["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was
cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is
its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular
means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least
on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
Many providers have their own IRC, Usenet, or bulletin boards where
users can exchange messages.
...plus fediverse, too many different link aggregators and short message
like media, local or pubnix network wide bulletin boards, Gitea and Cgit
... short: Too many services competing for users. That yields lots of
sub-crowds with far to few comminication.
The too many services trap.
These technologies can be useful for closed groups. NNTP could be used
for a company, like group email and centralised posting. IRC useful as
well. I can see the need, and value for a private community, which may
be large to do that (such as a social movement). But we don't need more general "public" twitter clones.
The users tend to be other Linux and Unix enthusiasts. These spaces
are just fun to hang out in."
See (*).
I'd be interested to see these fun places.
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers often
have friendly user communities. Many providers have their own IRC,
Usenet, or bulletin boards where users can exchange messages. The users
tend to be other Linux and Unix enthusiasts. These spaces are just fun
to hang out in."
https://www.howtogeek.com/use-the-internet-the-old-school-unixy-way-with-shell-accounts/
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
Many providers have their own IRC, Usenet, or bulletin boards where
users can exchange messages.
The users tend to be other Linux and Unix enthusiasts. These spaces
are just fun to hang out in."
like awk+gnuplot... daily. My main environment it's OpenBSD, cwm, and a xterm.
sfeed works great to read news. Mutt and slrn, for the rest.
gopher://magical.fish it's trully... magical
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
Many providers have their own IRC, Usenet, or bulletin boards where
users can exchange messages.
...plus fediverse, too many different link aggregators and short message
like media, local or pubnix network wide bulletin boards, Gitea and Cgit
... short: Too many services competing for users. That yields lots of sub-crowds with far to few comminication.
The too many services trap.
The users tend to be other Linux and Unix enthusiasts. These spaces
are just fun to hang out in."
See (*).
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was
cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is
its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular
means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least
on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
Many providers have their own IRC, Usenet, or bulletin boards where
users can exchange messages.
...plus fediverse, too many different link aggregators and short message
like media, local or pubnix network wide bulletin boards, Gitea and Cgit
... short: Too many services competing for users. That yields lots of
sub-crowds with far to few comminication.
The too many services trap.
Even though I use the super Gnus NNTP client, I don't know how to post[...]
the same article to groups on different servers---that would be useful
to share the same post on the big community and also give a chance to my small community to discuss it too (separately).
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was
cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is
its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular
technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular
means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the
communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least
on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
This makes perfect sense and matches my experience as well. That's why
I think that smaller communities should also peer USENET groups---the
ones that the smaller community cares about. (It would be useful
already even if the peering is read-only.) Let's say you have a small
NNTP community with a few of your friends. You set up an NNTP server
for your local private groups---secrets you guys share. Now you have a
small world (your community) and a big world (the USENET). If your
small NNTP server also lets all of you watch the USENET, that makes your small community more interesting because now you check the USENET from
it: so you don't miss any articles that eventually come in your small community. You know what I mean?
Because one of the problems of small communities is precisely
that---nothing happens there. So importing a tiny piece of the big
community would help to keep the small one engaging.
Even though I use the super Gnus NNTP client, I don't know how to post
the same article to groups on different servers---that would be useful
to share the same post on the big community and also give a chance to my small community to discuss it too (separately).
Also, when I see an interesting article on the USENET, sometimes I would reply to follow it up on my small community, for an internal discussion.
It's not easy to do that with my super NNTP client. I must copy the
article, compose a new one on the small community, paste it and still
add my comment... It's not convenient.
I think the USENET is a great source of things to discuss, but I don't
always want to discuss it on the USENET itself.
[* snip *]--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was
cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is
its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular >technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular
means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the >communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least
on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
In <slrnvvi8uq.25r.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was >>cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is >>its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular >>technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular >>means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the >>communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least
on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
Panix seems to be better in this regard. Part of it is likely their
local hierarchy of newsgroups (panix.*) that still have considerable activity. It probably also helps that they are based in New York City,
which has a large population and significant number of local attractions
to talk about (museums, theater, etc.). They also seem to do more
active community-building, with notable resident experts and discussion leaders. For a while, they even had an occasional user picnic in Central
Park near Cleopatra's Needle. The panix.questions newsgroup also has a
large user base willing and able to answer a wide range of technical and non-technical questions.
