On 11/9/2023 6:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
>> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
>> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
>> part of the web.
>
> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
> was 20 then.

Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:07:09 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> had ceased to exist?

In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one day
it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had dropped it,
rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider.
But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 06:24:51 -0500, Gary McGath wrote:

> I'm open to other suggestions. I connect to the Internet through
> T-Mobile, which apparently has never heard of Usenet.

<https://news.individual.net/>

You pay 10 euro/year (use PayPal) and it filters spam for you.

--
s|b

eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed
>> it had ceased to exist?

> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
same job.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 11/11/23 1:40 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
>> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
>> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
>> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
>> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
>
> I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
> that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
> even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
> same job.

For most people, paychecks are a lot more important than Usenet.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
>> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
>> was 20 then.

> Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.

I don't know if you mean age 93, 1993, or 2093. 1993 feels very
recent to me. But I recently realized that I'm closer to age 90
than to any part of the 1990s.

ObFandom: In 1993 I attended ConFrancisco. I don't recall what it
cost to register, but I recall that the hotel cost $30 per night.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article <uim5sc$30tl9$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>
>> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
>> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
>> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
>> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
>> my computer through that.
>>
>
>Can trn access the Known Net?

Maybe, if we can gateway nntp out of the Slow Zone.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

In article <b4da759b-726c-4454-b71c-fe1f84a63aaen@googlegroups.com>,
eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
>In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one day
> it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had dropped it,
>rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider.
>But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.

Calweb did the same thing. "Oh, you're still using that fossil?
I didn't think anyone did any more." So I changed my nntp server
to Eternal September.

Then they sold out, and the new owners quit supporting shell
access. Fortunately, I discovered that it's possible to
install trn (The One True Newsreader) in Windows Subsystem
for Linux. I was considering just going all Linux, but I
still run a few software packages that are Windows only.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
> I'm still using trn 4.0.

Likewise. It's far from perfect, but it's a great improvement over
its many successors.

Whatever happened to the newsreader that Eric Raymond was working on?

> I've found that it's installable in Windows Subsystem for Linux.

I use it on Panix.

> I *love* its kill file feature, though I don't use it all that much.

Likewise. There are just three people in my killfile (not counting
those who haven't posted to rasff at all this year).

> And it's pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect my
> computer through that.

Right. I still do most of my Internet access through my Panix shell
account. I've always been wary of direct access to the net. It's
convenient, like moving into a Metrorail station rather than having
to walk home from one. But would my stuff still be there when I
got "home"?

The back story of Adrian Tchaikovsky's Hugo-winning Children of Time
series involves malware which completely wrecked civilization on Earth
-- it partially recovered only after the next ice age -- and killed
everyone who was off Earth (except for two people who were no longer
quite human). I doubt that could happen. The likely worst case is
that someone could turn your home computer into a child porn server
without your noticing. You're arrested and offered a five-year prison
sentence followed by a lifetime on the sex-offender list if you
plead guilty. You refuse and go to trial. You're convicted, as
the prosecutor depicts you as a computer expert who must have known,
and sentenced to life without parole. Exactly that has happened to
hundreds of people (unless they're all lying, which seems unlikely).
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
>> bugs in the first place.

> They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
> omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
> reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
> fellable humans, and all).

Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.
Do you also believe that there are undetected bugs in all theorems,
i.e. that there's nothing we know for certain about math? Flaws are
sometimes found in theorems, but it's very rare (not counting theorems
"proven" by crackpots).

The "millennium problems" each offer a million-dollar reward for
proofs or disproofs of various conjectures (e.g. the Riemann
Hypothesis). To avoid risk, they require that the work be published
in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and that nobody finds a flaw in
the first two years after publication.

> Same for false convictions (leaving aside cases where people are
> deliberately framed).

True, since history, even very recent history, isn't made of the same
platonic substance as code or theorems. It's impossible to absolutely
prove or disprove that you robbed a bank last Tuesday after lunch.
Even time-stamped video could be faked. (Maybe if someone were to
invent a time viewer...)

It could, however, be improved by several orders of magnitude, given
that the most common methods currently used to convict people in the
US have very little correlation with guilt. (Details on request.)
Of course fixing it would result in a few more guilty people getting
away with their crimes, barring universal surveillance.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.

Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.

