🚀 go-pugleaf

smr <me@shawnritchie.com> wrote:
> Geoff Gass wrote:
>> Cydrome Leader<presence@MUNGEpanix.com>  wrote:
>>> Bruce Esquibel<bje@ripco.com>  wrote:
>>>> barbie gee<booger@nosespam.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I noticed that there's been a drop off of posts, and recall there was some
>>>>> kind of announcement that someone was dropping the feed.
>>>>> Do I really have to go to Google Groups to see it?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how that would help, unless it's some internal group at Google
>>>> and not the usenet group.
>>>>
>>>> Usenet isn't centralized, so one system somewhere "dropping the feed"
>>>> wouldn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things.
>>>>
>>>> What is more likely these days is, if there was a specific system like
>>>> aol.com or msn.com, where people posted from to that group, and those
>>>> systems dropped usenet support, unless the people on those system find
>>>> another server, which most probably won't bother, that effects the number of
>>>> posts.
>>>>
>>>> But it's not like they are missing, they just don't exist.
>>>>
>>>> Usenet is dying off. Recently someone posted stats on the number of posts
>>>> made to it going back to like 1987. The peak was in 1999/2000 and has been
>>>> dropping off since.
>>>>
>>>> We're like at 1992 volume levels now, in another 5 years it'll probably be
>>>> at 1987 levels, or for all practical purposes, the best thing next to zero
>>>> as you can get.
>>>>
>>>> -bruce
>>>> bje@ripco.com
>>> how about when you compare the volume of usenet traffic with the pirated
>>> blue-ray ISOs and stuff like that, instead of posts to the irix groups?
>>
>> is that still happening?  kinda thought most of that stuff had moved to
>> torrents
>
> Usenet it still big for that as well due to its perceived higher levels 
> of anonymization than torrenting provides.

I guess it's mostly one-way as well, as opposed to the inherent two-way
model of torrent.