I've seen ads for Usenet for as long as I can remember, but I've never really understood what it is, and the wiki article does a poor job of explaining it.

My understanding is that it's a giant BBS, just a large archive of newsgroups. But then:

  • Why would people still use it when most other text-based newsgroups have died off, and there are plenty of better, free alternatives? Is it mostly just old-timers?
  • Why would I need to pay for access to it? Aren't there sites that aggregate it for free?
  • Why do I keep seeing ads for cheap terabytes (!?) of storage space on usenet? What does that even mean - where would my files actually be stored, and why would I store them there?
link|improve this question

80% accept rate
5  
Several parts of this question are off-topic for StackExchange, since it is not possible for anyone to provide definite factual answers to them, merely personal opinions. – JdeBP Oct 25 '11 at 20:43
1  
@JdeBP: Why would you think that? The "Why would ... XYZ?" questions are perfectly valid - what are the benefits of XYZ? There must be some benefits, or people wouldn't use it anymore... – BlueRaja Oct 25 '11 at 21:04
3  
@BlueRaja You're not only asking for the benefits, but for judgments on the value of these benefits. Your question can be understood either way, but don't be surprised if it's closed tomorrow. – Daniel Beck Oct 25 '11 at 21:10
4  
@JdeBP - Knock it off; the questions are perfectly valid, and you know it. They can be rephrased to a more suitable form with a few words more or less, but they will still be the same questions. – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 21:57
1  
@Richard: Sure. SMTP, ftp, gopher, finger (you did put something clever in your .plan file, didn't you?), telnet ... – dmckee Oct 26 '11 at 3:06
show 3 more comments
feedback

closed as not constructive by ChrisF, Tom Wijsman, techie007, Gareth, Nifle Oct 26 '11 at 6:59

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. See the FAQ for guidance on how to improve it.

5 Answers

My understanding is that it's a giant BBS, just a large archive of newsgroups.

Your understanding is wrong. Usenet is not a single bulletin-board system. It is a network of intercommunicating systems. It's also — much to some people's dismay — not an archive.

Is it mostly just old-timers?

This is one of the parts of the question mentioned above. The participation varies, both from node to node and from newsgroup to newsgroup. It's impossible to say, not least because it's impossible to even identify some posters, but more importantly because no-one reads the whole of Usenet. It's — still — too large to be read in its entirety. Anyone who tells you what "most posters" are is telling you about xyr own small corner of Usenet, and is probably wrong.

Why would I need to pay for access to it? Aren't there sites that aggregate it for free?

One has always paid for Usenet and other network access in my experience. It is simply that one wasn't always aware up front that one was paying. My ISP, several years ago, used to provide a Usenet node for its customers as part of the package, for example. The cost of Usenet access was incorporated into the general cost of Internet access. Nowadays, of course, it, like many other ISPs, has long since discontinued its own Usenet node.

Yes, one can run one's own Usenet node. I do. But anyone who has done more than play at running a Usenet node will tell you that there are costs involved.

Why do I keep seeing ads for cheap terabytes (!?) of storage space on usenet?

Because to some people Usenet is a glorified file transmission and sharing medium. You'll hear people babble on about "retention" of binaries newsgroups, and boast that their retention times are better than those of the next fellow. That's all about using Usenet for file sharing.

(We Usenet nodes who participate in non-binaries newsgroups don't bother with that nonsense. Many nodes, including mine, effectively turned off article expiry for non-binaries newsgroups half a decade ago. The size of non-binaries traffic compared to binaries traffic is so vanishingly small that it's basically lost in the noise of a full Usenet feed, and non-binaries traffic isn't what it was in the 1990s in many hierarchies in any case. Power Usenet, for example, is currently advertising that it hasn't expired non-binaries postings for over eight years.)

People post chopped up, encoded, files using multiple incompatible encoding and partitioning schemes, in newsgroups where messages can arrive out of order and sometimes not at all, and other people spend their time trying to piece back together the results. There's a whole cottage industry of softwares to "help" people both post files to, and read files from, Usenet binaries newsgroups.

