Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Usenet With a 30 Year Lag

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the deja-what-now dept.

The Internet 102

joey writes "The early A-News days of Usenet are being played out on olduse.net in realtime with a 30 year time delay. You can catch up on what rms and Postel are doing, Keep informed of the latest prices in disk drives ($75000 per gigabyte), and more. Available through a web-based teletype or NNTP. I plan to run the service for the next ten years, until 1991."

cancel ×

102 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The article is the summary is the article? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350332)

I suppose that's one way to get people to RTFA.

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

dattaway (3088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350352)

I wish time was this recursive.

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353322)

BIFF.

CLASS OF 93

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (2)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350398)

I can't stop RTFA

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350408)

It's inconvenient to read TFA when the link provided is for "http://slashdot.org/olduse.net".

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (3, Funny)

gnick (1211984) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350430)

Great - Updated from "http://slashdot.org/olduse.net" to "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/06/1435259/olduse.net". Much better...

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (4, Funny)

pixline (2028580) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350508)

Great - Updated from "http://slashdot.org/olduse.net" to "http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/06/1435259/olduse.net". Much better...

The broken link is half of the 30-year-lag experience.

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350752)

It's inconvenient to read TFA when the link provided is for "http://slashdot.org/olduse.net".

It should have been "news:alt.misc.slashdot"

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350880)

Check back in 30 years and it will link to the real article.

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351092)

news://olduse.net [olduse.net] works in Mozilla SeaMonkey (probably works in thunderbird too, or netscape, or opera)

Re:The article is the summary is the article? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350504)

This is one time where TL;DR is really apropos.

Link is broken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350340)

Link in story is broken.

Link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350350)

See title for more details.

In order to understand recursion... (1, Funny)

balbord (447248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350372)

...you must keep vodka intake at sub-thursday levels.

My Mind is Officially Blown (4, Interesting)

gregarican (694358) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350396)

Besides a 30-year reverse time warp we have a recursive link. That's deep. Too deep for a Monday really...

Re:My Mind is Officially Blown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36357052)

Too deep for a Monday really

Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays. ;)

September '92 (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350422)

He really should run it until '92, when the Internet became accessible to just about everyone and was no longer a strictly military,academic, and industrial plaything. For historical interest those that were active before that date would be of greatest interest. Stopping in '91seems arbitrary.

Re:September '92 (4, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350576)

Well probably. I mean Eternal September [wikipedia.org] didn't start until nearly a year later.

Re:September '92 (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352438)

Right... and I suppose you could run all of usenet off a single thumb drive... until binaries started to appear.

Re:September '92 (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36355914)

Binaries were alive and kicking back in '91.

Re:September '92 (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36357134)

Fair enough... there was a time all the usenet binaries could have fit on a thumb drive, when binaries were small. I should have said feature length pornographic video.

Re:September '92 (1)

drcheap (1897540) | more than 3 years ago | (#36357168)

Fair enough... there was a time all the usenet binaries could have fit on a thumb drive, when binaries were small. I should have said feature length pornographic video.

Nah, the first thumbdrives were in 2000 at like 8MB, hardly enough to encompass all of usenet ... especially the usenet of 2000!

Re:September '92 (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36358452)

all turned around.... I meant usenet up until porno movies exploded there can fit on a thumb drive (now).

Re:September '92 (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350616)

And here, silly me, I was willing to stick it out until '93 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:September '92 (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350664)

Actually it was 199*3* when AOL added Usenet to its service, and thus began the never-ending influx of newbies.

I started posting on Usenet back in 1988 using local BBS feeds. The SYSop would download the messages at midnight, and his users would reply to the posts, and then wait a full day to see the answer.

Re:September '92 (3, Insightful)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350844)

Actually it was 199*3* when AOL added Usenet to its service, and thus began the never-ending influx of newbies.

I started posting on Usenet back in 1988 using local BBS feeds. The SYSop would download the messages at midnight, and his users would reply to the posts, and then wait a full day to see the answer.

Jeez, I get annoyed when the mobile connection on my smartphone doesn't work for 15 minutes. That really makes you appreciate how hyper-connected we are now.

Re:September '92 (3, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351004)

Yeah, that was when long distance calls were expensive, so BBS owners would try to keep costs down by only connecting to the Usenet at night. Fidonet BBSes operated on the same principle.

Some BBS owners provided real-time access to usenet or fidonet, but they also charged Users for that privilege.