The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 2:44:25 PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <uim5sc$30tl9$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> >On 11/10/23 2:09 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> >
> >> I'm still using trn 4.0. I've found that it's installable
> >> in Windows Subsystem for Linux. I *love* its kill file
> >> feature, though I don't use it all that much. And it's
> >> pure text; I defy anything short of The Blight to infect
> >> my computer through that.
> >>
> >
> >Can trn access the Known Net?
> Maybe, if we can gateway nntp out of the Slow Zone.

I could see malware written as a bash script or .bat getting
saved and run by a user who was misled as to what they did.

By far the most common route for starting APT attacks are
email attachments which employees are persuaded to open.
(Defending against these is what I'm paid for.)

Pt

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 4:25:12 PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> > I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> > looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> > interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
> Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.
>
> The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
> works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.

WiFi USB dongles are under $10 these days, so Keith could easily
fix that.

Pt

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
>> I'm still using trn 4.0.
>
>Likewise. It's far from perfect, but it's a great improvement over
>its many successors.
>
>Whatever happened to the newsreader that Eric Raymond was working on?

Whatever happens to anything that he works on?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <b4da759b-726c-4454-b71c-fe1f84a63aaen@googlegroups.com>,
"eleeper@optonline.net" <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:07:09?PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> > to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> > them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around.
> > They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> > had ceased to exist?
>
> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one
> day
> it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had
> dropped it,
> rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet
> provider.
> But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
>

Was it Earthlink? (which dropped Usenet late September 2020).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 12:44:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
> In article <b4da759b-726c-4454...@googlegroups.com>,
> "ele...@optonline.net" <evelynchim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:07:09?PM UTC-5, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> > > Which reminds me that I sometimes run into someone in person who used
> > > to be active in rasff, but suddenly disappeared one day. When I ask
> > > them why they left, they express surprise that Usenet is still around..
> > > They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed it
> > > had ceased to exist?
> >
> > In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and then one
> > day
> > it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally admitted they had
> > dropped it,
> > rather than it being a temporary glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet
> > provider.
> > But I could see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
> >
> Was it Earthlink? (which dropped Usenet late September 2020).

No, Optimum (a.k.a. Cablevision), and it was several years ago.

On 11/11/23 4:16 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Tim Merrigan <tppm@ca.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> I'd much rather rely on code that's written to be free of security
>>> bugs in the first place.
>
>> They will never find and fix all the bugs, because they're not
>> omniscient, and can only fix the bugs they find, often by end users
>> reporting them, (possibly introducing new bugs in the process, being
>> fellable humans, and all).
>
> Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.
> Do you also believe that there are undetected bugs in all theorems,
> i.e. that there's nothing we know for certain about math? Flaws are
> sometimes found in theorems, but it's very rare (not counting theorems
> "proven" by crackpots).
>
> The "millennium problems" each offer a million-dollar reward for
> proofs or disproofs of various conjectures (e.g. the Riemann
> Hypothesis). To avoid risk, they require that the work be published
> in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, and that nobody finds a flaw in
> the first two years after publication.

An application to perform a real-world task has little similarity to a
mathematical theorem. "Proving the correctness of a browser" is a
meaningless phrase. A complex application with a user interface deals
with an open-ended set of user inputs, third-party code, and system
services.

Any key-based encryption system is, from a theoretical standpoint,
already defective. Given infinite computing resources and time, you can
break it. Whether something is a bug or not is often a question of
whether it's good enough. This changes over time. Encryption that was
effectively unbreakable in 1995 may be hopelessly weak now.

The number of combinations of inputs, data, and environmental factors is
too large for any mathematical demonstration the they're all bug-free.

This isn't to deny that a lot of code is much sloppier than it has any
right to be. The main reason is feature bloat. Browsers would be much
more secure than they are if they just didn't support JavaScript. Giving
anyone in the world the power to run code on your computer created a
minefield that can never be fully cleaned up. But people want all those
features.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> They used Usenet every day, but one day they suddenly just assumed
>>> it had ceased to exist?
>
>> In my case, when I retired, I switched to Usenet from my ISP, and
>> then one day it seemed to disappear. AT some point they finally
>> admitted they had dropped it, rather than it being a temporary
>> glitch, and I had to find a new Usenet provider. But I could
>> see how someone might think it had ceased to exist.
>
> I'd think almost everyone would check on it, rather than just assuming
> that. The same as if their paycheck had suddenly gotten a lot smaller
> even though they were still working the same number of hours at the
> same job.

