[leafnode-list] Re: leafnode-2 local news to web forum (or FUDforum)

[Kevin Bulgrien]

On 4/1/2014 2:43 AM, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Am 31.03.2014 22:27, schrieb Bulgrien, Kevin:
>
> I'd like to pick out a few items, and use the opportunity to pick a bit
> at FUDforum - if it cannot handle holes in the message number sequence
> FUDforum is broken and must be repaired.  Any NNTP/Usenet-like client
> must be able to deal with holes in message sequences and -- while at it
> -- must not ever replace existing Message-Ids (which some other NNTP
> packages used to do in older versions).

Certainly one must agree that FUDforum 3.05 is broken with respect to 
holes in message sequence, and that if this is broken, that does seem
to raise the idea that perhaps other aspects of nntp support might be 
broken too.  This is now fixed in version control (probably the next 
release).  I reported the bug and it was fixed (within 2 hours of the 
report).

http://fudforum.org/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=123466&start=0&

Apparently FUDforum was only handling 423 error responses and did not 
treat 430 as a recoverable missing message indicator also.

> Your report serves to support my prejudice that most PHP-based software
> is written by people who only know where they want to get, but not how
> to properly get there, making unwarranted assumptions to reach a certain
> goal quickly -- but not robustly.
>    This is a prejudice and there are certainly decent PHP packages, but
> personally I have only ever permitted one installation of PHP + Pear on
> a locally-restricted server, and that's for FreeBSD's Tinderbox package
> building.

I will refrain from tossing all PHP-based software and all PHP 
developers into the same bin.  A purist viewpoint is often commendable, 
especially in terms of developing a server like leafnode-2, however, at 
times the purist viewpoint can sometimes be overly constraining.  I have 
seen PHP put to good use even if one might be advised to consider 
quality of implementation, standards compliance, and whatnot.  To each 
his own, I guess.

>> 3) Where groups exist like: site.group and site.group.subgroup exist
>> where both have messages, I had some trouble getting FUDforum to
>> render the forums sanely.  Again, I did not push really hard to
>> resolve this, as using a "general" forum for site.group.subgroup
>> seemed adequate for our usage.
>
> Adding newsgroups where one group name is the prefix of another, longer
> name, has always been frowned upon in Usenet because it caused issues to
> no end through all the software, and is expressly forbidden in many of
> the major established hierarchies, but frequent in anarchistic
> hierarchies like alt.*.
>
> Arguably leafnode-2 could check for and reject such mispractice for its
> own local groups, but it's infeasible for external groups unless you
> want to hide externally available groups.

We had only one instance of this, and it was born out of a failure to
anticipate the success of a product that would ultimately branch out
into various generations such that a single group became a bit unwieldy.

>> All in all, FUDforum looks commendable, and I probably will
>> transition to using it on a home server as well.  In short, with
>> appreciation for leafnode-2, I find myself bidding farewell to
>> something I've been using since about '01 and can't help but wish
>> it well even though it seems to have entered its sunset years.
>
> Given the amount of work that has gone into it in the past few years,
> the feedback that is coming in, and my spare time competing with other
> open source projects, I find that the facts how much work has gone into
> leafnode-2 have refuted my plans, and more importantly that the user
> base of Usenet-based technology appears to be diminishing and moving to
> mailing lists, and - what I personally find worse - web forums.
>
> While the latter usually ship with reasonable full-text search, I find
> them extremely inconcise and I frequently watch web forums haunted with
> slapping people for posting duplicate information, not reading, and
> everything -- which was much less in Usenet.

This mention and recommendation of FUDforum is meant to be constrained 
to possible use as a way of "archiving" leafnode-2's local groups and 
making the content more readily accessible under certain circumstances. 
  It was not meant to constitute a general
recommendation - though I did not necessarily communicate the whole set 
of circumstances and thought processes that led to a decision to use 
FUDforum.  I am profoundly sad to abandon use of leafnode-2.  Before I 
set it up on the server, all we had was e-mail.  In the end, though, the 
information is more important that taking a position on the medium that 
no one in the organization uses.

