December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 04:46:34 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
> [sorry, it sent before I finished editing].
> I was just mentioning a related post from a couple months back:

Well, you should go back and edit your original post then :o)
December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 07:37:29 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 05:11:59PM +1100, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 12/6/2012 4:47 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> >What's the voting supposed to do? What are you voting on? Whatever it
>> >is, it can't have any effect beyond those who use the web interface,
>> >so unless it's specifically something that only affects you account,
>> >I don't see how it could really work.
>> Also, voting systems are easily manipulated and abused. Fixing that
>> requires, well, a larger investment in thinking about it, human
>> moderation, etc.
>> Doesn't seem worth it, to me.
>> I wouldn't underestimate the ongoing effort forums like reddit and
>> hackernews put into voting systems.
> Voting is one of those things that everybody thinks is a good idea.
> Until it's put into practice, then you realize it needs further
> refinement. Which adds yet another layer of adjustments, and then you
> realize that *that* also has its shortcomings, and needs yet another
> layer of adjustments, ad nauseaum.
> But nobody ever takes a step back and wonder, why do we even *need* a
> voting system? What does it mean for a forum post to be rated X, for
> some value of X? I mean, this isn't a popularity contest here. We're
> trying to have a technical discussion. It should be the technical merit
> of a post that establishes its value, not some arbitrary integer that
> got randomly assigned to it. And frankly, when you're browsing the
> archive for past discussions on a specific topic, do you even care how
> many votes it had? What you care for is the meat: the technical points
> raised in the post itself. The number attached to it holds no meaning
> whatsoever.
> T

If all posts at D Learn could have been tagged by subject and easily looked up in a structured subject tree, as in the language reference, I belive it could complement the documentation in a useful manner.
December 06, 2012
On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:40:38 +0100
"js.mdnq" <> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 5 December 2012 at 22:14:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> > On 12/6/2012 8:50 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> >> The latter is caused by bad(ly configured) NNTP clients, not the server.
> >
> > That brings up another advantage of NNTP servers. It is very old technology, meaning the bugs have been worked out of it long ago. There is no constant issue of upgrading to the latest version to fix some obscure bugs, etc. Just turn it on and it works.
> >
> > And, lastly, there's a wonderful effect of NNTP not being where the "cool guys" are. The spammers overlook us! Sure, we get a drive-by slamming from a spammer maybe once a month, but by and large NNTP flies under the radar these days.
> Hehe, it's cause no one uses it! if you check out most groups they are full of spam ;/

This one isn't. Neither is Vibe.d's:

> Only good spam filters can control it to any degree. With a BB, you require people to register which will stop 95% of spam. The other 5% could be fixed by asking more complex questions, stop posting of suspected spammers. Do not allow new users to post more than 1 post an hour. Allow certain people(not necessarily moderators) to kill spammers. Block IP's from registering more than once a month or so, etc...
> There are many potential ways to reduce spam to near zero. Most BB's I've used have near zero spam without any complex spam protection mechanisms(as far as I know).

This one has near-zero spam *without* putting all those roadblocks in front of users.

> BB's have the ability to edit,

Limited editing would be nice (ex: for up to a few minutes after initial posting), but replying with an addendum is pretty damn easy, too. So this is a fairly minor thing.

> delete,

So does this. Most of the few troll posts we get *do* get deleted.

> and move posts.

Meh. Only rarely useful, and even then it's not really that big of a deal.

> Allow easy image insertion,

That could be nice, but inserting a URL to an image is super-easy, too.

Besides, most web-based message boards make it too easy to insert images. I've seen FAAAR too many message boards where every damn user has about 3-5 images that they have auto-inserted into EVERY damn one of their posts. The whole board just becomes a garbage heap of pointless, idiotic avatars, with only a teensy amount of *real* content in between all the visual narcissism.

> private messaging,

WTF? It's called "email".

I'll never understand why the "millennials" insist on re-inventing
established, open, and universally COMPATIBLE technologies with
a myriad of isolated, proprietary, walled-off equivalents. (Not that I
mean to single out that generation to pick on - I hate all generations,
including my own <g>)

> sticky threads,

A rather minor feature. If something needs to be "sticky" it may as well just be a straight web page, maybe with a comment section if need be.

> Also, the most popular BB's are pretty well tested because they are more widely used than nntp.

Like phpbb? ;) (Only kidding...)

> So while it is true they are newer and more sophisticated they also are actively supported.
> IMO, the only downside is supporting legacy users who refuse to make the transition. I think they are just being hard headed though...

Calling us hard-headed old fogeys (even if not in such words) isn't really a compelling argument, especially to us hard-headed old fogeys.

December 06, 2012
On 12/6/12 1:47 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> This one isn't. Neither is Vibe.d's:

What do they use?

December 06, 2012
On 12/05/2012 09:38 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/6/2012 1:09 PM, Rob T wrote:
>> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 00:33:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Take a look at this forum. No spam.
>> Well not exactly ...
> Those posts do not appear if you're using an NNTP reader. It's not a
> fault with using NNTP.

Not true.  They do appear on NNTP as well.

As well as the thread breakage any many of the other complaints.

It appears we have this discussion about once per year.
Please stop acting like NNTP is the godsend you act like it is.

It is nice, but it guarantees very little of what you claim it does.