--
Paul W. Schleck
pschleck@panix.com
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience.
The *idea* was cool, but no one was really there. The
fundamental problem, I think, is its not a real community.
Its people who want to use a particular technology, but
don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres.
Once you're there, then what? You've already achieved
your goal? The Gemini community had the same problem.
They just liked the idea of using Gemini. That doesn't
make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use
a particular means to an ends, but actually had no ends.
I do understand that the communication format does matter
(part of the appeal of Usenet to me), but you need more
than a shared desire to use the same format. At least on
Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
On 2025-04-12, Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> wrote:
Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> writes:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.culture.usenet.]
On 2025-03-22, yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> wrote:
pschleck@panix.com (Paul W. Schleck) wrote:
"One reason to sign up for a shell account is that shell providers
often have friendly user communities.
(*) Most neighbours I have in pubnixens are just silent, but the few
that are not are worth staying.
I signed up to one or two, and that was my experience. The *idea* was
cool, but no one was really there. The fundamental problem, I think, is >>> its not a real community. Its people who want to use a particular
technology, but don't share any other interest. It's like starting a
group for people who like to meet in community centres. Once you're
there, then what? You've already achieved your goal? The Gemini
community had the same problem. They just liked the idea of using
Gemini. That doesn't make what you have to say more interesting.
It was basically, at least to me, people who liked to use a particular
means to an ends, but actually had no ends. I do understand that the
communication format does matter (part of the appeal of Usenet to me),
but you need more than a shared desire to use the same format. At least >>> on Usenet, you can find others with similar interests.
This makes perfect sense and matches my experience as well. That's why
I think that smaller communities should also peer USENET groups---the
ones that the smaller community cares about. (It would be useful
already even if the peering is read-only.) Let's say you have a small
NNTP community with a few of your friends. You set up an NNTP server
for your local private groups---secrets you guys share. Now you have a
small world (your community) and a big world (the USENET). If your
small NNTP server also lets all of you watch the USENET, that makes your
small community more interesting because now you check the USENET from
it: so you don't miss any articles that eventually come in your small
community. You know what I mean?
Because one of the problems of small communities is precisely
that---nothing happens there. So importing a tiny piece of the big
community would help to keep the small one engaging.
Even though I use the super Gnus NNTP client, I don't know how to post
the same article to groups on different servers---that would be useful
to share the same post on the big community and also give a chance to my
small community to discuss it too (separately).
Also, when I see an interesting article on the USENET, sometimes I would
reply to follow it up on my small community, for an internal discussion.
It's not easy to do that with my super NNTP client. I must copy the
article, compose a new one on the small community, paste it and still
add my comment... It's not convenient.
I think the USENET is a great source of things to discuss, but I don't
always want to discuss it on the USENET itself.
This makes sense to me. Have your own private group, sure, but link it
with the wider world. Essentially, a Usenet subset which is of interest
to that group, plus additional groups which are local only.
I've discussed such ideas with a friend, who used Usenet a bit, but was
more interested in technology which took you "off grid". I first
thought of BBS's with a private 'net like fsxNet or fidoNet, but NNTP
seemed to fit the bill much better. I still marvel at how people seem
to overlook existing solutions.
Is super Gnus an EMACS client? Thats the only Gnus that I know of.
[* snip *]
Geographic similarity does help. One thing I liked about BBS's back in
the 90s, was that you were connecting with other people *nearby*. You
could meet the system. This is something that wasn't obviously a
feature back then, as it was the norm, but now I kind of appreciate the usefulness of it.
Now, I suppose the closes to a "local Usenet" is the Reddit group specifically for my hometown in Australia, but I don't really like the
Reddit interface and I don't think the format really is conducive to
good discussion. Modern Social media just does suck.
Altexxanet has a good template. You have chat/forum and webspace underAltexxanet is just nostalgia-farming about a "golden time of the 90s."
the one banner. Even some web forums form the 2000's, using the phpBB software or what it was, also had a chat room, where you could chat to
the people you were engaging with in forums, in real time. Discord kind
of is a bit of both, but sits awkwardly between forum and chat, doing
neither really well in my opinion.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 24:24:48 |
| Calls: | 899 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (360K bytes) |
| Messages: | 282,048 |