So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that >already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to
cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and
is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
On 2026-07-29, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia
protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Me too - but we're a small minority.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
I agree that the lower layers might not have changed much.
But they're buried under layer after layer of gooey bloatware.
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
I wonder if they
know that the USENET is peaceful once again.
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed. Perhaps we think now
we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
private NNTP server. For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol,
is not an
API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
link can pass along articles.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have
to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly
gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
jayjwa wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe, walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
NNTP is the API for UsenetThis is incorrect. NNTP is Network News Transfer Protocol, is not an
API, and isn't technically needed to use usenet. Before NNTP, UUCP
shuffled articles along. Two systems peered via UUCP over a serial/modem
link can pass along articles. A PC user can dial-in to such a system and
pull articles for reading in off-line mode. This was important in the
time of expensive connections that ran up phone bills and tied up phone lines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_News_Transfer_Protocol
Verily, in article <87o6fo7adu.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back becauseIt's certainly easier to curate and moderate a mailing list than a
perhaps the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed.
[...]
newsgroup.
I believe one of the values of Usenet is that the feed includes some
fools and mischief-makers. Some people are amused by that and read it
all, some people killfile the anti-social types, and some read only a selected few.
We have direct and immediate control over our own Usenet
feeds, unlike forums where we have to ask a mod.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of
interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
Usenet will never be for everyone. The barrier to entry is too high for
many.
Verily, in article <87fr0zp1j9.fsf@atr2.ath.cx>, did jayjwa@atr2.ath.cx.invalid deliver unto us this message:
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe,
but we didn't know what to do.
walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to see,
not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they have to
cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them, willingly gave
up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
It may seem okay until the owner of the garden does things we don't
like.
A whole, whole lot of people are dissatisfied with the current Internet
of robots and slop. They just don't know what to do about it.
Jeffrey Bagely <6cf6e82302@darkc0de.one> writes:
[...]
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web
browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients
with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms
and is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary
types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types
of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion)
however,
it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I
wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Can you elaborate on your idea? It seems you're saying that instead of
using the web, a social network should implement its own multimedia
protocol? If so, I'd side with you---I agree with the web isn't a very
good user interface and I also don't know how we could turn a multimedia protocol into a good user interface. When I think of good user
interface, I always think of text user interfaces, like the one we
already have.
Why is that so? I believe computers are not too different from what
they were in the 70s. We're still using the same software pretty much.
(Not saying everything is perfect.)
To: jayjwa
jayjwa wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
They didn't. People handed them control. People want a curated, safe, walled garden consisting of only the pleasant things they want to
see, not a wild forest full of animals, danger, and trees that they
have to cut down to build a cabin out of. People, most of them,
willingly gave up their freedom and agency of will for convenience.
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
What's next? :)
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
mail.
Those days are still here.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
Thanks for the through presentation. Your ideas are what makes sense to
me; it is the lack of such properties in the current web and web
browsing that makes me think they will not survive down the road. In
the end, it is really the best design that survives. (Yes, Common Lisp
is still an island, but the story is not over yet. Things don't evolve
as fast as the expert would like to see.)
Not to criticize your ideas, but just to add the comment that I still
can't see a new-revolutionary idea. The current difficulty that we face
at the current web seems to be how to move it from where it is to this doug-mcilroy-do-one-thing-and-do-it-well design. The obvious thing /to
me/ is the need for a new type of web browser. Things hardly ever are
born more powerful than the current in-use tool, but it has to be cool
enough to encourage people to use it. Without a New Browser (whatever
it would be), users will not take it on and so web developers will not
care about it. I was happy to see the birth of the Gemini protocol, but
it's unclear it is it.
One my current hopes is the so-called ai-slop. Perhaps it will destroy
the web so badly that it will bury the web browser, allowing new ideas
to emerge.
I feel we may be at an exciting moment. In the beginning, the
excitement was the void, the unknown that was ahead of the hacker's
work. Now the void may be here again, but in the form of nonsense.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 08:29:35 -0700, John Ames wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300 Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org>
wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block all
but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still 100%
possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you please.
(Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much every
browser has reasonable CSS support.)
What is even worse is that major VPS providers and ISPs block outbound
port 25 (SMTP) and the encrypted port (don't care to look it up). Its
quite evil.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 21:59:53 -0300
Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
I miss those days of hand-hacking web sites, stashing a box in your
company's server room to serve web pages, and hosting your own
mail.