Speeds were slower back then too. 1k or 2 k was standard for the Users, while BBS Owners shared messages across the nation at a "trailblazing" 18 k. Of course it was pure text - no pictures exist on Usenet or Fidonet.

QuantumLink (AOL) was the only service with lo-res graphics.

Re:September '92 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36357136)

No, there were others.

Specifically, PlayNet for the Atari 400/800, and various regional experiments by some of the local Bell companies and Times/Mirror (I believe the service in Southern California was called Gateway) that used NAPLPS.

Re:September '92 (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351556)

I remember two horrible early sites, PSUVM, where EVERYBODY USED ALL CAPS, and "the well", (the "whole earth 'lectronic link"). They brought in undergrads and flower children, and demonstrated that diversity is not always a good thing.

Re:September '92 (1)

mfnickster (182520) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351578)

"Netiquette." Now there's a term I haven't heard in a long, long time. What a quaint concept!

Re:September '92 (1)

Smauler (915644) | more than 3 years ago | (#36354588)

Everyone has "Netiquette" now, it's just different rules... they're told how to behave, and if they fail they get dropped.... same as before. People forget, back in the old days there were griefers all around... they just got shut down more effectively, and it was more effective when a community self censored. Admittedly it took more technical skill back then to communicate, which may be part of the difference.

Re:September '92 (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36356772)

And don't forget until about '95 most people were using real name accounts tied to their work emails. That helped I imagine the most.

Re:September '92 (1)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352368)

I think my first post to Usenet was in 1985, to rec.arts.sf.written, from a Unix system at college.

After college I had my Amiga on a dialup UUCP connection to a machine which was off of decvax. It was always disappointing to go down to the basement in the morning, where my computer (in fine nerd tradition) was located) and find that the connection had failed for whatever reason. Sending email that way was certainly not much faster than 'snail mail', if your Zoom modem wasn't all that reliable...

Re:September '92 (1)

jbolden (176878) | more than 3 years ago | (#36356764)

I don't know most of the people I talked to were also using FIDONET connections so it was 2-3 days. It was only when I started going direct in '92 that I got that high speed 6-30 hr turnaround times.

Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350484)

So if you post to it I suppose it changes the discussion, right?

I could probably get a lot of first posts using the timestamps from the current Usenet.

Re:Interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353586)

According to one theory your post will fork off a parallel universe where the new discussion will occur.

"Unable to connect..." (2)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350494)

Yup, just like the good ole days.

Ending it in 1991... (2)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350538)

.. a bit dramatic, don't you think? I wonder what the last topic is going to be. :)

Re:Ending it in 1991... (4, Interesting)

joey (315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350806)

I'm ending it when my archive ends. If google or someone wants to donate more material I'll consider running it further.

I'd like to get to 1994 myself, so I can read my own 1st post.

Re:Ending it in 1991... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351392)

so... cya in... 2024 for your first post... urgh

Re:Ending it in 1991... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351504)

I'd like to get to 1994 myself, so I can read my own 1st post.

It's not like anyone's ever going to ask you again, so let me be the first and the last person to ask you: what exactly was your first post? Can you post it here? I'm not trolling, I'd really like to know.

On a more trollish note - didn't you use to be Mikey from Orange County Choppers? Nice to see you back from rehab, dude.

Re:Ending it in 1991... (1)

Jicehix (778864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352722)

Excellent idea you had, and a beautiful UI by the standards of 1981 ;)

Thank you for your work.

Re:Ending it in 1991... (1)

ebh (116526) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352770)

Do you happen to know who archived all that stuff (i.e., where Google Groups originally got it)? If I had to guess, it would have been someone like Mark Horton at AT&T Columbus.

Re:Ending it in 1991... (1)

bessie (212155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353470)

I'd thought it was DejaNews, which Google bought back in the day.

Re:Ending it in 1991... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353516)

From the Wiki on Usenet:

"Web-based archiving of Usenet posts began in 1995 at Deja News with a very large, searchable database. In 2001, this database was acquired by Google.[67]
Google Groups hosts an archive of Usenet posts dating back to May 1981. The earliest posts, which date from May 1981 to June 1991, were donated to Google by the University of Western Ontario with the help of David Wiseman and others,[68] and were originally archived by Henry Spencer at the University of Toronto's Zoology department.[69] The archives for late 1991 through early 1995 were provided by Kent Landfield from the NetNews CD series[70] and Jürgen Christoffel from GMD.[71] The archive of posts from March 1995 onward was originally started by the company DejaNews (later Deja), which was purchased by Google in February 2001. Google began archiving Usenet posts for itself in August 2000. Already during the DejaNews era the archive had become a popular constant in Usenet culture, and remains so today."

