What About USENET2? 13
One Who Remembers asks: "In light of the recent death of one of the founders of USENET, here is perhaps a timely question: What ever happened to USENET2?
It seems some old-timers wanted to re-create USENET with some sort of moderation built into it's core. I remember discussion about it back in my USENET days, and I know it came 'on-line'. However, if you look at the USENET2 web site it seems pretty tough to get access to USENET2. Is it worth it? Is USENET2 even alive? You may also want to read this, which is probably the best eulogy for USENET I've ever read." When I first came onto the net, I spent a lot of time on Usenet. It's a lot less than it once was, but I'm still glad to see that it's still going. Maybe that "eulogy" was a bit premature?
Just like the olden days! (Score:2)
But the concept of connecting the older machines is insanely dumb. I know you can probably get boxes for $50 at yard sales and whatnot. But if Linux doesn't apply, you're telling me I have to find an ancient copy of SCO that ran on a 486 with 8 megs of memory, that cost about $500 in 1990 dollars. And was serialized! (And cost a lot more if you wanted networking!)
Re:USENET-0 (Score:2)
So what is the definition of "classic machine" in this context? I'd love to play along, but I suspect I'll have a devil of a time finding a VAX these days :-)
AOL, thanks a lot (Score:2)
Since then, I've imagined a usenet based on the public key infrastructure. Basically you need a signed certificate traceable to a single well known root to post to Usenet. Posts that don't have a valid certificate would not be accepted anywhere along the line.
Spammers would have their certificates revoked instantly. If they continue to get more certificates, then their certifying authority would be revoked.
I can think of two problems with this: first, anonymity would be gone. Second, you'd have to know somebody to get a certificate.
I don't think that a second usenet will every be accepted unless the first one was terminated.
Something similar to MAPS/ORBS? (Score:2)
When I say spammers, I include any person or organization that generates a high volume of electronically generated posts, e.g. headhunters, e-mail marketers, etc.
Feasible? Not feasible? I'm not sure. What do you think?
Pope Felix the Scurrilous.
Re:Mailing lists (Score:3)
Except the distributed and yet centralized nature of usenet. You can flip through groups, casually read them, post without registering and so on - something you can't do on a mailing list. At the same time, the hierarchy shows a remarkable organtic ability against fragmentation. Name a topic, and you can find the one and only one group that discusses and is focused just on that topic. Duplicate group *names* persist, but the traffic migrates to only one group... an interesting statement on human interaction.
--
Evan
USENET-0 (Score:2)
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
Re:Just like the olden days! (Score:2)
Not really; compared with the several different hacks out there such as PUTR ad VTserver, direct transfer between the machines is much more elegant and much less troublesome.
I know you can probably get boxes for $50 at yard sales and whatnot. But if Linux doesn't apply, you're telling me I have to find an ancient copy of SCO that ran on a 486 with 8 megs of memory
I think you've got the wrong idea... I said *classic*, not junk, for gods' sake. We're talking about doing this with our PDP-11s and VAXen, not a bunch of old 486s.
--
SecretAsianMan (54.5% Slashdot pure)
USENET 2 (Score:2)
-OctaneZ
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
Mailing lists (Score:1)
Mailing lists have most of the advantages of Newsgroups while being easy to keep free of spam, address harvesting, and (undesired) automated posts. Add an archive and FTP and you have a total Newsgroup replacement, with none of the downside.
-Peter
Re:Mailing lists (Score:2)
You should have quoted "Mailing lists have most of the advantages of Newsgroups" but then you wouldn't have had a nit to pick, since the things that you mention are clearly things that aren't coverd by that "most."
Unless you consider the features of Newsgroups that you cited to be the downside . . .
-Peter
A little light on content (Score:1)
However, this is only because people aren't joining up and talking. So I would recommend that you still make the effort to find a Usenet II peer as long as you can keep your site 'sound'.
Slashdot (Score:2)
- Hyperbolix
Re:AOL, thanks a lot (Score:1)
Unfortunately when I got to Usenet (1996) it was already well into its decline. Now all that's left is spam. I wonder who they think they're advertising to. Each other?