Rationale:
Last on-topic message from 2010.
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.
In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board
<board@big-8.org> wrote:
Rationale:
Last on-topic message from 2010.
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.
Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs
and picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't
they likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating
system isn't developed anymore, go away"?
The most active computer groups tend to be frequented by people who
are hostile to users of unmaintained software (I think Marco Mook has
fit this description himself in the past). Having these separate
places to discuss old platforms is an asset of Usenet to allow it to
cater for people with different interests without unnecessary
conflict.
In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
Rationale:
Last on-topic message from 2010.
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.
Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs and
picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't they
likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating system isn't developed anymore, go away"? The most active computer groups tend to be frequented by people who are hostile to users of unmaintained software
(I think Marco Mook has fit this description himself in the past).
Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an asset of
Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different interests without unnecessary conflict.
On 10.10.2025 19:22 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an
asset of Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different
interests without unnecessary conflict.
I would agree with that if there were people who want to do that - but
the groups listed were inactive for a very long time.
I don't understand why this at all for UNmoderated groups now, did
marco run out of moderated groups to pick on, he's clearly more at
home on mailing lists than usenet, its not all just about currency,
its about history as well, but many have pointed this out and were
ignored, becasue what marco wants marco thinks he can get, total
destruction of usenet, bad enough he went on his little rampage with
unmod'd groups but now this... just further justification for
changing all rmgroup message entries in control to discard.
On 12.10.2025 11:29 Uhr noel wrote:
I don't understand why this at all for UNmoderated groups now, did
marco run out of moderated groups to pick on, he's clearly more at home
on mailing lists than usenet, its not all just about currency, its
about history as well, but many have pointed this out and were ignored,
becasue what marco wants marco thinks he can get, total destruction of
usenet, bad enough he went on his little rampage with unmod'd groups
but now this... just further justification for changing all rmgroup
message entries in control to discard.
Please have a look at https://www.big-8.org/wiki/Nan:2011-04-24-result-great-downsizing
The process of removing unused groups is rather old.
PS: From the replies we got so for no one showed interesting in posting
to the groups that are proposed to delete.
(((...))), its also why I and from my testing, serveral other free
access text groups wont honour rmgroups.
marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
your desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Exactly that is the case. Occasionally some new users join and to makemarco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
I don't believe at all that's his goal. A bit of cleaning in the very
long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and
relevant newsgroups nowadays.
History of groups is available at isc and the board of variousyour desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
Hi Noel,
marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
I don't believe at all that's his goal. A bit of cleaning in the very
long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and
relevant newsgroups nowadays.
your desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
It is normal and expected that news servers whose aim is to archive
articles and therefore keep history, do not honour rmgroup requests. Not
all news servers retain articles for a life time. If a server keeps
articles during let's say 1 year, it is not intended to be used for historical purpose and it can have a cleaner list of still active
newsgroups for its readers.
[in reply to ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui>]
On 14.10.2025 16:59 Uhr Julien ?LIE wrote:
marco thinks he can get total destruction of usenet
I don't believe at all that's his goal. A bit of cleaning in the very
long list of newsgroups is helpful to better see still active and
relevant newsgroups nowadays.
Exactly that is the case. Occasionally some new users join and to make
them subscribe to a group, there need to be at least some articles per
year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....
History of groups is available at isc and the board of various[...]
hierarchies also provide it.
It is extremely dangerous to have 8 hierachies fate decided by 3 or 4
people
In news.groups.proposals Usenet Big-8 Management Board <board@big-8.org> wrote:
Rationale:
Last on-topic message from 2010.
This operating system isn't developed anymore.
If there is need for discussion, more general groups can be used.
Can they though? If someone takes an interest in running these OSs
and picks a group focused on current BSD to discuss them in, aren't
they likely to effectively be told exactly that: "The operating
system isn't developed anymore, go away"?
Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:
[...]
History of groups is available at isc and the board of various[...]
hierarchies also provide it.
What is isc? What is "the board of various hierarchies"? How are
they accessible?
RFDs to create, remove, or change newsgroups can be (and have been) initiated by Usenet users at large, not just the Board itself. At
least as long as I've been a member, all RFDs that we've processed
have followed a set, publically documented procedure that involves an extended period of community consultation. We often collectively
spend many hours helping the proponents get their initial RFD in
order, publicizing it, reading through the ensuing discussions, and summarizing them for the second and subsequent iterations of the RFD.
We've never gone against community consensus in the final voting
phase -- or at least, no one has ever accused us of this. In
controversial cases where we could not identify a relatively strong
community consensus, we have decided for the status quo.
[in reply to ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui>]
My 2 cents on this,
Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....
and there are plenty of Linux/BSD
newsgroups already, so I do not mind if this if really dead to be
removed..
Like in the future "if someone decides to pick on this
OS..." who? if we do not already use a classic Unix OS who is going
to do it? most people who will actually run this OS's already use
usenet for most part
In article <10coosn$l42m$2@matrix.hispagatos.org>,
ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui> wrote:
Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....
Not much discussed in comp.unix.solaris, but...
$ cat /etc/os-release
NAME="Oracle Solaris"
PRETTY_NAME="Oracle Solaris 11.4"
CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:oracle:solaris:11:4"
ID=solaris
VERSION=11.4
VERSION_ID=11.4
BUILD_ID=11.4.85.0.1.201.2
HOME_URL="https://www.oracle.com/solaris/" SUPPORT_URL="https://support.oracle.com/"
VARIANT_ID=sru
VARIANT="Support Update"
On 16.10.2025 09:38 Uhr John D Groenveld wrote:[snipped]
$ cat /etc/os-release
NAME="Oracle Solaris"
PRETTY_NAME="Oracle Solaris 11.4"
I am curious:
Is that your home system or a system at work?
On which architecture?
Greetings.
On 2025-10-13 14:59, noel wrote:
It is extremely dangerous to have 8 hierachies fate decided by 3 or 4
people
If that were truly the case, then neither you nor anyone else would be participating in this community discussion.
By design, Usenet is essentially a trust-based network with no central governance. If server administrators no longer trust the Board's
competence to decide the "fate" of groups in the Big 8, then they're
free to ignore the control messages sent on our behalf, and perhaps
there need to be at least some articles per
year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for years.
your desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
hierarchies also provide it.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:51:31 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:
there need to be at least some articles per
year in a group. Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
Where is your evidence, links to multiple repuatable sources please,
since you made that statement, you surely must have them.
Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for
years.
Again, please supply evidence.
your desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
hierarchies also provide it.
We are talking history as in history not just of groups names but
their articles, usenet in its entirety is an "archive" it just
depends on how long $server_admin wants to allow it, usually this is
a disk space decision, not because nobody posts to it.
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:14:43 -0400, Tristan Miller wrote:
Greetings.
On 2025-10-13 14:59, noel wrote:
It is extremely dangerous to have 8 hierachies fate decided by 3
or 4 people
If that were truly the case, then neither you nor anyone else would
be participating in this community discussion.
Yeah but the "discussion" is all for show really, isnt it, if you
want them gone, they'll be gone, 20 years ago in usenets prime you
had to actually listen, but these days, I don't see much of that.
By design, Usenet is essentially a trust-based network with no
central governance. If server administrators no longer trust the
Board's competence to decide the "fate" of groups in the Big 8,
then they're free to ignore the control messages sent on our
behalf, and perhaps
and thats what a few servers are doing, because (I wont pretend to
speak for others as I dont have that right) I have less faith in the
board to do the right things, perhaps this is because its same 'ol
group making the decisions, oh except new kid marco who must be
trying to prove himself with all these rfd's.
anyway, pointless me arguing with people who already made their minds
up, luckily our control files can only be manually updated now, so
rmgroups are gone forever here, so my right to an opinion here would
likely be extinguished.
If a place is empty and stays empty for a while,
people usually unsubscribe.
On 2025-10-13 14:59, noel wrote:
It is extremely dangerous to have 8 hierachies fate decided by 3 or 4
people
If that were truly the case, then neither you nor anyone else would be
participating in this community discussion.
Yeah but the "discussion" is all for show really, isnt it, if you want
them gone, they'll be gone, 20 years ago in usenets prime you had to
actually listen, but these days, I don't see much of that.