Re:Ending it in 1991... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36358284)

The announcement of Linux in comp.os.minix

What if... (1)

balbord (447248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350562)

What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?

Re:What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350928)

I'd fry...

their brain with heroin and THC, maybe a dash of acid, then tell them. Drugs are awesome.

Re:What if... (1)

BrokenBeta (1007449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351592)

OP is quoting the film "Deja Vu".

If that film is accurate then you should be able to point your laser pointer at the screen and blind the participants as they post.

worth a try I suppose

should run until the eternal september (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350594)

To see once again just how damaging that was to the internet...

Nah (5, Funny)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350638)

This is old news.

Re:Nah (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350704)

Just watch it'll make the /. front page three more times.
And then again a year from now.

Re:Nah (2)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351306)

And then it'll show up on itself in another 30 years.

Finally, A Use For Perl +3, Subversive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350706)

I now have a reason to rewrite rn in Perl.

Yours In Detroit,
Kilgore Trout

Maybe John Titor's timeline was wrong? (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350762)

Instead of the big war he predicted would start in 2004, he was actually was saying it would start in 2034.

However, the world's now supposed to come to an end this coming October, and again in December 2012, so I'm not sure how this fits into the schedule.

No, don't cut it off at 1991! (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350834)

You have to play out the DePew debacle of early 1993! [catb.org] This generation needs to see the replay of one of the worst software lasers of all time!

So? (-1, Troll)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350846)

And I'm supposed to care... why?

Seriously, sounds like the net-nerds version of an oldies station [wikipedia.org] , relevant mostly to greybeards trying to relieve their youth.

Re:So? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350962)

You're not 'supposed' to care, jackass.

Not interested? Don't read it.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352610)

You're right... it has no cloud! :(

WAREZ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350852)

so... will this have the Commodore 64 releases from back then... or is it just another iteration of the useless usenet?

High server loads = huge lag after outage (1)

Sami Lehtinen (1864458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36350878)

This is exactly what we get, when services are tried to be run too efficiently. Like utilizing nearly 100% of resources provided by server. If server is down for just a while, it'll take ages to catch up. At least three news servers which I were using had all normal load over 90%. Which meant that if server went down for a day, it took easily one to two weeks to catch up!

Great, NOW I feel old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36350898)

As a Usenet user back in the BBS days of yore... this post really makes me feel... really, really, old.

Re:Great, NOW I feel old... (1)

bessie (212155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353560)

I know the feeling. I used to hang out on soc.singles (and before that, net.singles, before the Great Renaming).

I still read my email on my ISP's shell server, with Pine, still use trn.

I get the usual "Oh, is that DOS?" comments when people look over my shoulder. :-)

Re:Great, NOW I feel old... (1)

redwolfe7707 (664559) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353908)

I feel old too, but it's a proud feeling old.

I was there in the formative years of NetNews/USEnet (I was duke!ggw) and miss the real early postings.

This is apparently starting in 1981, while I was off-net for a while.

I alway know that usenet was slow ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351038)

30 year lag before seeing your own posts... :-) Now i understand why these html forums have taken over this usenet thingy !

Wait for the 30-year lag on Weiner's tweets! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36351166)

So much for the "hack job".

Yep - there's another woman who got messages from The Peter Tweeter!

Re:Wait for the 30-year lag on Weiner's tweets! (1)

tonique (1176513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36360320)

Perhaps even 30-minute lag would turn out to be too optimistic.

Had a similar idea, but with political news (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351364)

I've been thinking for the last decade or two that it would be interesting to do something like this, but on a shorter scale, such as 1-2 years, and using a source for political and world news that's as neutral as possible. That way, we can be reminded of things that are mostly still relevant, yet later got spun away, swept under the rug, or outright discredited. In particular, It'd be less of a novelty and more of a useful tool in refreshing our collective memory. I think it'd be especially useful in two situations:

1) It's easy to say that "X was a bad decision" after the fact, especially since parties are eager to blame the other side and someone always has to take the blame for things that go wrong, but if we see the events as they play out, sometimes those "obvious" bad decisions actually end up being good field decisions that were well-founed based on the information available at the time.

