Females in the community.

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 3/24/2016 9:34 AM, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>> BTW, the distributed nature of NNTP I regard as a major asset. The
>> aggregate of the forum posts are an immense resource for D, and having
>> it in a central location in a proprietary format is pretty risky.
> Discourse is free & open: http://www.discourse.org/ , so there are none of those
> issues.

Not what I meant.

1. I meant the message content is distributed, and so is resistant to loss. I 
have a current copy on my disk, for example.

2. Even if the file format is embedded in free and open software, someone would 
have to write code to view it. NNTP can be viewed by any text editor. It's very 
resistant to becoming unreadable 20 years from now.


> But most shortcomings of NNTP are innate and cannot be addressed, not in a
> proper way.

The only shortcoming of NNTP that is not innate are editing/deleting posts, and:

1. this is of debatable merit

2. there are methods discussed here of having them short-term editable

and NNTP has innate advantages that are not easily dismissed:

1. The distributed nature of it (as discussed) makes it like git. In fact, there 
are a lot of interesting parallels between github/git and DFeed/NNTP.

2. Different people have different preferences - NNTP clients are quite diverse. 
Forum software - one size fits all.

3. NNTP clients are available everywhere (although the ones on mobile devices 
stink).