Re: Not Impressed with this New Format

From: Michael Black (et472_at_FreeNet.Carleton.CA)
Date: 12/11/04 

Date: 11 Dec 2004 19:05:30 GMT

 (chemelec@hotmail.com) writes:
> I find this a real waste of space, compared to the older one.
> If this is whats to come, I'm out of here for good.
>
I think you've made two errors here.

The first, as others have pointed out, is that you aren't clear
about what you are talking about.

>From that I see your second error. You seem to assume that "Google
groups" is Usenet, and the only way to see messages is through their
system.

Usenet has been around for a quarter century, originall transporting
messages over phone lines. Collect the posted messages at each site,
and then pass then on in a batch to the next site, and so on until
the messages propagate to all newsservers. It's only as the "internet"
became more accessible that the messages were transported over it.

But it is still a distributed system, with each message existed
on each newsserver that carries that newsgroup.

Back in 1996, as the web was still growing, Dejanews came along and
decided to archive messages to the newsgroups. Because of the traffic
levels, few or no newssevers had kept messages forever, choosing to
delete after a certain time to make space for the new messages. Dejanews
just decided to keep messages forever, so the messages were searchable.

Dejanews died a few years back, not getting enough revenue to sustain it.
Google bought the archive and kept it going. They even found some
independent archives, allowing for an archive that goes back to 1980 or
so (though likely with some gaps).

But while you can search and read and post messages at google, you can
read and post messages from any Usenet newsserver. Take out google,
and you lose the archive (and a somewhat useful means of reading and
posting messages if your ISP has dropped newsgroups), but Usenet
does not go away.

On the other hand, this latest interface change at google seems to
be an attempt to cover up Usenet, making it appear like "yahoo groups".
Indeed, the very name "Google groups" suggests a web-based forum, and
sometimes it seemed hard to see this distinction clearly made over
there. Now, they've added their own local "groups", and the interface
seems more in favor of that than newsgroups.

  Michael

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAID 1
    ... >> repeated context that also clutters the archives, ... I suppose I should have given up on usenet ... he didn't have google to help sift through the cruft and probably ... It shows parts of your 100 most recent posts with links to the full text ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: real quiet
    ... I think I see why membership is down. ... Google asked me to "subscribe" hence ... Usenet is indeed primitive, in some respects, in that it existed and was ... group doesn't mean that you need a Google user ID to post in newsgroups ...
    (rec.boats.paddle)
  • Re: energy need to produce one litre of hydrogen?
    ... realize that sci.energy.hydrogen is not a "Usenet Newsgroup". ... true google groups are inaccessible to me. ... possible way to read and post to Usenet newsgroups, ... Internet to non-tecnical users in the general market, the News Servers ...
    (sci.energy.hydrogen)
  • Guide Lines - Code of Conduct for the Recreation Radio Shortwave Newsgroup
    ... I have reviewed what is current on Google for the NewsGroups that are ... Usenet discussion groups dating back to 1981. ... GOOGLE GROUPS - POSTING STYLE GUIDE ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • usenet, e-mail list & g00g1e (was Re: Cyrillic spam)
    ... The group was first suggested as a USENET discussion group. ... - AppleSoft decided it no longer wished to host the lists and RootsWeb ... Deja, reformed their archives, and announced the launching of Google ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)