Usenet going bye bye

[Jeffrey Watts]

Yeah, to be honest USENET is a dead-end technologically.  It doesn't
scale well at all, and the larger USENET got the worse it became.
EVERY post is sent to EVERY USENET node.  Think about that.  It was
designed at a time where many systems and networks had Internet access
infrequently, and every server needed a local copy.  That's no longer
the case, no longer needed, and no longer a good idea.

I appreciate people's nostalgia for it, but personally I think USENET
should have been taken out back and shot ten years ago, while it was
still relevant, as it's now devolved into a repository of malware and
bad porn and it's a shallow and sad husk of what it once was.

Jeffrey.

On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I agree it would cost a lot if the private KCLUG Usenet server ran a server with the whole set of newsgroups.  However, existing Usenet servers can choose not to accept certain newsgroups and even entire hierarchies.
>
> Would the cost be the same as a "full-set" Usenet server if the KCLUG Usenet server only included those text-only newsgroups specifically requested by KCLUG members?  It would seem to me that, for example, 10 text-only newsgroups would use a heck of a lot less hard drive space and processor power than 10,000 newsgroups.




-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a
precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine