|
 |
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 07:49:40 +0100, ABX <abx### [at] abx artpl> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 22:00:46 +0000, IMBJR <no### [at] spamhere> wrote:
>> Like the UK is still part of Europe, Alaska is a part of the USA, this
>> server is part of usenet.
>
>Wrong example.
>
>Usenet is not every newsserver ever existed. Usenet is network of servers
>where every server eexchange its data. Usenet groups can be accessed by
>anyone, and contain informal messages on a variety of topics. POVRay groups
>can be accessed by selected members (in other words you can be banned here)
One can be banned on other servers too public and private.
>and does not contain groups available on any other server. Usenet is
I seem to recall efforts to make sure this stays the case. It seems
that occasionally, dopelgangers of the groups appear on the main
network. So saying that they do not appear elsewhere is not strictly
correct.
>completely decentralized and does not represent any particular server.
Not as decentralised as you might want to believe. I believe the net
in general is "grouping up" in its topology. This is a security
concern as pathways become more and more like major arteries and could
be compromised, bringing major disruption. We have already seen this
happen with e-mail and the web.
>news.povray.org is localized and unique. The only thing shared between Usenet
>and news.povray.org is shared protocol and viewer for operating. Usenet
>predates Internet and not every Usenet machine is in the internet.
No. The internet started the very day that 2 (or more) computers were
linked together with a transport protocol. Usenet quickly followed.
>news.povray.org can be closed and data can be lost.
As can be any other server.
>Usenet if reality can't be
>simply closed because it is equally distributed over the world.
Again, I bet there are a number of nodes that if pulled would indeed
cause major loss of traffic flow.
--------------------------------
My First Subgenius Picture Book:
http://www.imbjr.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
