| ▲ | aizk 4 days ago |
| I'm a zoomer dev and I have a question.
The article here linked to google groups - https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.jwz
"Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable."
I've never even heard of google groups, and it's crazy to read conversations nearly as old as me. What is/was UseNet? Was that the precursor to php bulletin boards in way / the forums of the 90s - 2000s? Would the zoomer equivalent be discord for my generation? |
|
| ▲ | kragen 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Usenet was a decentralized forum where anybody could participate and nobody could be banned. Despite this, the quality of discussion was usually very high. The user interfaces supported rather comprehensive threading and filtering capabilities, so you could block the people you wished you could ban. It was sort of destroyed by spam (since spammers couldn't be banned) but doesn't have much spam anymore because it's too obscure for spammers to bother with. There isn't a Zoomer equivalent, because the internet has been locked down since then, and anyone who attempts to offer an uncensored and uncensorable forum gets brigaded and maybe swatted, then cut off from the banking system. But Usenet still exists. |
|
| ▲ | jcranmer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Probably the closest modern equivalent to Usenet is Reddit--each newsgroup is roughly kind of like a subreddit, and, like Reddit, threading is quite the norm in newsgroups. The main difference is that Usenet wasn't centrally organized, messages tended to be rather longer than Reddit posts, and it's possible to cross-post on Usenet (post to multiple newsgroups with one message) in a way that it isn't on Reddit. (The pre-web antecedent of Discord would be IRC, latterly stuff like AOL chat rooms.) And if you think it's weird to read conversations nearly as old as you, I'm a millennial and I've read Usenet conversations older than I. |
| |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > And if you think it's weird to read conversations nearly as old as you, I'm a millennial and I've read Usenet conversations older than I.
I first read the Apollo transcripts when I was maybe 8 or 10 years old - this was deep into the 1980s but the Apollo missions were still before my time. Reading such material at 8 or 10 didn't feel unusual.Now, rereading as I near 50, they are surreal. The conversations, and the moon itself, have not changed one bit. But myself and the world around me are unrecognisable to the 10 year old me still reading over my shoulder. | |
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Messages on Usenet did not, at least in the mid-1990s when I spent too much of every day on it, tend to be longer than Reddit posts. Reddit has better posts than Usenet. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | jibal 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Are zoomers incapable of looking things up? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet |
| |
| ▲ | aizk 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Am I not allowed to start a conversation thread on a website where I specifically know there's many old developers who were around for that era? Of course I could use google or gpt - this is more informative. | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I didn't say anything about what you're allowed to do. "this is more informative" As someone who was on usenet before it was even called that, I can authoritatively say that it isn't. I can tell you that many of the claims here are false ... e.g., someone claimed that the name "usenet" came from news organizations in 1993/1994, but in fact the name was voted on at a 1982 USENIX conference (and I was present and voted). |
| |
| ▲ | rusk 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wikipedia isn’t as prominent as it was in my day, and Google isn’t as good. | | |
| ▲ | aizk a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Wikipedia is fine, I just wanted to start a conversation on this site because many users here were around when usenet was big. | |
| ▲ | jibal 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Even if true this isn't relevant. | | |
| ▲ | rusk 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Totally false things are clear to you? Ah well. I'm not hating on anyone, fundamentally dishonest person. P.S. I helped develop the ARPANET and my name is mentioned in RFC 57. P.P.S. My comment included the Wikipedia link ... so much for having something useful to add ... I did, you apparently don't. The whole idea that asking HN--a form of social media with all of its problems--is asking experts but reading Wikipedia (not a "conventional communication channel")--written/curated/edited by experts isn't is completely nuts. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bionsystem 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Usenet" has a wikipedia page which describes the network quite well. I used it in the late 2000s, not just for discussion as some groups were also hosting warez. Pretty sure you can still go there although it's unclear you'll get the post quality of the 80s-90s (back when I read discussions it was already a lot of trolling). |
|
| ▲ | Hilift 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Usenet groups pre-dated the web. There were "discussion" groups like alt.startrek. However, by volume, uunet was extremely popular for distributing pictures like for desktop wallpaper. It was also 100% accessible by dialup modem, which would connect on a schedule and download updates from your upstream server. I connected two companies to the Internet between 1991-1993, and uunet was one use, email was the other. Small-ish ISP's around 1991-1994 usually accommodated uunet for business accounts. Our ISP was notable due to if someone complained about a post, they required the complaint to be made in writing/fax, and you had to provide your name and address. |