Those days are still here.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
It turns out Gmail doesn't give us a lot of trouble if you implement
SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
On 5 Aug 2026 09:36:01 GMT
Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> wrote:
I have no trouble with mail hosting (I have a cooperative ISP).
Getting the ISP to allow outbound is one thing. The larger problem as
I've seen it is that Major Players (Google, f'rexample) are perfectly
happy to take a you're-not-on-The-List-sir approach to actual delivery; nominally for spam control, but it's mighty convenient that this makes smaller players in the space effectively second-class citizens.
(F'rexample, I'm on a mailing list that GMail has simply stopped taking messages from; it's a bog-standard MailMan list as people have been
running since the late Paleolithic, but for some reason messages won't
come through no matter what I do. Don't even show up in my spam folder,
just go straight to dev/null. Actually had to open an account with a
small provider to receive them.)
What will more likely become the case is that you'll need at least one account with "Major Players" with a mailbox, and a mail address and
mailbox outside of said players, so that you're reachable and can reach
both sides of the schism.
Also, beware that Microsoft is especially evil regarding e-mail
delivery. If you're delivering or sending to somebody whose domain has
MX handled by Microsoft (local hosting also included in this, if it uses Exchange Online Protection - I literally mean the MX record pointing to Microsoft), it's better to cautiously assume it will not be delivered.
Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> writes:
[...]
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
Thank you for informing me that you have noticed.
I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question. And clearly off-topic here.
I won't reply to it, because it is a personal question. And clearly
off-topic here.
LISP is old enough to be topical in this newsfroup.
the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in
any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com). For some inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use UCEProtect.
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a day
or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
through.
I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
the SPAM moniker went away.
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 08:06:31 -0700, Kurt Weiske wrote:
scott wrote to alt.folklore.computers <=-
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a
day or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going
through.
I was shocked ("Shocked, I say!") when I researched why my office
Teams telephone number showed up as SPAM RISK on my Android phone. I
went to hiya.com and registered my Teams number, and within 24 hours
the SPAM moniker went away.
Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
people then report these to the various spammer data bases.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 00:03:23 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein wrote:
Apparently the SCAMMERS have been spoofing the phone numbers of
these high profile, "got to answer this!" phone numbers. And some
people then report these to the various spammer data bases.
There are supposed to be protocols in place for reputable telcos to be
able to attest to caller ID from their own customers, and also define
the level of trust for that passed across from other providers ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/SHAKEN>.
Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to >>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 01:02:25 -0000 (UTC), Ted W. wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
[...]
Just another centralized message board among hundreds (thousands?) that
already exist. The novelty is the usenet-like group hierarchy otherwise
it looks just like Digg (RIP), Reddit, Lemmy and others.
If I've learned anything over the last 20+ years of modern social media
it's that they either collapse or live long enough to sell your data.
Usenet, the original social media platform, has been around since long
before most Silicon Valley social media founders were born and it will
remain long after they're gone.
I'll stick to the original, warts and all.
There is also something to say about just the simplicity. I have run a
lemmy instance and still find it frustrating that you have to use web browsers to utilize the platform. KISS really applies here in that we
already have protocol standards for discussions and minimal clients with minimal network connectivity required.
Multimedia is rather over-emphasized on popular disccussion platforms and
is better served on their own dedicated platforms for their binary types.
As a side note, I would prefer its own protocol for the different types of media to be consumed (as with NNTP for mainly textual discussion) however, it's a far fetched and not well thought out idea of mine that I wouldn't expect to see ever happening in the wild at any great scale.
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most
of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> writes:
Verily, in article <875x1xa9t7.fsf@safunu.org>, did anton@safunu.org
deliver unto us this message:
Yes. Not being the smart way to use computers, it can't be the future.
For years I've expected the web to somehow die precisely because of the
way browsers have been evolving. Complex software is bound to die
because of the lack of diversity. Look how very few browsers we have.
Why is that? Because only very rich corporations can build it. And
maybe now we have a glimpse of the downfall of the web. The so-called
smart systems producing slop and bots perhaps being responsible for most >>> of the web traffic. Maybe that's indeed the end of the web. Rebirth.
I still think the web as its idealized conception is something we want.
Just like the USENET is something we want.
This is an interesting discussion.
Perhaps hypertext and document organization should never have been
combined. I recently rediscovered gopherspace, and to my surprise it's
not completely dead.
The current web dissatisfies thinking people. Something else is bound to
arise. Maybe it'll be a gopherspace revival or maybe a new thing, but
the web just isn't cutting it these days.