2) When we find out that someone in authority was lying to us over an extended period of time, those sorts of scandals are often downplayed in the media and swept under the rug quickly, meaning that they're forgotten and implicitly excused when we get distracted by something else. But if we re-watch the lies and see them as they played out, we'll be reminded of exactly how long and hard the lie was repeated without the coloration that later spin applied to it.

Imagine the public accountability that something like this could create. Imagine if the memory of the mob didn't last a mere five minutes, but instead lasted for years. Imagine how people's priorities would change when they're shown ephemeral things that they thought were world-shatteringly important at the time, but were really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Imagine how PR and spin would change if they had the knowledge that it would all be dredged up again later. Imagine how casual political discussion would change if the rose colored glasses were removed in such a manner. Imagine how much more consensus we could reach when we're all reminded of the original facts, rather than the spin and interpretation that happened after.

Ehh...I can dream, but I'm not kidding anyone, even myself. While I'd love to see something like that, there's no way it'd ever see its full potential.

Re:Had a similar idea, but with political news (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351946)

In Germany they re-broadcasted news after 30 years. The most interesting part was that it all is still the same shit going on. Nothing changed, except the names.

Re: New google feature? (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352040)

Excellent idea! For implementation, I propose that google add a "newsdate:" keyword... just specify a date, and you get the news (or the entire www, if that's possible) as it appeared on that day. That would be useful in a lot of ways for a lot of things.

Re:Had a similar idea, but with political news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353376)

Amusingly enough, a 24 hour Toronto news channel, CP24, did that on their overnight stretches, playing old CITY news broadcasts from the 1970s and 80s in the video area that would normally be used for live or current coverage. It was pretty interesting seeing some of the footage, especially when there'd be a 'live' event in a part of the city that has since changed radically. Even seeing the old skyline was nostalgic for someone like me who infrequently visited the city at the time and didn't move here til many years later.

Heck, they may still do it, I don't have cable anymore.

Re:Had a similar idea, but with political news (1)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353444)

This is called "post-blogging" by a few bloggers, who do it. The most prominent one I've seen is the NYTimes "Opinionator" blogs, post-blogging the US civil war, to coincide with the 150th anniversary. I've also seen some history blogs do some more specific ones -- the Sudeten Crisis and the Blitz, in one case, and the Boxer rebellion in another.

Re:Had a similar idea, but with political news (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353656)

I like that idea, but it loses the relevancy and accountability that a shorter delay of just a couple of years would afford, which is why I was thinking the 1-2 year delay. For purely informational purposes, I think that post-blogging, as you described it, sounds great. But as a tool of bringing about change and awareness of the current world, it has a more limited impact.

Re:Had a similar idea, but with political news (1)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | more than 3 years ago | (#36362670)

Nothing would change. The "news" is a soap opera that most people watch everyday. Stop reading the paper and watching the news for a few weeks, then come back. You'll find that you haven't missed much. There are probably a few scandals still going on dealing with some congressman or governor or whatever. There are still a few wars going on. Some of the stories are similar, but the names have been changed.

Not much is "swept under the rug" in old news, because you don't have to. It wasn't meant to mean anything beyond a day or two. People move on, because the news is, at its heart, entertainment to sell ads. Tomorrow you want something else, or perhaps you might keep watching the plotline if it's sensational enough.

I view almost all "news" sources the same way I view Slashdot. I go here for amusement -- to read others' opinions and to get some new insight. The insight usually comes from discussion more than from the actual stories, which are often either mundane tech stories or "shocking" revelations that generate a lot of arguments. People watch the news so that they can have something to bitch about at the water cooler.

Try giving up the "news" for a while. I haven't listened to or read the news every day in many years, but by checking in briefly every few weeks, I seem to be about as "informed" as most people I know... probably more so, since I spend my time reading substantial documents dealing with issues that seem important, rather than a few paragraphs of junk with a sensational headline slapped on top.

Quite a few years back, I read a book entitled "How the News Makes Us Dumb" (or something like that). My favorite account from that book was of a major, very respectable newspaper, quite a few years ago (in the heyday of supposedly "serious" journalism). In the newsroom one day, the editor stormed in, furious, and threw the newspaper from that morning onto the table. There were stories on the stock market, ongoing wars, etc. on the front page. His comment was on a photo on the front page: "Next time when we put a nice-looking Midwest girl on the front page, can we please be sure to keep her tits above the fold?!?"

