Python Forum
in [Python]
|
Prev: signed vs unsigned int
Next: Mixing Decimal and float
From: Aahz on 6 Jun 2010 14:46 In article <mailman.999.1275845128.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Monte Milanuk <memilanuk(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 6/6/10 9:46 AM, Aahz wrote: >> >> but I prefer to rely on someone else's sysadmin and I >> really don't want to allow remote connections into my home network. > >To each their own... while Panix is fairly relaxed as a shell host, I >prefer to not have someone else telling me what I can and can't install >or use, especially when I'm paying. To be honest I can't SSH out from >work anymore, so the remote connections / static IP is somewhat of a >moot point. And that is one reason why Panix is helpful (assuming your work does simple port blocking and they don't have a formal policy banning SSH): starfury:~> ssh -p 80 panix1.panix.com aahz(a)PANIX.COM's Password: >What I was trying to say was I don't get the point of paying for >an account on a provider clear across the country simply for the >sake of getting Usenet access... especially when more and more large >institutions are shutting theirs down (i.e. the death knoll for usenet >as others have pointed out). Perhaps it would count for 'geek' points, >but I'm not too worried about that ;) Obviously, I don't use Panix only for Usenet, but Usenet is still a large part of my social life. I have no idea what I'll do when Usenet really starts dying. -- Aahz (aahz(a)pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "If you don't know what your program is supposed to do, you'd better not start writing it." --Dijkstra
From: Ben Finney on 6 Jun 2010 20:17 rantingrick <rantingrick(a)gmail.com> writes: > There has been many arguments here for and against Usenet. Personally > I say the rein of Usenet is coming to its logical conclusion. Dead as > a clavo! Much better interfaces abound. So you say. For the interface to be “better” it needs to keep the good features of the existing interface. I include among the good features of Usenet: * No need for creating a new identity; my email address is enough. * No need for balkanising my identity; messages cross to all participating Usenet servers. * Forums are kept distinct, but the easy option to cross-post is there when appropriate. * The forums don't live in any single server or organisation, and new servers in different organisations can be added to carry the load of distributed messaging, so there is no machine nor organisation acting as single point of failure. * A single program allows me to subscribe to one, dozens, hundreds, or thousands of forums, and use exactly the same interface to participate two-way in all of them. * I can replace that single program with any other program that follows the open standards, and the same messaging interface applies exactly. Where is the “much better interface” that improves on all of that? -- \ “If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all | `\ others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking | _o__) power called an idea” —Thomas Jefferson | Ben Finney
From: D'Arcy J.M. Cain on 6 Jun 2010 20:45 On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:17:39 +1000 Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > So you say. For the interface to be “better” it needs to keep the good > features of the existing interface. I include among the good features of > Usenet: That's a great list of features. But they all apply to mailing lists as well. > * No need for creating a new identity; my email address is enough. Obviously true for mailing lists. > * No need for balkanising my identity; messages cross to all > participating Usenet servers. Ditto. Also, good word. I usually use "ghetto" when talking about FB, MS, etc. Same idea. > * Forums are kept distinct, but the easy option to cross-post is there > when appropriate. Ditto although I'm not sure that this is a feature. Mailing lists sometimes have options to prevent this which might be a good thing. In any case, it's nice to be able to choose on a list by list basis. > * The forums don't live in any single server or organisation, and new > servers in different organisations can be added to carry the load of > distributed messaging, so there is no machine nor organisation acting > as single point of failure. As with mailing lists but MLs allow even better distribution. With Usenet the hubs still have to carry every group. With mailing lists only the servers involved need to carry it. I guess the trade-off with mailling lists is that you get one point of failure for a particular ML but distribute the load much better. > * A single program allows me to subscribe to one, dozens, hundreds, or > thousands of forums, and use exactly the same interface to participate > two-way in all of them. Yes. This is probably my second biggest issue with forums. Ghettoization (balkanization) is number one. > * I can replace that single program with any other program that follows > the open standards, and the same messaging interface applies exactly. With mail that is also true. In addition, its a program that you already have if you have email. > Where is the “much better interface” that improves on all of that? I have always been a big fan of Usenet. I was using it back when you could subscribe and almost