suport level for sonic's usenet news server?

[kgc]

No, we're still keeping it running. What we tried to make clear is that when it gives up the ghost (hardware failure or complete software related melt-down) that we won't fix it.

[gp1628]

Im an old UseNet user, and fairly addicted to newsgroups now (Im so old that I still see a difference between the two)

I wouldnt mind if Sonic went text-only on news if it had to.

Gandalf Parker

[ankh]

> old
Older, and ditto.

[kieran]

UseNet is text-only, by definition. I think what Gandalf means is no binary groups, i.e. actual discussion groups only. The binary groups are also text only too, but host tons more text because said texts are converted binaries, not discussions.

I remember the days when "netiquette" dictated that you not include all the responses in your response (only those parts that were critical to your points) in order to "save bandwidth"... LOL. As if discussion topics ever come even close to the bandwidth usage of binary posts.

Personally I use both discussion groups and binary groups.... about equally (in time, not in bandwidth). I would love to see Sonic maintain both, but understand their situation. Not sure what I'll do when their retention becomes shorter than it already is.

While I enjoy the discussion groups I read, it is an out-dated medium. There's nothing in those groups that couldn't be done or said in a web-based forum like this one. All it takes is for the users to agree to migrate to a web-forum. The only reason I still participate is that many of the users refuse to migrate to (already existing) web-forums on the same topic.

[virtualmike]

All it takes is for the users to agree to migrate to a web-forum. The only reason I still participate is that many of the users refuse to migrate to (already existing) web-forums on the same topic.

One advantage that Usenet has over web-based forums is that OLRs (Off-Line Readers) are available for Usenet (such as Agent). Some web forums provide ways of participating without being actively connected, but there's no standardization.

Why is this important? In my case, my OLR fetches the headers for the groups in which I participate. I then mark those that I want to retrieve, and the OLR goes and gets the complete articles and stores them on my hard drive. When I read the articles, I can navigate through them in a variety of ways. No matter how fast my connection is, how low the latency, how optimized the web server, it's much faster to work with files local to my machine than to click on a link and wait for the server to provide the posting. I also can mark individual articles (or threads) to be archived on my machine for later use. With a web forum, I have to "print" the page to PDF and file it on my hard drive, or perhaps clip the content to a tool like Evernote.

This isn't criticism of Sonic.net's business decision, only one plausible explanation why some users avoid migrating to web forums.

[patty1]

Yes, when I said "text-only groups," I meant those in which postings originate as text, not groups where binary files have been converted to text for distribution purposes. I assume that stopping support for binary groups would dramatically lower the workload on Sonic's Usenet servers. Whether their aging newsgroups infrastructure would then last longer, I don't know, but it seems like it might.


Patty

[ankh]

> stopping support for binary groups

I'd guess there's worry about copyright/patent/SOPA/PIPA constraints and political monitoring and closure variously around the world being directed at Usenet as they are to twitter and websites.

That's why I hope to see access to Usenet remain available.

There's always Fidonet, I suppose.

[ankh]

Why, here it is already:

"Google will begin <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/01/31/google-t ... edirecting blogs to country-specific URLs</a>. Blog visitors will be redirected to a URL specific to their location, with content subject to their country's censorship laws. A <a href="http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/a ... 1">support post on Blogger</a> explains the change: 'Over the coming weeks you might notice that the URL of a blog you're reading has been redirected to a country-code top level domain, or "ccTLD." For example, if you're in Australia and viewing [blogname].blogspot.com, you might be redirected to [blogname].blogspot.com.au. A ccTLD, when it appears, corresponds with the country of the reader's current location.'"

So, about keeping Usenet -- looks important to do, doesn't it?

[gp1628]

Is it just me or does it feel majorly different between the sonic.* groups and forums.sonic.net?

I understand the tendency for new people on the net to think "if it aint WWW then it aint Internet". And I am a user of just about anything net (Ive been a paid Channel Op for IRC, a paid Moderator for forums, email Customer Support, and written Bots for ISP presence). So I will do my best to be a useful participant to anything Sonic does.

But I have more trouble keeping up and participating the forum.sonic groups than I did the sonic.* groups. Im not sure why.

Plus the forum.sonic groups just do not feel as friendly/chatty as the sonic.* groups. The forums here seem more question/response customer support than home ISP chatty. I think thats what I would miss the most.

Just IMHO

Gandalf Parker

P.S. altho I could add that I have been paid in the past to telecommute and fix that for business forums. hint hint nudge nudge

[dane]

GP,

I have noticed the difference in spirit here as well. My only hope is that we will see more participation over time, as visiting the forum becomes habitual for more nice and interesting people.

The newsgroups have been pretty low traffic, and the forums are more accessible to the flood of new Fusion customers we are enjoying, so the Q&A dominates. We also have the forums pretty tightly divided into topical areas, with only "General" intended for community off topic dialog. It's a bit limiting.


-Dane