So, I don't think reliving the news is going to change much -- it, like this Usenet thing, would be mostly about entertainment for people who like old news.

$75000 per gigabyte (2, Insightful)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351412)

Seriously, how many people were buying storage by the GIGAbyte back then? The first time I ever heard of a "hard disk drive" was around 1984 (give or take) and it was a 10MB drive that cost about $3k. A friend told me about it, and said it was wicked fast. When I asked him "how fast," he expressed it in terms of the load time for PC-Write [wikipedia.org] .

HIM: "You know how, when you load PC-Write, it takes about 10 or 15 seconds to read it off the floppy disk? Well, when you have this 'hard disk' thing, you type pcwrite, hit ENTER, and the hard disk goes 'zzzzt' and then the PC-Write screen pops up all at once."

ME: "Whoa.... Cool!!"

Now we buy terabytes for the cost of a few-dozen floppies in that time. At least we're doing something well.

Re:$75000 per gigabyte (1)

Jicehix (778864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352784)

In the archive, there is a post from 1981 in net.general mentionning a new hard drive with a capacity of 560MB, by DEC and selling for $38K-$48K.

Seems huge for thirty years ago.

Re:$75000 per gigabyte (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36355290)

Well, you have to consider this was definitively not 3.5"...

Re:$75000 per gigabyte (1)

ibmjones (52133) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353380)

You know how, when you load PC-Write, it takes about 10 or 15 seconds to read it off the floppy disk? Well, when you have this 'hard disk' thing, you type pcwrite, hit ENTER, and the hard disk goes 'zzzzt' and then the PC-Write screen pops up all at once."

.

Hey, that's faster that Microsoft Word on the Mac!

Re:$75000 per gigabyte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36355628)

1984 Macintosh vs Windows 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJdPlHQxLQ0 [youtube.com]

Wish I had lived through this... (1)

Deorus (811828) | more than 3 years ago | (#36351794)

This is the only thing that makes me envy the me generation. I was born in 82 and am loving to read about the EUNICE project on VMS from a year before I was born. The 80s sure were epic!

Re:Wish I had lived through this... (1)

Frederic54 (3788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352218)

I'm born in 1970 and went on the net in 1990, I know usenet pretty well (as well as gopher, and IRC) and I rememebr a.b.p.e.* :-)

What was epic in the 80s was the personnal computer like the C64 or the Amstrad CPC6128, the Z80 CPU, etc. I had an old 8086 PC with 2x 5¼ floppy and a monochrome monitor...

Re:Wish I had lived through this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352686)

a.b.p.e == alt.binaries.pictures.erotica for all you young whipper snappers out there...

GET OFF MY LAWN

Re:Wish I had lived through this... (1)

ogdenk (712300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36357232)

Actually your "personal computer" these days has more in common with a mini or early UNIX workstation than it does any of the "home computers" such as the Atari 8-bit, C64, etc.

I was born in '82 but have a QBUS-based VAX I occasionally fire up. I didn't have a PC until 486's were cheap. I grew up with real computers with either MOS or Motorola CPU's. But the minicomputer era is every bit as interesting as the micro era. They just didn't have Star Raiders for the PDP11. I cut my teeth on home computers like the Atari 800 but large systems my parents couldn't afford still amazed me. Especially the early Sun Sparcstation at my father's work along with the massive Gould and Perkin Elmer systems.

I wish there was a little more steam behind recreating older architectures on expandable FPGA boards. I also wish copyrights weren't granted for longer periods than a typical language dialect lasts so these older relics could live forever instead of relying on bad scans of sales brochures and aging human memories that you'll probably also get sued for. And with the trend toward "recycling" (melting for scrap) old systems instead of true recycling (find the damn thing a use) is going to further ensure the genesis of a large piece of our culture will be lost to the ages.

For the non patient (1)

krelian (525362) | more than 3 years ago | (#36352180)

http://www.skrenta.com/rt/utzoo-usenet/ [skrenta.com] apparently includes a copy of all 141 tapes which comprise the oldest archive of usenet messages.

Good deal! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36352916)

Does it have alt.binaries? My usenet provider costs like 10 bucks a month and only provides 1000 days worth of retention, which means I can't pirate popular software from the 1980's.

