Old Nick wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:04:15 -0500, "J. Clarke"
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Old Nick wrote:
On 24 Jan 2005 20:32:38 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
vaguely proposed a theory
......and in reply I say!:
remove ns from my header address to reply via email
I agree it's sad, and seems silly. But....
I just changed ISPs because the old one's ngs were moribund. They said
they were not fixing them. Nobody used them. I said "Well you weren't
right, but you may be from here on!" and left.
The newsgroups are the same for everybody. What's different is how long
their particular server holds messages and the quality of the feed they
get from their upstream provider.
What's also different is if their server allows me to pick up news
messages. If it was amatter of tyhow lomg it held messages, then the
answer is "not at all".
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
There isn't anything to "fix".
Yes there is. I could not get news messages from one ISP's server.
Their database of news was munged. They were not going to fix it.
That seems odd.
But my point is that the ngs seems to be a very little-used resource
on the Web. My old ISP has ten of thousands of customers, and they
said they had maybe 50 people using the groups on any sort of regular
basis.
Dunno about that--right now I'm showing 8000 posts on the wreck alone and
I only hold posts on my workstation for a week.
Yep. Sure. I see about 100+ entries every day. But that's from the
whole world's use of that NG, and IME this is a pretty active ng. In
the context of the total trafic through my ISP it is peanuts.
However "total traffic" is a meaningless measure. One big graphic generates
more traffic than a thousand USENET posts.
_They_ said that they had less than 50 users. They have 10,000
customers. Not my words.
Which may mean that USENET is unpopular or may mean that 9951 of those
10,000 got disgusted with them and went to Newsguy or one of the other
dedicated USENET hosts, of which there are many.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)