Yes, the world has invented better ways of distributing files since the 1980s. It has also invented more user-friendly and non-English-friendly discussion forum mechanisms — that, for example, allow people to converse using em-dashes; hyperlinks that don't break at the drop of a hat; quotation markup (such as the <blockquote>s in the hypertext of this very answer) that is unambiguous, works reliably, and is not hypersensitive to line wrapping activity; and (gasp!) real smileys. ☺ Some people still use Usenet, though.

link|improve this answer
2  
Nice technical discussion, but "real" smilieys are emphatically not a improvement. – dmckee Oct 25 '11 at 21:47
1  
@dmckee what about real snowmen? ☃ – BlueRaja Oct 25 '11 at 22:36
feedback

To further add:

  • no moderation
  • no Karma/Reputation
  • you can read within Thunderbird or any Newsreader (you can block posts over any kB size)
  • google has developed a new interface, you dont need to pay anymore, posting on google is now real-time, post were published delayed in former years
  • you can auto-delete your posts after distinct time
  • many programming projects still use usenet for development discussion (e.g. tiddly wiki)
  • you can simply make a group, you dont need a a proposal(area51) or software/server
  • you can ignore/filter users
  • easy registration to many different topics (compare with process on bulletin boards before facebook/twitter login became common)
  • netiquette, spell-checking are IMHO paid more attention to than in most bulletin-boards.

Judge on your own what are pros & cons. Its imo very subjective, what type of discussion you like.


Edit:

I would be interested to see a study if usenet becomes more popular again. Many people have a googleaccount, you dont need to register anymore which many bulletin boards still force you to do. Generally usenet users of the 90s often prefer the text-only style without embedding long big pictures/signatures/youtube vids and line-breaking and easy access to very different topics with one newsreader. Imho you will not find many kids and teens in usenet.

link|improve this answer
In other words, it had good moderation features, that are hard to misuse by a particular group of individuals... And if you don't like someone, you just put him in your filter. – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 21:54
@idigas :) yeah more self-mod options. Moderation doesnt guarentee you any quality in a discussion. But some usenet groups seem have a very high trolling/multi-user/spam rate, so even filtering would become a mess. Many groups concering programming projects are top notch actually. Usenet and Stackexchange can both yield high quality information, but they are completely different systems concerning philosophy of moderation/discussion. Actually I do think a reputation-based system without heavy moderation cannot work. Many user on usenet consider reputation probably as unnecessary/harmful – Hauser Oct 25 '11 at 22:07
I don't mind moderation. I mind what I like to call "subjective moderation" - sudden moderation by the subjective opinion of an individual, suddenly introduced and never seen before. Same goes for individual decisions on what is appropriate content, regardless of public opinion (which in many cases outweights the individual). On Usenet SPAM filtering from high posting users (spam posting) was done at the level of a server. I'm familiar with the procedure, and it was very effective. Basically, you would block a user completely from posting. (reputation on usenet? there is no – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 22:32
such thing on usenet) – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 22:32
1  
@KeithThompson - In the way these sites work. I'm not familiar with any group on news where moderators can change content during and after it's been posted. Then again, maybe I wasn't just subscribed to any of those. Most of the moderation I've seen on usenet comes down to delayed posting of messages. – ldigas Oct 27 '11 at 18:20
show 5 more comments
feedback

The usenet is the original newsgroup system of the early internet. It's protocol is nntp, and it has a great deal of history.

When it was still the dominant means of trading ideas over the internet (say up to circa 1995), most major institutions that made significant use of the internet had a in-house server from which you could access the usenet. And this was a big resource drain and the amount of data that moved on the usenet was significant---huge if you include much of the alt hierarchy.

It's the pure quantity of data that has made many providers happy to do without it.