By design, Usenet is essentially a trust-based network with no central
governance. If server administrators no longer trust the Board's
competence to decide the "fate" of groups in the Big 8, then they're
free to ignore the control messages sent on our behalf, and perhaps
and thats what a few servers are doing, because (I wont pretend to speak
for others as I dont have that right) I have less faith in the board to
do the right things, perhaps this is because its same 'ol group making
the decisions, oh except new kid marco
anyway, pointless me arguing with people who already made their minds up
On 20.10.2025 13:23 Uhr noel wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 08:51:31 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:
there need to be at least some articles per year in a group.
Otherwise the most likely don't subscribe to that.
Where is your evidence, links to multiple repuatable sources please,
since you made that statement, you surely must have them.
It is common sense. If a place is empty and stays empty for a while,
people usually unsubscribe.
I haven't got back one reply from someone who was lurking there and
wants to keep the group. Not a single one.
Although, sometimes new people arrive (have a look at eternal-september.newusers)
because the group list is full of empty groups, that are
useless for people who are interested in current discussions.
Long-time readers may also unsubscribe because of no traffic for
years.
Again, please supply evidence.
I assume various people subscribed to those groups in the past to read
and post there. I haven't seen a reply from one of those, so the
interest in those groups for current discussion is actually zero.
We are talking history as in history not just of groups names but theiryour desire to remove history[...]
several other free access text groups wont honour rmgroups
Sending rmgroup articles is not a synonym of removing history.
History of groups is available at isc and the board of various
hierarchies also provide it.
articles, usenet in its entirety is an "archive" it just depends on how
long $server_admin wants to allow it, usually this is a disk space
decision, not because nobody posts to it.
And here we are again: Archiving servers shouldn't process rmgroup at
all.
In that case, why should admins of those servers care?
The RfDs are being posted to get feedback from people to come to a
reasonable decision.
again, so what? you are intent on killing all usenet discussions unless
they happened wiuth in past 3 hours or something, hell marco, you do not
even run a usenet server yet you want to make decisions for us, and we've shown you in the past to, because ES has no articles in X period of time, consider the groups dead, Kev I think did so as well, we've shown our
server, and by extension probably Jesse, Alex, Paul, Steve, Giga and
others have posts in it years later than you see, and IIRC by your own admission on at least one of them, they were active, and not spam.
For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused
groups. I've been around long enough and still don't always know
where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If
one looks for "unix" against my active file there are 269 groups,
"linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet user determine the most appropriate group(s)?
Usenet was not intended to be an archive of articles that lasts forever.
For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused
groups. I've been around long enough and still don't always know where
to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If one looks
Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 09:19:46 -0400, Jesse Rehmer wrote:
Usenet was not intended to be an archive of articles that lasts forever.
You can only speak for youself, I've been doing this since the early/mid
90's as well, and the only reason back then we had short retention was becasue disks were very expensive, and every leacher wanted binaries,
disks got cheaper so we kept binaries for a year, andby "we" I mean many
news server operators.
Also if thats your belief why do you like to once in a blue moon tell
people you have decades of articles in groups, why are you not expiring articles every 28 days, or should we now expect to see that on BWH, or
are you a poltician Jesse, say one thing but do another :)
On 22.10.2025 09:19 Uhr Jesse Rehmer wrote:
For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused
groups. I've been around long enough and still don't always know
where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If
one looks for "unix" against my active file there are 269 groups,
"linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet user determine the most
appropriate group(s)?
Thanks for pointing that out.
If I want to discuss a topic, I choose a place where actual people read
and post.
According to the replies we got so far, no one cared about those groups
I proposed to remove.
According to the replies we got so far, no one cared about those groups
I proposed to remove.
The first reply was from me and I ended with this statement which
covered these groups:
Having these separate places to discuss old platforms is an asset of
Usenet to allow it to cater for people with different interests
without unnecessary conflict.
But apparantly that doesn't count as caring to you. I'm not going to
flail around further rewording an opinion you refuse to acknowledge. You understand someone generally in favour of deleting "unused" groups, but ignore someone who'se generally against it. I guess this wasn't really a Request for Discussion but a Request for One-Sided Discussion.
Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt know
the simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his question
in comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond because I was
too busy laughing since I no longer take that person as serious and
suspect marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and aiming at nuking
that group as well.
Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt know the >simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his question in >comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond because I was too
busy laughing since I no longer take that person as serious and suspect >marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and aiming at nuking that group
as well.
Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....
On AIX I have
On 24.10.2025 04:20 Uhr noel wrote:
Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt know
the simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his question
in comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond because I was
too busy laughing since I no longer take that person as serious and
suspect marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and aiming at nuking
that group as well.
Please reread my post there and reread the documentation of IBM. Then
you might see why I asked that question.
TLDR: IPv6 networks are usually specified with the /<netbits amount> notation. The mask notation is very, very uncommon and is not documented
in the IBM documentation.
That's why I asked.
Is asking questions about non-documented configuration options now
making me look stupid?
For the health and relevancy of Usenet, I support removing unused groups. I've
been around long enough and still don't always know where to post about a topic I haven't discussed on Usenet before. If one looks for "unix" against my
active file there are 269 groups, "linux" has 455. How does a new/naive Usenet
user determine the most appropriate group(s)?
There may be over 1,000,000 articles making the group appear active
at first glance, but upon inspection there hasn't been discussion
about that topic for over 10 years.
Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not. In September 2025, there were 780 total hosts reported by 73 participating servers in the top1000
stats. If you take out duplicate hosts per site and FIDO nodes it's closer to 200 sites. In 2005 the top1000 routinely reported over 6,500 hosts seen by 356
participating servers.
In Usenet's current state, in my opinion, it is appropriate to remove unused groups.
Are you conflating two different posters?
In article <10coosn$l42m$2@matrix.hispagatos.org>,
ReK2 Hispagatos <rek2@usenet_reborn.tui> wrote:
Nobody uses Solaris/AIX/.....
In article <10dctfs$1q1r6$2@paganini.bofh.team>, Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>,
On AIX I have
John groenveld@acm.org
So you end up with behaviour like in comp.os.linux.misc at the
moment where people just talk about anything vaguely technology
related (or now not even that) because people will repond there.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 04:26:52 -0400, Marco Moock wrote:
On 24.10.2025 04:20 Uhr noel wrote:
Is it any wonder he's picking on technical groups when he doesnt
know the simplest of things, like configuring ntp, I refer to his
question in comp.protocols.time.ntp 2 days ago, I didnt repond
because I was too busy laughing since I no longer take that person
as serious and suspect marco is unsurprisingly being deceitful and
aiming at nuking that group as well.
Please reread my post there and reread the documentation of IBM.
Then you might see why I asked that question.
TLDR: IPv6 networks are usually specified with the /<netbits amount> notation. The mask notation is very, very uncommon and is not
documented in the IBM documentation.
That's why I asked.
Is asking questions about non-documented configuration options now
making me look stupid?
undocumented? so your ntp/ntp.conf man pages dont exist huh
let me see, who "mandates" /net-bits...
ntp i:p:v:6 optional i:p:v:6/96 nope
As to stupidity, no, not bothering to reading a man file when you
dont know it is just lazy,
but you run ipv6 on debian and (or did)
slackware, so you would know how to configure ntp already,
especially since you went to great pains to tell us in slackware that
you dont run ipv4.
I noticed you failed to address the other comments, in particular
from Kev, but I guess it doesnt suite you, you'd rather try bury it
in noise.
On 23.10.2025 11:07 Uhr Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
So you end up with behaviour like in comp.os.linux.misc at the
moment where people just talk about anything vaguely technology
related (or now not even that) because people will repond there.
Killfiling people who crosspost non-Linux related (mostly political)
topics there is mostly a good decision, although, people need to decide
that themselves.
Certain NNTP servers also reject the messages that are crossposted to
many political groups and comp.os.linux.misc.
Usenet has shrank dramatically, whether we like it or not. In September 2025, there were 780 total hosts reported by 73 participating servers in the top1000
stats.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 12:11:31 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (1,690K bytes) |
| Messages: | 183,174 |
| Posted today: | 1 |