 | | Re: Dear NNTP users, —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | (...) Yes. But why would anybody do that? NNTP is (IMO) the most logical transport protocol for RSS data anyway. That hack would only be needed if you transported RSS data over a non-threaded protocol like HTTP (which unfortunately often is the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users, —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) Why? For futureproofing. I suspect that NNTP will decrease its 'marketshare' as time goes on whilst RSS will increase. I could be wrong about that but from reading this tree, it seems I am not the only person who has dumped NNTP for reading (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users, —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | (...) You seem to make the same mistakes as many other people: a) RSS and NNTP are two completely different things. RSS is a data format. NNTP is a data transport protocol. b) Things aren't bad, just because they're old. (...) NNTP will not become (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users, —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | (...) I am not making a mistake. I am referring to use rather than the precise definition. I am well aware that a protocol and a data format are different, does a typical user care, however, that (s)he just downloaded a file via FTP or HTTP? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 30-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Dear NNTP users, —Suzanne Rich Green
|
| | | | I'm content with news being at LUGNET's core. So, assuming all goes well, it'll stay the same for a while. When folks want to subscribe via RSS feeds, or whatever else, I think that'll be pretty simple to do with what's already here. My original (...) (19 years ago, 31-Jul-05, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