read every group. For a while I was a hub and downloaded the entire distribution to my little home computer. Binaries, what the heck is that? But I just gave it up a long time ago. Mailing lists just made so much more sense to me. I now run a number of mailing lists. I can't even run a news server on my own little ISP any more and have to contract out. In fact, my biggest complaint with this mailing list is that it gateways to Usenet. That's where most of the spam on this list comes from albeit the bulk of that is Google groups which I can easily filter out. By the way, what is the generic term for Usenet groups, mailing lists and forums? They all have a common overall purpose and it seems as if there should be a word. Hey, we could all go back to FIDO-Net. :-) -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(a)druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
From: Lie Ryan on 6 Jun 2010 21:02 On 06/07/10 10:45, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:17:39 +1000 > Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: >> So you say. For the interface to be “better” it needs to keep the good >> features of the existing interface. I include among the good features of >> Usenet: > > That's a great list of features. But they all apply to mailing lists as > well. I think Ben Finney was making comparison between Usenet/Mailing-List vs Forum. The argument basically sums up to Distributed vs. Centralized. >> Where is the “much better interface” that improves on all of that? > > I have always been a big fan of Usenet. I was using it back when you > could subscribe and almost read every group. For a while I was > a hub and downloaded the entire distribution to my little home > computer. Binaries, what the heck is that? But I just gave it up a long > time ago. Mailing lists just made so much more sense to me. I now run > a number of mailing lists. I can't even run a news server on my own > little ISP any more and have to contract out. My only problem with mailing list is that for large lists, it can easily overflows my inbox. Having a separate interface (e.g. NNTP) is quite useful. For large list, I wouldn't be able to read all the posts anyway, so from time-to-time I'd "Mark Everything as Read", you cannot reliably do that in your Inbox even with filtering and all that stuffs.
From: Ben Finney on 6 Jun 2010 21:29
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(a)druid.net> writes: > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 10:17:39 +1000 > Ben Finney <ben+python(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > So you say. For the interface to be “better” it needs to keep the good > > features of the existing interface. I include among the good features of > > Usenet: > > That's a great list of features. But they all apply to mailing lists > as well. Not quite, though mailing lists certainly have good uses. I agree that mailing lists share some of the features I listed, but not all. The points where I disagree are: > > * No need for creating a new identity; my email address is enough. > > Obviously true for mailing lists. No, since with many mailing lists I must maintain an identity separately for the specific mailing list: a username + password pair. Sometimes the username is the email address, which helps; but having to maintain the identity (or opt out and stupidly use the same password at multiple sites) is a worse option than Usenet. So some mailing lists pass, but most fail on this feature. > > * Forums are kept distinct, but the easy option to cross-post is there > > when appropriate. > > Ditto although I'm not sure that this is a feature. Having the option is the feature; it's certainly true that the option should be exercised only sparingly. But it's not something that should be prevented by default. > > * The forums don't live in any single server or organisation, and new > > servers in different organisations can be added to carry the load of > > distributed messaging, so there is no machine nor organisation acting > > as single point of failure. > > As with mailing lists but MLs allow even better distribution. Not even remotely true. Mailing list transport and archiving is generally maintained at a single site. With Usenet forums, these tasks are distributed between all participating machines, in different nations and organisations. Archives are not kept indefinitely in all cases, but in many cases. So mailing lists fail this feature. > I guess the trade-off with mailling lists is that you get one point of > failure for a particular ML but distribute the load much better. Right. I'm not saying that there aren't trade-offs; I'm addressing only the claim that “much better interfaces” exist. > By the way, what is the generic term for Usenet groups, mailing lists > and forums? They all have a common overall purpose and it seems as if > there should be a word. There is a good word: “forum”. That covers any place (even virtual places) where people congregate to discuss on an agreed topic. Just because a new kind of forum has appeared, it doesn't have any special claim to the word. The existing forums are still forums. -- \ “The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact | `\ you'll ever have to confront. Don't dare ever see your life as | _o__) boring, monotonous or joyless.” —Richard Dawkins, 2010-03-10 | Ben Finney |