While the usenet had some real problems, I'm not sure I accept the idea that the various tools that supplanted it are actually better.

link|improve this answer
1  
(the last part) Agree. Starting from the interface to some control, yet hard-to-manipulate mechanisms. Also, I would definitely move that date from 1995 to a bit later one (2000 or 2005) ... my ex-workplace still actively maintains a news server, and the newsgroups I visit still have very active traffic. And by that I do mean VERY active (>200 posts a day). – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 21:14
@Idigas: I choose that date because 1996 was the first time I had to negotiate with my organization's tech-support over continuing to offer a usenet server at all. I think I stopped checking my groups on a daily basis around 2002 or 2003. – dmckee Oct 25 '11 at 21:49
Well, I guess it's more popular in some parts of the world, than in others (Central Europe here) ... – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 21:52
feedback

Usenet goes back a long way, before the world wide web.

It is a distributed system for public discussions organised into a hierarchical system of topics. Messages are transmitted between servers using the Network News Transport Protocol (NNTP) and client applications can download these messages from NNTP servers. There is thus a global network of NNTP servers interchanging the latest messages.

Typically ISPs run their own NNTP server and offer free access to their subscribers. However this is becoming less common. There are separate paid for services and also several public free services.

Most servers expire (i.e. delete) messages after a period varying from days to months.

Google took over a large repository of Usenet messages called DejaNews and renamed it Google groups. It is still a valuable way to search old newsgroup messages going back decades.

Forums such as this one are not designed for discussion but for questions and answers. Usenet is more discussion oriented, though there is considerable overlap. Usenet is better for asynchronous discussions than web-based equivalents.

Newsgroup clients, typically maintain "threading" of conversations in a particular newsgroup. This makes it much easier to follow one of dozens of concurrent conversations. With other systems the different conversations are often all muddled together confusingly.

The main reason why Usenet is still used is because some of the subjects (newsgroups) still have a critical mass of experts participating.

link|improve this answer
This answers the first bullet-point, but what about the other two? Why would there be so many ads for paid accounts - why would anyone pay for an account if google-groups is free (just to use a different client? Are there that many potential users that the providers make money off all these ads)? And what does any of this have to do with cloud storage space? – BlueRaja Oct 25 '11 at 21:19
4  
@BlueRaja: Google Groups is an awful client for Usenet. It mangles signatures, fails to encourage good quoting, lacks killfiles (rules/filters) has no offline capability and a dozen other sins. That is probably people whose ISP doesn't provide an NNTP service may be willing to pay for a good fast comprehensive NNTP service with Terabytes of capacity for messages (including binaries) and a long retention time. – RedGrittyBrick Oct 25 '11 at 21:21
2  
@RedGrittyBrick - Not to mention, it is a source of an enormous quatity of SPAM. Can't stop it either, because no one (google doesn't care) controls it. In the old days, a server's abuse servicec would just block such user. – ldigas Oct 25 '11 at 21:55
3  
@BlueRaja - 'free' Usenet access generally only covers non-binary groups. Typically you need to subscribe to a pay server to get access to binary groups, which contain massive numbers of downloadable files. There are many legitimate uses of Usenet binaries, but a huge crowd are using it to download software and movies without the legal risks implicated by peer to peer sharing. "Cloud storage" has never really meant anything - it's a managerial buzzword for "we don't know/care where the server is". – Stefan Mohr Oct 25 '11 at 22:25
1  
@Idigas: Your point about spam is well-made. The stackexchange sites deal with it by the vigilance of it's members in conjunction with the reputation system. Google don't block spam but other NNTP providers do. Google's web-based client has no spam (or troll) filters but desktop NNTP clients usually have at least some filtering tools that can mitigate the problem. Some newsgroups have a better signal to noise ratio than others. – RedGrittyBrick Oct 26 '11 at 8:43
feedback

Reports of the death of Usenet are (slightly) exaggerated.

Most ISPs (including mine) have stopped providing Usenet services over the past few years, but there are still some free NNTP providers out there. The one I use is eternal-september.org; there's also aioe.org.

Google Groups provides an interface to Usenet, but it's really really bad. Many Usenet regulars ignore posts made via Google Groups because of this. Their Usenet archive, which they bought from Deja News, is quite useful though.

There are a number of free NNTP clients. I use Gnus, which is implemented under Emacs.

(Apparently there's a lot of traffic on the binary groups, but I don't read them.)

link|improve this answer
feedback

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.