|
| ▲ | TrueDuality 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Usenet is still around and still fairly active, though by volume its probably more commonly used as the originating source for anything torrented nowadays. PHP bulletin boards is a good approximation if you squint. If you imagine being on a large number of topical mailing lists all filtered into their own inboxes you wouldn't be far off. |
|
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A classic interaction from Usenet (I suspect the Reddit comparison is apt), was someone coming upon a really nasty fight between a couple of trol- er, users. They expressed horror, and said something to the effect of “My god! I came to discuss cats!”. Another user commented something along the lines of “You have mistaken this forum for a place to exchange information. It is not. It is a public toilet. Jump on in.” |
|
| ▲ | hollerith 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The newsgroups, a.k.a. net news, were the front page of the internet -- more so than Reddit ever was -- till the web started taking off in the very early 1990s. The only other service that might lay claim to that title would be IRC (Internet Relay Chat), but net news probably had about twice as many users. The big difference between those two services and the web was that most participants used text-only software (in terminals) to access them. Actually an even bigger difference is that (like all the other services on the internet back then) net news and IRC were run by volunteers. The average IQ on the internet back then was more than 130 (whereas of course today it is in the range of 102 to 105) -- and it was 98% or 99% men and much more libertarian than today. One thing that hasn't changed is that people back then tended to spent much more time on the internet (particularly, on the newsgroups, IRC, text-only MMORPGs) than is good for them. It was always called the newsgroups or "net news": calling it Usenet was started by the news industry when they started explaining the internet to the world in 1993 and 1994 because obviously "net news" is a horrible name (in their minds) for any service or scene that they did not control. More precisely, the newsgroups began on what is basically a "competitor" to the internet called Usenet, then migrated to the internet, so "Usenet news", i.e., that news-like service that started on Usenet, is not a terrible name for it, but "Usenet" by itself is kind of a bad name because it already meant something different, namely, this network (now probably long gone) that carried email and other services in addition to newsgroups. |
| |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "calling it Usenet was started by the news industry" This, along with several of your other claims, is a fabrication. I actually participated in the vote on the name at the 1982 USENIX conference. | | |
| ▲ | hollerith 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I stand corrected. My mistake was assuming that the friend who introduced me to it in 1991 was representative: he called it net news and in 1993 or 1994 when people started calling it Usenet, he told me that no one in his experience called it that. The first people I observed to call it Usenet were mainstream news articles. When web sites owned by mainstream media started appearing, the phrase "net news" appeared on more than one of their mastheads / headers. | |
| ▲ | dang 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wow! | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | As long as you're here ... can I have whatever sort of limit you have on me lifted, please? | | |
| ▲ | dang 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I already did that. But can you please do a better job of sticking to the HN guidelines? I'm in awe of your involvement in computing history, but you've also posted quite a few comments that break the rules here, which is not cool. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | About my involvement: I was in the right place at the right time. I was hanging out in the UCLA Computer Club in 1968 at lunchtime when Steve Crocker (new head of the UCLA ARPANET project under Leonard Kleinrock) came by--he wanted to teach a class on "LISP and Theorem Proving" and wanted to know how to register it. We chatted and he told me about his recent MIT PhD Thesis on man/machine symbiosis to help programmers figure out other programmers' code (e.g., dead COBOL programmers), and I made a brash comment about being good at figuring out code, so he gave me a couple of challenges on the whiteboard that I just happened to be expert in, and he offered me a job with the Comp Sci Dept on the spot. I ended up sharing a cubicle wall with Jon Postel. My supervisor was Charley Kline, who was the first person to ever to a remote network login, to SRI--it famously crashed on the first attempt but they quickly found the bug and he logged in at 10:27pm. This was just a few weeks after the IMP arrived, which sat in a corner for a couple of weeks while engineering student Mike Wingfield built an interface card to connect the IMP to the Sigma-7 host. I was in the machine room when Mike came in with the board held high shouting "Eureka!" | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Another bit of "just so happened" involvement in computing history: I was on X3J11, the C language standards committee (one of the very few members there on my own dime after someone on ByteCom challenged me to put up or shut up after complaining about some of the committee's decisions) and, due to alphabetical order, I was the first person to vote to standardize the language. IIRC, it passed unanimously except for an abstention from Doug Gwyn (famous for saying “Unix was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things”). | |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thank you. I will study those rules and work to be a better HN citizen. Thanks for giving me the opportunity, and for calling me out appropriately. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jibal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Newsgroups/Netnews were not the front page (whatever that means) of the internet since the internet did not yet exist (and the internet is a collection of interconnected networks ... it's a category mistake to talk about a "front page" for such a thing). There was the government-run ARPANET first developed in 1969 (I was among the developers), and there was a UUCP-based network over phone lines between UNIX hosts started in 1980 (shortly after UUCP was released) over which Netnews ran. Netnews was known as "the poor man's ARPANET" as any UNIX machine could receive it whereas being on the ARPANET was heavily restricted. These are totally different technologies, and different yet was the future internet which was based on the TCP/IP protocols developed by Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn (but based on packet switching like the ARPANET). In no way was usenet a "competitor" of the ARPANET (and certainly not the internet), or even of the World Wide Web ... these are very different sorts of things. It was more like a big brother to the many Bulletin Board Systems that proliferated that ran over FidoNet and BITNET. The news industry had nothing to do with the name "usenet", which came into use in 1982 as a result of a vote by the participants (I was one) at a USENIX conference. The "use" part came from USENIX (the UNIX user's organization). It was decided that "usenet" would refer just to the newsgroups, and the network itself was called UUCPNET. There is of course no measure of the IQ of users of usenet (or of the ARPANET, or of the internet, or of the web, which again are different things). One can suspect that it was above average because the nodes were mostly universities, but not everyone going to universities is above average in intelligence. There is also of course no measure of their political leanings, but since these were universities shortly after the invasion of VietNam and its accompanying draft and fresh from the development of the civil rights, LGBT, women's rights, and environmental movements, they tended to be quite liberal, but of course there was a spectrum and some extreme outliers (Clayton Cramer comes to mind). The most memorable libertarian I recall was Laura Creighton who, notably, was not a man. I particularly remember her saying, without any irony, that "If I thought I didn't have free will I'd shoot myself". Ah, those were the days. | | |
| ▲ | dredmorbius a day ago | parent | next [-] | | For an excellent compendium of what early computer discussion networks (or "conferencing systems" as they were often called at the time) were like, as well as a bunch of technical background on the actual data networks and protocols of the time, I'd highly recommend John S. Quarterman's The Matrix, first published in 1989. That is, it predates the World Wide Web, and was only about six years after "The Internet" largely (weasel-word conspicuously noted) replaced "ARPANET" as the designation for the widely-used (amongst university, government, military, and some tech-company) public networking protocol and system based on TCP/IP. Late-breaking news about the effect of computer networks on notable political protests in China are included in the forward. At the Internet Archive (and apparently from Kahle's own personal collection): <https://archive.org/details/matrixcomputernet00quar/page/n3/...> I'd begun using Usenet at about the same time as the book was published, and can't personally attest to the information jibal's giving, but will vouch that their account is far more accurate than that to which they're responding. | |
| ▲ | hollerith a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just because I wasn't a first-person witness to the start of ARPANET in 1969 or the early years of the newsgroups doesn't mean that I can't be an accurate witness to the newsgroups or the internet when I encountered them in 1991, which was at least 6 months before the web starting having any significant influence on the internet. In 1991 it was almost universally referred to as the Internet (capital I): I met only one person between then and now who called it ARPANET. I concede my final 2 paragraphs contained errors (more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44722631) and promise not to perpetuate those errors in the future. I am very curious about the great switchover from Network Control Program (NCP) to TCP/IP on January 1, 1983. From the perspective of an ordinary user of the network with no interest in the low-level details of how the network worked, did anything change beyond maybe the appearance of the Path field in email headers? E-mail, Telnet and FTP worked the same way before and after the switchover; did they not? | | |
| ▲ | jibal a day ago | parent [-] | | "Just because ... I can't be ..." [strawman] -- of course it doesn't mean you can't be ... you simply weren't. "In 1991 it was almost universally referred to as the Internet (capital I): I met only one person between then and now who called it ARPANET." What "it"? Again, the ARPANET and the Internet are (were, since the ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990) different things. The Internet is called that because it was formed from interconnected networks, one of which was the ARPANET. The ARPANET did not become the Internet in 1983, it simply adopted the protocols that would later be the basis of the entire Internet. This isn't worth pursuing further. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dartharva 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| For programming-specific contexts I think StackOverflow might be the better equivalent. |