And with that, I'm not having this discussion again.
December 06, 2012
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:09:00 +0100
"js.mdnq" <> wrote:
> Usenet is dead, simple as that.

I find it hilarious that you've posted that in a big discussion on a heavily-used NNTP server :)

> The mentality of staying with usenet is no different than that of saying with win3.1. Just because you think it is better or want it to be better does not mean it is.

Just because you think or want web-BBs or Win8 to be better doesn't mean it is.

> I understand status quo is a huge factor to overcome but all progress relies on doing so. How will D attract new users if it's method of communication is unfriendly?

We already have a web-interface, even with avatars and multiple views, fast page loading and whatnot. So lacking a few minor bells and whistles is a FAR cry from actually being the unfriendly new-user-averting blunder you're trying to make it out to be.

> It's much easier to customize a BB system rather than nntp. In 10 years how many nntp servers will there be?

How many facebook servers are there? And I don't mean internally, I mean "From the perspective of the rest of the internet". Basically just one. And yet that doesn't stop hordes of people from using it.

> Most ISP's already have stopped providing nntp. NNTP can't be upgraded because it is a distributed system and all servers must be upgraded(Which isn't going to happen).

All those points are irrelevent here because this isn't a typical distributed-NNTP channel. We *have* a central, public server that anyone from ANY isp can use. We can upgrade it without worrying about the rest of the world's NNTP servers. And ISPs aren't providing this, digitalmars is, so ISPs cannot stop providing D NG access since they're not the ones providing it in the first place.

> I just came across this post from a "random" search:
> Which wouldn't happen in a BB system.

'Course it would. Most BB systems have the admins determine what "sections" exist, not the ordinary users.

> Optimally both types of forums could be maintained. That way everyone can get a piece of pie.

First of all, we already have both. Second of all, if we had both in
they way you're suggesting, then we would be splitting the community.
That's a very bad thing. (And we've caught a *lot* of flack for
splitting the community before, what with Phobos/Tango and
D1/D2, so we're DEFINITELY not going to do it again.)

> (my main point is that BB's can be easily customized to suit most peoples needs.

So can an NNTP frontend. But an NNTP frontend can do it better because NNTP is a standard protocol. With BBs you have to customize it for every damn BB system out there.

> If you want a nntp like client I'm sure it would not be difficult to create one as a mod to a BB.

Uhh, we've *already* done it the other way around. If you want a BB-like client, it's *already* made and out there. And we're not going to flip it around just because one person wants us to and tries to berate us for being un-hip and for not hopping onto the newer==better bandwagon.

Besides, if you want "that's old" to succeed as an argument for abandoning something, you should be posting in a french clothing designers forum, not a programmer one.

> But sticking with nntp just guarantees that nothing will ever get better/change)

I don't want it constantly changing for the sake of change. And I strongly dispute the claim that BBs are better. I liked them a lot *until* I discovered newsgroups.

December 06, 2012
 It isn't the worst nor the best,

I see many times where a thread gets split up -- eww
can't edit anything -- eww
At least I can view it as a forum not a mailing list - happy

December 06, 2012
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:09:34 +0100
"Rob T" <> wrote:
> Many ISP's have dropped usenet services completely,

Doesn't matter since we use a dedicated server and therefore aren't hindered by ISP bullshit.


> and most of the newer generation have no idea what a newsreader is. This is unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

I really think that's irrelevant since most of the younger *and* baby-boomer generations have absolutely no idea what a *web browser* is, and yet they still fumble around with them all the time.

Plus, we're not "most", we're programmers. Plus we do have a web interface anyway (and it even supports those avatars that all the kids seem to require these days ;) ).

December 06, 2012
On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:38:39 +1100
Walter Bright <> wrote:

> On 12/6/2012 1:09 PM, Rob T wrote:
> > On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 00:33:23 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >>
> >> Take a look at this forum. No spam.
> >
> > Well not exactly ...$b29$
> Those posts do not appear if you're using an NNTP reader. It's not a fault with using NNTP.

In Claws-mail, they didn't disappear from my client when you deleted them from the server. But that's the fault of Claws-mail being a piece of shit. Even the much-hated Outlook Express on XP actually obeyed the deletion properly. This Claws-mail crashes when you paste/undo/redo.

> Vladimir is working to do a better job syncing the with the NNTP database.

Great! :)

December 06, 2012
On Thursday, 6 December 2012 at 19:39:07 UTC, DypthroposTheImposter wrote:
>  It isn't the worst nor the best,
> I see many times where a thread gets split up -- eww
> can't edit anything -- eww
> At least I can view it as a forum not a mailing list - happy

Why can's a BBS be modified to integrate with the current forum?

After all, nntp and BBS's are basically databases with user interfaces. (nntp through it's protocol and BBS's through web browsers)

It seems that if D's forum works and is able to interface between web based nd nntp then it wouldn't be hard to integrate or modify a BBS to work with nntp. This way we get the best of both worlds(or everyone can be happy).

To me, this is the best option and it shouldn't be difficult to do.


When a person posts on the BB the message is sent to the nntp server just as it is done here. Should be very simple as the current forum already implements the code. (possibly just need to massage the data a little)

When a response is made from nntp then it must be determined where it fits. This is probably the difficult part but probably be pretty easy.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8