Prev: Oracle VM 3.2.1Beta1 out now
Next: Powerbook charging question
From: Bernard Peek on 8 May 2010 06:43
On 07/05/10 22:37, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> Bernard Peek<bap(a)shrdlu.com> writes:
>
>> On 07/05/10 18:58, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
>>> Jim<jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Uhuh. It spirals - the fewer people use it, the more servers will be
>>>> switched off, which in turn will discourage more people from using it etc.
>>>
>>> And still Usenet will be there as long as there is at least one server
>>> running... which will be full of spam and raving lunatics, of course.
>>
>> It will still exist but will consist of a number of privately owned
>> servers each of which carries precisely one newsgroup not peered with
>> any other systems.
>
> This would not be "Usenet". But you're right, Usenet is not a technical
> thing. Basically it's a social thing. Usenet lives off a handful of news
> admins believing in it and keeping it up. If these people toss it, there
> may be any amount of NNTP servers, but there will be no Usenet anymore.

There is hope. There are a few newsgroups that I belong to which have a
few techie members. It wouldn't be difficult for me to set up a news
server on my home broadband system and serve just one or two groups from
it. I know that there are a few others who could do that too. It's quite
possible that when ISPs are no longer interested we could run Usenet in
much the same way that our predecessors ran Fidonet. If bandwidth and
storage continue to get cheaper it might be possible for an enthusiastic
amateur to host most of the text newsgroups. At that point we will
proosibly be operating below the spammers' radar.


--
Bernard Peek
bap(a)shrdlu.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Oracle VM 3.2.1Beta1 out now
Next: Powerbook charging question