Comment Re:You didn't read it. (Score 1) 361
rhaig wrote:
> As for dumping the archives? I think it sucks
> too, but they were having to support more than
> 100 servers to hold all that news.
If that's a factual statement, then I withdraw
every positive comment I've ever made about
Dejanews (excuse me, Deja). And I certainly hope
no one is really paying them any money for
services, or investing in them as an organization,
as it's plain that they've neglected to spend any
money hiring or retaining skilled technical staff.
> the old news was on of course the older machines
> that tended to break, and all those machines
> were being supported for the benefit of less
> than 5% of the searches being performed, 0% of
> people who didn't use power-search (as it's the
> only search on their site that goes all the way
> back) and 0% of the people who read day to day
> news.
There is some merit to what you're saying here,
though I still think there are likely some
inaccuracies to it. The full dejanews archive
was always used by people who read day-to-day
news, though not necessarily through deja.com
exclusively.
However, the major point you skirt around slightly
is this: the focus of the organization has gone
through a radical shift since its inception, when
it was dejanews, a searchable archive of USENET.
And today, it is "Deja.com -- before you buy."
In other words, being a searchable archive of
USENET is now an afterthought for Deja. And since
it's not where they're expecting to make any
money, maintenance and scaling of that aspect of
their service is no longer a priority -- whether
the old USENET community, such as it is anymore,
likes that or not.
> Does it suck that 4 years is off the net
> until they can come up with a better way to
> support it? Yes. Do I blame them? No.
Well, I personally can find plenty of fault with
the decision and their strategic direction, even
though I understand their business decision, and
even though I suspect the real story behind that
stuff being offline is a little more like, "Crap,
we can't seem to get those machines back up --
okay, quick, damage control: we decided to do
this!"
> You don't like it? offer to pay for co-locate
> space for those 80+ servers that hold those 4
> years of news and maybe they'll listen.
Here, I think, is the real ironic tragedy: were
Deja willing to say to the USENET technical
community at large, "Okay folks, we're going to
lose this archive and have to take it down if we
can't come up with something to do with it -- we
aren't capable of maintaining it any longer," it
is not at all implausible that a large number of
USENET veterans, true believers, and computer
professionals would indeed have come up with a
technical solution that would have allowed the
archive to remain functional. After all, USENET
itself (which is really nothing but a money sink
in practical terms) remains operational -- why?
Because of the freely-donated time and other
resources of those who believe it's important.
--Abby Franquemont
> As for dumping the archives? I think it sucks
> too, but they were having to support more than
> 100 servers to hold all that news.
If that's a factual statement, then I withdraw
every positive comment I've ever made about
Dejanews (excuse me, Deja). And I certainly hope
no one is really paying them any money for
services, or investing in them as an organization,
as it's plain that they've neglected to spend any
money hiring or retaining skilled technical staff.
> the old news was on of course the older machines
> that tended to break, and all those machines
> were being supported for the benefit of less
> than 5% of the searches being performed, 0% of
> people who didn't use power-search (as it's the
> only search on their site that goes all the way
> back) and 0% of the people who read day to day
> news.
There is some merit to what you're saying here,
though I still think there are likely some
inaccuracies to it. The full dejanews archive
was always used by people who read day-to-day
news, though not necessarily through deja.com
exclusively.
However, the major point you skirt around slightly
is this: the focus of the organization has gone
through a radical shift since its inception, when
it was dejanews, a searchable archive of USENET.
And today, it is "Deja.com -- before you buy."
In other words, being a searchable archive of
USENET is now an afterthought for Deja. And since
it's not where they're expecting to make any
money, maintenance and scaling of that aspect of
their service is no longer a priority -- whether
the old USENET community, such as it is anymore,
likes that or not.
> Does it suck that 4 years is off the net
> until they can come up with a better way to
> support it? Yes. Do I blame them? No.
Well, I personally can find plenty of fault with
the decision and their strategic direction, even
though I understand their business decision, and
even though I suspect the real story behind that
stuff being offline is a little more like, "Crap,
we can't seem to get those machines back up --
okay, quick, damage control: we decided to do
this!"
> You don't like it? offer to pay for co-locate
> space for those 80+ servers that hold those 4
> years of news and maybe they'll listen.
Here, I think, is the real ironic tragedy: were
Deja willing to say to the USENET technical
community at large, "Okay folks, we're going to
lose this archive and have to take it down if we
can't come up with something to do with it -- we
aren't capable of maintaining it any longer," it
is not at all implausible that a large number of
USENET veterans, true believers, and computer
professionals would indeed have come up with a
technical solution that would have allowed the
archive to remain functional. After all, USENET
itself (which is really nothing but a money sink
in practical terms) remains operational -- why?
Because of the freely-donated time and other
resources of those who believe it's important.
--Abby Franquemont
