Clive Eisen wrote:
> Brad Kunkel wrote:
> snip
>
> . What I guess I don't get is why it's not organized; not a
>> central authority but a code of ethics. If Usenet ever becomes
>> mainstream, governments will likely get involved and screw it up.
>
> It's not organised for historical reasons. Maybe you aren't old enough
> to remember when WAN connections were
> a) Slow
> b) Expensive
> c) Mostly dialup
> d) Rare
>
> Info was distributed once to a server near you and then read by local
> users. News was one way that this happened, and you just got your news
> from your upstream server who got it from their upstream server .....
> a long way upstream servers co-operated to make sure that all messages
> were copied everywhere. Depending on the route to you messages would get
> hoplesly out of sync, which is one reason why threaded newsclient were
> created
>
> Because server A would serve sever B through Z and vice versa depending
> which host got a particular message first it became almost mandetory to
> carry all messages/groups ( sometimes excluding binary groups because
> disk was EXPENSIVE) and some of the porn groups, even if you didn't have
> local users subscribed to some of those groups, because others depended
> on your feed.
>
> HTH
You are very mature man, I can say. Am wondering can usenet become AGAIN
mainstream?
--
Enor
Received on Sat May 01 2004 - 18:42:12 CDT