This should ameliorate that problem quite well!

Re:Good deal! (1)

joey (315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353230)

There's no alt.* yet at all, in 1981, but this was just posted "today" to fa.info-cpm:

Keith Petersen (W8SDZ@MC) has uploaded the following files for those
of you with the APPLE II with the Microsoft Z80 cards and CP/M. We
suggest that you capture MC:CPM;APBOOT MAC (or MC:CPM;APMBOT ASM),
assemble it, and use it with :LMODEM on MC to get MC:CPM;CRCK COM and
the MC:CPM;APMODM 21ASM or MC:CPM;APMODM 2ASM. Assemble either APMODM
and you can throw away APBOOT. From there you can use APMODM to grab
whatever other files of interest from MC:CPM; or the various Remote
CP/M systems around the country (see MC:CPM;RCP/M NOS and MC:CPM;RCP/M
INFO for more details).

MC:CPM;
    1 APBOOT MAC 0 +235
    1 APBYE ASM 4 +764
    1 APHIGH MEMASM 0 +310
    14 APMBOT ASM 1 +500
    1 APMODM 21ASM 7 +550
    1 APMODM 2ASM 7 +832
    1 APMODM DOC 0 +908
    1 APXMOD ASM 4 +848

Out of curiosity (1)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353084)

If all this was put on a DVD+R (assume double layer, since DL burners are fairly common now), and starting from the very beginning, how many years of Usenet would the single disk be able to store?

Re:Out of curiosity (1)

joey (315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353250)

All 10 years that I have.

sweet! (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353156)

Finally get a chance to get all those pr0n fills that nobody would ever repost.

Re:sweet! (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353306)

this message is no longer available on the server

Re:sweet! (1)

Paul1969 (1976328) | more than 3 years ago | (#36359386)

Were those already on Usenet that early?
I "discovered" it shortly after going on line (with an AOL account) early in 1996. It was already loaded with binary goodies.
But at dial-up speeds, it became a slow-motion race to see if you could download all the segments of some juicy item before the 30-day article retention period ran out.

Huge Privacy Bomb Waiting to Explode! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353162)

Back in the old days, most people posted on Usenet without the realization that their posts would be sneakily archived for perpetuity. The circle of readers and posters were rather small, and the concern of privacy had not arisen until very later on. As such, most people post in their real names, contrary to the present-day practice of posting pseudonymously when discussing social or political issues.
Then, sometime in the 1990â(TM)s , some company, probably Altavista, made the archive of Usenet available in archive form. Fortunately, it made it possible for me to remove my posts in their archive with relative easy.
It troubles me greatly that olduse.net is being launched without any apparent measures to address privacy concerns. The consequences can potentially be gravely perilous for many people. I strongly suggest its operators take actions to address the privacy issues. Better yet, the issue of privacy should be made so prominent that it informs and guides any and all future old Usenet resurrection enthusiasts.

Re:Huge Privacy Bomb Waiting to Explode! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36359722)

olduse.net/ forum/ Huge Privacy Bomb Waiting to Explode!

Back in the old days, most people posted on Usenet without the realization that their posts would be sneakily archived for perpetuity. The circle of readers and posters were rather small, and the concern of privacy had not arisen until very later on. As such, most people post in their real names, contrary to the present-day practice of posting pseudonymously when discussing social or political issues.

Then, sometime in the 1990's , some company, probably Altavista, made the archive of Usenet available in archive form. Fortunately, it made it possible for me to remove my posts in their archive with relative easy.

It troubles me greatly that olduse.net is being launched without any apparent measures to address privacy concerns. The consequences can potentially be gravely perilous for many people. I strongly suggest its operators take actions to address the privacy issues. Better yet, the issue of privacy should be made so prominent that it informs and guides any and all future old Usenet resurrection enthusiasts.

----------------------

bomb went off 8 years ago

It's not like this is the only copy of this archive of Usenet. Not a lot can be done about something that has by now echoed its way across the net for decades.

Olduse.net does not provide posts in a way search engines will see, or that can be linked to, so its actual impact will be limited to whoever few people are reading it on the day 30 years after you made your post.
Comment by joey - 10 hours and 17 minutes ago

-------------------

You are wrong on numerous accounts.

When Dejanews, which I previously misstated as Altavista, first put the Usenet archive online, I had my posts deleted. Actually, I deliberately left a few innocuous posts for posterity. But those are gone too and nowhere to be found on the internet. As of now, I am completely safe.

