lispi314,
@lispi314@mastodon.top avatar

I have complicated feelings regarding and due to some server-centric aspects.

Granted due to message the death of any given instance isn't catastrophic and moving is largely unnoticeable, but it still puts some hurdles on usability in adverse conditions.

It still fulfills most of the characteristics handily, but that's still a nagging thought, since /most/ instances demand fairly high-uptime to peer and don't allow such instability from peers.

simon_brooke,
@simon_brooke@mastodon.scot avatar

@lispi314 not so. When I ran an NNTP-over-UUCP server I dialled in to my upstreams once every day (and later twice each day but both in off-peak time, so not at neat twelve hour intervals). My 'downstreams' dialled into me whenever they chose to but typically also in off-peak time, for cost reasons.

A continuous network connection is definitely not necessary.

lispi314,
@lispi314@mastodon.top avatar

@simon_brooke Yeah, the UUCP/NNCP-accepting instances are of the ones that don't have such uptime demands.

simon_brooke,
@simon_brooke@mastodon.scot avatar

@lispi314 UUCP – or store-and-forward more generally – is not a bad model for intermittent connections and low energy situations.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • usenet
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • InstantRegret
  • tacticalgear
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • slotface
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • ethstaker
  • kavyap
  • cisconetworking
  • mdbf
  • megavids
  • everett
  • Durango
  • cubers
  • vwfavf
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines