Better forum

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:09:00 +0100
"js.mdnq" <js_adddot+mdng at gmail.com> 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:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/announce/3069.html
> 
> 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.