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
Exactly. I don't think we could've done anything. They're free to
destroy. They found a way to make money and so they did. I hesitate to
say it was completely disastrous because perhaps some good came: a lot
of us found a way to make a living? In the beginning, we were the only
ones who knew how to use it and how it worked. I suppose this is the
same we must do again.
I'm not so closely in touch with NNTP admins here, but judging from the groups hosted by Eternal September, after Google Groups left the USENET, things look pretty bright here. Why? Because once again we're left to
our own devices here. The only sorry thing is that all the experts we
used to have are really hanging out somewhere else. I wonder if they
know that the USENET is peaceful once again.
What I believe is that they just don't want to come back because perhaps
the USENET is just not disruption-free guaranteed. Perhaps we think now
we need to really have semi-open groups such as a mailing list or a
private NNTP server. For example, the Linux kernel people seem to
prefer a mailing list (for posting) because this way they easily ban any misbehaving member and keep the newbies at bay.
So that's another question I ask. Is the USENET model the adequate one
for an Internet-populous world? Maybe we should begin a new network of interlinked private NNTP servers. It doesn't seem that a high-volume
NNTP group is interesting anyway; that usually means a too high
noise/content ratio.
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 10:17:24 -0400, The True Melissa wrote:
We never should have let the corporatins sieze control of everything,
but we didn't know what to do.
A lot of users of Free Software act very much like sheep.
I've entered the frayed corners of the weave.*-a And there are still
people connecting to old school BBS systems from a Commodore 64.-a This necessitates leaving the web, and entering unknown territories with
really strange weaves.
You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle
of computer interfaces.-a And I have not dared to ask if these characters
are completely human; because on the weave, nobody knows if you're a
spider.
I'm sure some of them even use N.N.T.P.-a What they weave there, I do not know.
Best wishes, and happy weaving on the N.N.T.P of alt.folklore.computers!
* I use the term /weave/ for a reason, we've already left the /web/.
of computer interfaces.
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or quoted:
You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle
of computer interfaces.
The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488,
and the Pet 2001 supported it.
Originally engineered as Hewlett-Packard's instrumentation bus
(HP-IB), it pioneered a highly reliable, hardware-driven three-wire
handshake that guarantees zero data loss by automatically throttling
communication to the speed of the slowest device on the line.
Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over rugged,
shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it bypasses
the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software overhead that
plague modern USB and network stacks.
Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical
noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need
for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary
interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in
high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide.
On 2026-08-09 02:39, Stefan Ram wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote or
quoted:
You'll meet strange creatures who speak of Commodore 64 as the pinnacle
of computer interfaces.
-a-a The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488,
-a-a and the Pet 2001 supported it.
-a-a Originally engineered as Hewlett-Packard's instrumentation bus
-a-a (HP-IB), it pioneered a highly reliable, hardware-driven three-wire
-a-a handshake that guarantees zero data loss by automatically throttling
-a-a communication to the speed of the slowest device on the line.
-a-a Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over rugged,
-a-a shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it bypasses
-a-a the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software overhead that
-a-a plague modern USB and network stacks.
-a-a Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical
-a-a noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need
-a-a for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary
-a-a interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in
-a-a high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide.
Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down
IBM channel connector?
Stefan Ram wrote:
-a-a The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488,
-a-a and the Pet 2001 supported it.
Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down
IBM channel connector?
Lars Poulsen wrote:
Stefan Ram wrote:
-a-a The pinnacle of computer interfaces is the IEEE-488,
-a-a and the Pet 2001 supported it.
Yes, I remember the PET at school having them for the printer (we didn't have disc drives but they use them too).
[snip]
Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down
IBM channel connector?
Surely you remember 36 pin PC parallel printer cables?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_ribbon_connector>
Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over
rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it
bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software
overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks.
Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down
IBM channel connector?
Popularly called a "Centronics" connector - or for the category as a
whole with multiple choices of pin counts, the Amphenol connector.
> Is it a coincidence that the connectors look a lot like a scaled-down
> IBM channel connector?
I'm not familiar with a channel connector that's anything like the
common micro-ribbon (Amphenol series 57) connector often used for
GPIB and Centronics printer interfaces.
The PET end didn't use a standard connector; it was a card edge, 0.1"
pitch I think.
On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, Stefan Ram regurgitates more AI slop:
Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over
rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it
bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software
overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks.
Back in the early 1980s, big companies like Boeing and GM proposed
protocols called rCLMAPrCY and rCLTOPrCY to handle real-time communication on the factory floor. They didnrCOt trust Ethernet, you see, because it
didnrCOt seem like it could guarantee reasonable bounds on latency, throughput etc.
