > is a monster from what i understand, as i have never personally used
    > it...i can only go by what i've heard over the years. i do run leafnode at
    > home as a proxy and local cache. leafnode is very simple to setup...but it
    > pulls from a parent server. from what you described, you need your own
    > server....which is where my point is going. i think what we need is better
    > server applications with easy to configure options.
    >
    > several server applications have gone to an apache style config, like
    > proftpd for instance, and i think something like that would be great and
    > useful. just about anyone who plays with unix/linux at some point plays
    > with apache and gets familiar with its style of config. i personally would
    > love to see more daemons go to that style of setup...especially a new
    > server. it would definitely be one more toy that i'd have time to play
    > with then.
    >
    > kim <3
    > http://www.thezengarden.net/blog


    Naah, it's not a hijack...


    lots of good opinions and information.


    -Nex6


  20. Re: NNTP/Usenet Infrastructure / software question?

    Kimbelyn wrote:
    > i didnt mean to come off attacking you, just stating my own opinion in
    > response to your opinion. however, i still have to disagree. a browser
    > can be mail/nntp software as you can use a web based method of
    > interfacing with it; ie: gmail/google groups. these are perfectly
    > valid methods. this is why we have a server/client software model for
    > such things. one server can serve any number of different clients
    > provided they follow the server's protocol's.



    Web servers use HTTP, and the corresponding user client is called a Web
    "browser." (Firefox/Iceweasel, Mozilla, IE, Opera, etc.)

    Netnews (USENET) uses NNTP, and e-mail uses SMTP, POP3, IMAP, etc.
    Someone tying NNTP into a Web interface (server) ends the NNTP and
    starts the HTTP.

    You certainly can transmit intelligence via the Web, using HTTP, but my
    point was that a "real" news client (Thunderbird/Icedove, Pan, Agent,
    SLRN, etc.) does a much better job handling messages.

    News and mail clients were designed for messages, not just only for
    displaying them, but also for sorting, threading, replying, scoring,
    filtering, attachments, filing, encrypting, etc.

    The Web was designed for, or has become a platform for, mainly pictures.
    It is, as I stated earlier, where all of the n00bs seem to start out,
    and they remain there without exploring the real news and mail clients.
    Or a real FTP client.

    On the Web, you get what the Webmaster or owner of the Web server wants
    you to see, whether it is the truth or a lie. With NNTP and SMTP, you
    "should" get exactly what the originating sender/author wants to show
    you, and more importantly, they "should" see exactly what you wanted
    them to see.

    You and I are here. We understand these things, but the people reading
    this group, "us," are but a tiny minority of all computer users. Most of
    those don't know the Web is not the same as the Internet, nor that both
    words are proper nouns and should be capitalized.

    You'll need to think outside of our forest to see just how few our trees
    are. ;-)


    > ...and i wasnt advocating anything. it appeared (keyword) that you
    > were advocating that method X was the only method, and method Y was
    > invalid. if i read this wrong i apologize.



    Don't know if I stated it that way or not, so let's just agree that a
    certain method might be the only way for my personal preferences. I'm
    not stuck on any methods as I use many, but I do have my preferences for
    certain tasks.

    For instance, I do check one ISP mailbox using a browser because their
    Webmail interface has an easy method to delete spam they have trapped.
    Other ISP and local mail server accounts are downloaded with a "real"
    mail client (usually Thunderbird), as well as the one mentioned if there
    is a valid message in the mailbox.


    --
    John
    No Microsoft products were used in the preparation or transmission of
    this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to
    tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human
    being, who wants me to know what I can do.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast