Re: Don't waste time on offline newsreaders...

> > 2) It's not an efficient use of net resources for the same reason
> > Netscape's cache is when compared to squid---it means each person
> > using a machine must downloading a copy of gnu.emacs.bugs instead of
> > using a shared cached copy.  Disks are cheap, but bandwidth rarely is.
> Why ? 
> You don't take care of the dial-up lines. I agree that we cannot take care
> only this, we must take care also this. 
> What I want is a newsreader that it is usable also with a dial-up
> connection. I don't want to pay a expensive phone bill, so for me (or
> other) is better the offline reader.

So? What we could do about this is either wasting time making an offline
newsreader, or - we invest the time for a better online newsreader. 

Remember - online is not necessarily online. Instead of using an online
connection to your ISPs' newsserver to read news, you could also use suck to
get the news from there and feed that into a local newsserver on your machine.
That way you could read news "technically online" while being
"physically offline".

Where's the problem with that? It should be somewhat easier fixing up scripts
building a local newsserver and setting up suck to get the news.


Windows 95: n.
    32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit
    operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor,  written
         by a 2-bit company that can't stand for 1 bit of competition.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]