While poorly understood in the beginning, the issue of privacy has arisen to overriding dominance. It is incumbent upon whoever wanting to resurrect the old Usenet to respect and observe the copyright and privacy of the posters. The onerousness of purging posts to which they have no right rests upon the resurrectionists. Failure to do so means exposure to huge and punishing legal and financial consequences.

So YOU are hereby explicitly warned!

wow, how thigns have changed (4, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36353204)

amazing looking back 30 years and seeing how things were so different... The economy was in the tank, gas prices were through the roof, unrest in the middle east and a nuclear scare... glad we have come so far

Don'tt forget Micropolis sold Audio Video drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36358848)

Because a Audio Video hard disk drive wasn't like the others, because it was fast enough to keep-up with the capture rate of your digital media equipment to stream onto the platter, unlike Western Digital and Seagate!

AV drives from Micropolis were around $2k for a 80MB unit, if I remember correctly. They were so well made in USA, they still work today, and they sound warm like a vinyl record player. Things made in USA just work better, but not until it's bought-up by Maxtor.

NNTP?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353340)

Why can't we get a newsfeed from this site via UUCP?

Fidonet Holysmoke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36353698)

Archives are popping up everywhere. Recently I found this archive of the Fidonet Holysmoke echo [tdavis.org] . It's amazing to me how much effort people are willing to invest to resurrect things like this.

I first got on usenet in 1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36355704)

So, this goes back a few years before my time. It certainly takes me back though. I was working at a company, actually a division of a company, whose system admin had gone to Berkeley. He made damn sure we had a usenet connection to our DEC PDP 11 and later our two Vaxen as they were acquired. These systems ran unix, probably 4.2BSD. They were ridiculously puny compared to even the cheapest low end PC of today. We had no graphics, just a bunch of terminals connected by serial lines to the host computer, pure command line interface.

If the bosses had known how much time we spent at work browsing usenet, I don't think they would have been too happy. Most sites on usenet were universities or research departments. My company was a high tech company; we were developing scientific instruments for use in industrial laboratories. I was what would now be called an embedded systems programmer.

Email was an adventure. You had to figure out a route from one site to another, with links separated by exclamation marks, and sometimes the exclamation mark or 'bang' had to be escaped so the shell wouldn't interpret it as a history designator. You see that in the 'path' lines from the posting headers, (an example plucked at random from a posting at the site: utzoo!duke!unc!smb. 'duke' would be Duke University, and 'unc' the University of North Carolina, google 'utzoo' and see what you find.) An email might take hours to get to its destination!

I actually purchased a copy of the original usenet tape cassette (http://nosuch.com/usenet/tapes/).

What you see now is only what was archived, typically on mag tape. There was no formal organization charged with preserving the archive so it's just what administrators at various sites bothered to keep, and then, years later, what was still readable off the media. When google groups started making the archive available, I remember the discussions about how some of the more off the wall usenet groups were not necessarily preserved and some of the old-timers regretted that they preserved technical stuff but not the socially oriented stuff, which nowadays would provide an interesting window on where peoples' heads were at about things like gay marriage or whatnot.

And the flame wars in those innocent times! Flame wars about tubes versus transistors or analog versus digital in rec.audio for instance with all the colorful imagery of their invective that nerdy college students could muster.

Even reading this site now, using the keystrokes to navigate, my fingers still remember how to do it! Groucho Marx is supposed to have said about the nostalgia for Vaudeville that vaudeville was terrible, what the old timers are nostalgic for is their youth. Maybe that's what I'm nostalgic about when I think of the old usenet, I dunno. But, if you went to a reasonably serious newsgroup and asked a question, you could usually get a pretty good answer without a lot of static. And you didn't have to go through a moderator or sign up to use the site with an id and password. You just asked. And you got a few responses but they were generally good responses because the whole thing was a relatively small community of people who were mostly somewhat on the ball or they wouldn't even know about usenet.

I must be old... (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36357076)

I didn't need to read the prompts, just automatically started navigating and reading by keyboard.

As always, spacebar = MORE

alt.nerd.obsessive (1)

bedouin (248624) | more than 3 years ago | (#36358060)

Suddenly a bright light has appeared, and I no longer fear the unknown. The past and future shall be rewritten beginning today.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>