Usenet, HTML (was Re: Jargons of Info Tech industry)

[John Bokma]

Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann at web.de> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann at web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> On the information side (in contrast to the discussion side) RSS is 
>>> replacing Usenet,
>> 
>> LOL, how? I can't post to RSS feeds. Or do you mean for lurkers?
> 
> I said "information side", meaning stuff like RSS is used for.

Nah, I wouldn't call it a replacement. Maybe of mailinglists with latest 
news.

>>> There is no real reason why NNTP couldn't be used like RSS (i.e.
>>> contain a small description and a web link as message text),
>> 
>> It has been used like that for ages (or as long as I can remember).
> 
> Yes, but for some reason people jumped onto the RSS hype.

You think so? Like on push technology, VRML, and what more? Most of my 
friends have no clue what RSS is. Maybe in IE7, when it's more hidden, 
people will use it. But I wouldn't call it a hype, unless a hype is 
something many people shout you have to have it (hmm...)

>  I wonder
> why. 
>   Heck, even I am subscribed to a bunch of RSSes, because those 
> institutions don't offer NNTP ;)

But they probably have (or had) a mailing list.

>>> or why a
>>> newsgroup shouldn't we written in HTML and contain a (default, or
>>> user-provided) CSS sheet.
>> 
>> It's called www. It's already here (or there)
> 
> Well, but forums only emulate the posting/reply structure.  It would 
> make more sense to use NNTP for that,

Why? It now works in the browser, you don't need to install another 
client. Moreover, many people, especially where I live, don't have a 
computer at home. Same for many students I know, they use the computer 
at school. And many people I know with a job use the computer at work.
And not everybody wants to install a client for each and every protocol. 
Hence why things like webmessenger are used.

> and use $WHATEVER, e.g. HTML,
> for markup inside the posts.  WWW is something else; a bunch of pages
> with hyperlinks to each other.  Maybe we shouldn't call web forums and
> other dynamic websites www, as they don't really follow that purpose. 

Nonsense.

> They are just abuses of HTTP/HTML/JS for thin clienting. ;)

Like UUencode is abuse of ASCII? LOL!

>> But why do you want that? (Oh, and you can't read news with Outlook).
>> Why do you want more people on Usenet? 
> 
> No, I'm not talking about usenet.  I'm glad if the SNR keeps as high 
> (haha) as it is, and messages in plain text.
> 
> I'm talking about using the technology for communication, instead of 
> reinventing the wheel with crappy web forums.

What is exactly crappy about those forums?

> Oh, and I've heard there are people reading our in-house newsgroup
> with Outlook.

Amazing, since I always understood that it can't do NNTP.

>>> while today
>>> everything is just Browser+HTTP.
>> 
>> And what's wrong with that?
> 
> It's slow and pointless.

The huge success of web based message boards seems so say something 
entirely different. When I post with X-news, there is a delay, when I 
post with my browser, there is a delay. I have no idea which delay is 
more significant. Maybe they are too close.

> All interaction that's more than clicking a 
> link has to be emulated with Javascript (heard of Ajax already?

Yes, I even mentioned it in this thread. And what's the problem?

> ) to
> make it more smooth.

HTML was never a programming language, and will never be. Hence for 
fancy stuff you have to use a programming language. Nothing wrong with 
that. 

> NNTP has advantages like giving you only the headlines first, so you
> can choose what to check out.

Funny, I see the same when I use phpBB. Headlines.

>  Then you can get the article if you
> like (in the communication case)

Yup, same with phpBB, I click a link, and bzzzt.. there is the article, 
and the replies to it.

> or the news description (in the
> RSSoid case)

Yup, there is a mod for phpBB that makes it possible to give each post 
besides a title a short description.

> and maybe click on a link inside.  Saves bandwidth and is
> quite faster than waiting for some overloaded PHP server to send you a
> bunch of HTML tables.

Hence, overloaded servers shouldn't use PHP, or use special caching 
tricks. I can't remember having seen slow boards, even not the ones with 
hundreds of simultaneous users (for example phpbb.com).

> Responding doesn't involve *any* HTTP requests,

No, but it requires sending your post to an NNTP server. Which takes 
time (when I press send, I don't see this window close immediately).

> just a keypress and you're typing.

Just a mouse click.

> Web forums are stone-age, as are most web-pages.

Maybe you should visit one and check out for yourself. Age has little to 
do with it, Usenet is way older, works. IRC is way older, works.

-- 
John                   Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
               Perl programmer available:     http://castleamber.com/
            Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html