People still laughed at collision-based protocols then. WhorCOs laughing
now?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol>
Our hardware used ethernet for this, but I'm sure others used FDDI,
because in those days, ethernet was still 10Mbps.
On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)
I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't--
looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
data or who have experienced breaches.
It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so in
the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This information has by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very easy to find.
Even decades later, its sheer resilience against electrical
noise and its plug-and-play simplicity without the need
for bloated software drivers explain why this legendary
interface remains a rock-solid, mission-critical standard in
high-precision laboratory and aerospace environments worldwide.
On 9 Aug 2026 09:39:19 GMT, Stefan Ram regurgitates more AI slop:
Capable of chaining up to 15 instruments simultaneously over
rugged, shielded cables with substantial parallel throughput, it
bypasses the unpredictable latencies and CPU-heavy software
overhead that plague modern USB and network stacks.
Back in the early 1980s, big companies like Boeing and GM proposed
protocols called rCLMAPrCY and rCLTOPrCY to handle real-time communication on the factory floor. They didnrCOt trust Ethernet, you see, because it
didnrCOt seem like it could guarantee reasonable bounds on latency, throughput etc.
People still laughed at collision-based protocols then. WhorCOs laughing
now?
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Automation_Protocol>
On 26/07/2026 9:43 AM, Anton Antimo wrote:
Daniel Cerqueira <dan.list@lispclub.com> writes:
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> writes:I saw Lisp Club on a post header of your article. Are you
On 2026-07-25, Tom Mix wrote:
So do we.
https://rootbadger.com
Given the amount of times this is being advertised here, that's about to >>>> cross a threshold of me never looking into it because it's being
advertised as if this were a TV commercial spot :-P
Same, Nuno.
discussing
Lisp anywhere on the USENET or anywhere else on the Internet? Please
share?
I have been discussing how to learn Common Lisp in comp.lang.lisp. What
is it about Lisp that you want to discuss? Do you wish to weave a web
with me on Hunchentoot? We could create a front weave for alt.folklore. computers!
In article <87mrv0s24m.fsf@safunu.org>, Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> wrote:
But I can't email my (one) friend on Hotmail because Hotmail has banned
the IP address I currently use, though this IP address is not present in >>any other famous SMTP blacklist out there that I know of.
Where is your mail server located? Mine was (at the time) on a Linode VPS. The scammers at UCEProtect have blacklisted Linode's entire IP address
range, just because they're assholes like that.
I only noticed this was a problem when I was trying to send mail to
someone I know IRL who has an email address through one of Microsoft's services (don't recall if it was Hotmail or Outlook.com). For some inexplicable reason, Microsoft had configured its mail servers to use UCEProtect.
I filed a ticket at Linode. Linode contacted Microsoft. Within a day
or two, the problem was resolved and the mail started going through.
(I ended up moving that VPS to Server Optima...more disk and RAM at a
lower price. That said, I still have other services at Linode and
wouldn't hesitate to recommend them.)
On 2026-08-04, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
Mail hosting is unfortunately non-trivial thanks to the Major Players
going ape with spam control in a way that *just so happens* to block
all but the Major Players from reliable delivery - but yes, it's still
100% possible to roll your own website as much from-scratch as you
please. (Hell, in some ways it's actually easier, now that pretty much
every browser has reasonable CSS support.)
Only partially true. Yes, the major MSPs have taken over the majority of
mail delivery. And, yes, there are certain hoops you have to jump
through to get mail to deliver reliably to them. But it's far from
impossible and I would argue that achieving reliable delivery is only marginally non-trivial. Most of the issues are well documented and most
MSPs follow pretty standard practices (DMARC, DKIM, SPF, etc.)
I started hosting my own mail server about 15 years ago and haven't
looked back. The ability to use unique and randomly generated email
addresses for every website reduces not only the ability for advertisers
to have a reliable primary key with which to fingerprint your activity online. Additionally, it makes it trivial to fight spam. It also has the
side benefit of enabling attribution to companies that have sold your
data or who have experienced breaches.
It's certainly more work than signing up for Gmail but I'd argue that
there are more benefits than people realize. I also hold the, possibly unpopular opinion that LLMs have made the hosting of one's own mail
server ever the more trivial since a lot of what complicated doing so
in the past was knowing how the major MSPs fight spam. This
information has by-and-large been consumed by LLMs and is now very
easy to find.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:08:27 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,859 |