I imagine I largely feel that the usenet mechanism seems better than the 
mailing list or web forum paradigm except for one signficant detractor 
for leafnode-2 : the inability (I think I remember right) to cancel 
messages from the local groups.  This made for a mess when using the 
local groups as a sort of note board.  Mistakes or changes could not be 
"disappeared" without meddling with the message spool in rather 
nefarious ways.  When wiki came about, this lack in leafnode-2's local 
newsgroup really made it hard to appreciate the newsgroup as much as we 
did before wiki.  I guess one could counter that traceability is 
important, but I don't think its hard to come up with scenarios where it 
is not needed, or is even distracting.

Still, in my case, a lot of points are largely irrelevant.  This server 
was down to one user - namely me.  For all practical purposes, the data 
in the news server was lost to everyone else.  This is where a 
black/white view falls somewhat short.  I would be hard pressed to agree 
that I should stay away from a web forum as a way of helping the 
organization retain a better chance of finding old information gone 
stale in the news server.  A lot of discussions take place in e-mail 
these days - worse than all of the above in my opinion.  If I can get 
people to use it, I'll take a web forum over e-mail.

> The Lua contributor, Clemens Fischer, has disappeared, without my having
> any means of contact and even checking whether he's doing fine and has
> just lost interest (which would be fine).

It is kind of sad to see lights go out like that.  Funny how you get 
used to seeing people's names on lists even when you don't really 
interact with them, then just stop seeing them around.  I'm sure I've 
done that at times.

> Not having a client does not count, however.  Perhaps your corporate
> policy does not permit Thunderbird nor a purchased Outlook, I never felt
> that leafnode-2 was predominantly used in corporations, and was never
> advertised for such purposes.

Well, I guess I see your point, but it sort of ignores the aspect of 
browser ubiquity and the propensity for information about processes to 
get lost or obscured over time.  What system these days does not have a 
browser?  For sure our standard roll-out from IT does not include a 
reader.  While one could argue for all sorts of ways to mitigate this, 
it is remarkably simple to give someone a web link without having to 
explain they will have to get thus and so software to read the 
information they are seeking.

Unless I have been blind to it for over a decade, Outlook does not 
contain a reader (unless you are talking about something other than what 
comes with Office by default).  Outlook Express does, and for 7, Windows 
Live Mail does if you have to stay with a Microsoft product, but that's 
a separate download/install that the computer police would get involved in.

Sure, the client issue isn't really much of an issue in many cases, but 
it's hardly a non-issue if one considers a variety of factors relating 
to standard loads, user knowledge, etc., in an environment where use of 
software not sanctioned by an organization is somewhat difficult to pull 
off.  We are a group of less than 10 guys in an organization with 
thousands of employees.  We don't have a lot of pull.  I hope most 
people aren't similarly constrained, but I'd hope I wasn't judged too 
harshly on finding a compromise in a difficult IT environment.  (We have 
gotten cease and desist letters on use a number of tools.  Sometimes we 
push back.  Other times we go with the flow.  All hills aren't worth 
dying on.)

I'm not sure what to make of the "use in corporations" comment.  Who 
cares?  If it works use it.  I'm not sure why it should matter if a 
corporate user finds such software useful enough to incorporate into 
their processes.  If things or people change - change.  Our tiny 
engineering group, while in a corporation, did not follow what the rest 
of the organization did because we had special needs and IT preferred us 
to do help ourselves while they helped the herds with common needs.  IT 
changed over the years, and it is now MUCH harder to do what we used to 
be able to do 15 years ago.  I imagine other people find themselves in 
similar situations that are equally unfortunate.

Well, again, the point of this thread wasn't to convince anyone to move 
to FUDforum or to abandon usenet or leafnode-2.  People have different 
needs, and this tool seems to have made it easier for me to assure the 
organization is more likely to find the ancient writings that were 
locked away in leafnode-2's message store in the off chance that a need 
arises when I'm not there to sing the praises of an NNTP server.

Kevin


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com