It's closer to having your employer get rid of a benefit that almost nobody
uses. I've worked in IT for almost 40 years, starting at a university, and
I've seen Usenet go from something most of the Engineering College used to "Is
that still around?" and then to "What's that?".
The cost (and incovenience) of finding a Usenet feed is so small as to be
negligible unless you're into massive binaries. I think I paid $10 for a 10 GB
"block" (body only) at least 15 years ago and haven't had to think about it
since.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
>> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
>> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
>
> Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.

Very few in my experience, and the few that do haven't updated the equipment
in years.

> The Wi-Fi has since stopped working in that laptop. (Net access still
> works via Ethernet.) So I will no longer bring it to conventions.

I carry an OpenWrt-based travel router with me that can connect Ethernet and
Wi-Fi in either direction (including Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi) and also supports OpenVPN
and WireGuard.
The primary reason is so that we don't have to configure (worst case) five
laptops, four phones, three Kindles and a streaming device whenever we go to a
new hotel. The router has the SSID and key that we use at home so everything
automagically works.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:

> Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 5:08:05 PM UTC-5, rksh...@rosettacondot.com wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> > Gary McGath <ga...@mcgath.com> wrote:
> >> I don't normally carry an Ethernet cable with me, so when I'm
> >> looking for an Internet connection away from home, I'm specifically
> >> interested in Wi-Fi. An RJ45 connector doesn't do me much good.
> >
> > Do most hotels, etc., even offer Ethernet connection? The last time I
> > used the Net away from home (or my brother's house) was at last year's
> > Worldcon in Chicago. The public Wi-Fi speed was indeed quite marginal
> > in most of the hotel. And I didn't see any Ethernet outlets.
> Very few in my experience, and the few that do haven't updated the equipment
> in years.

The last time I used an Ethernet connection in a hotel was in Newfoundland in 2009.
I suppose that was yet another anomaly: Newfoundland is by any standards different.
It, along with Labrador, was an independent country until 1949. Its time zone is a *half*
hour out from adjacent time zones. Its cell phone service was (at least then) not shared
by any other company. Part of it is covered by a piece of the European tectonic plate.
And its provincial flower is carnivorous. The fact that the hotel guests used Ethernet
connection was just one more quirk.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper

eleeper@optonline.net <evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Part of [Newfoundland] is covered by a piece of the European tectonic plate.

I thought the boundary between the European and North American
tectonic plates ran through Iceland, which is a long way from
Newfoundland. (When visiting that island, I viewed North America from
the side. And also learned that the Icelandic spelling of Iceland is
"Island.")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#/media/File:Tectonic_plates_(2022).svg
confirms this.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article <44ttpqfhwt.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>,
Lowell Gilbert <lgusenet@be-well.ilk.org> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> writes:
>
>> Code is made of basically the same stuff as mathematical theorems.
>
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

It is possible to do formal proof of correctness on software. However, it
requires the code be completely deterministic: no interrupts, no
multithreading. It's difficult but there are automated systems out there
for it and some programming languages that are designed to make it easier.

For high-reliability systems it is very common to have a small block of
code that is verified and proven correct, and then a bunch of additional
code that hangs around it but is in some way isolated from it. Controls
for jet engines, for example, often have a verified control block that is
one big loop that goes around polling everything, and then a UI that talks
to that control block using a shared memory mechanism. It wound up costing
a good fraction of a million dollars for one of those GE controllers to be
verified recently.

Back in the seventies, a lot of people held code verification as the future
of software development but it didn't turn out to be as easy or practical
as expected in great part because of the required determinism. Do not expect
a verified version of Windows or the Linux kernel any time soon.

But you MIGHT someday get a system with a verified microkernel and the
unverifiable device drivers operating in a separate ring from the kernel.
Plan Nine was designed with some of this in mind.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article <uimtq9$38pjq$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>On 11/9/2023 6:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
>>> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
>>> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
>>> part of the web.
>>
>> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
>> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
>> was 20 then.
>
>Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.

[Hal Heydt]
I'm 74. If I make it to 93 (years old), my youngest grandchild
will be 21 and I will have fulfilled Dorothy's last wishes.
After that...I don't care what happens to me.

On 11/14/2023 1:05 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <uimtq9$38pjq$1@epsilon3.eternal-september.org>,
> Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2023 6:47 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Jay E. Morris <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>> I'm surprised anymore when anyone (under, say, 50) even references
>>>> the internet. The younglings grew up only knowing the web and if
>>>> they even think about the internet they think it's some small, vague
>>>> part of the web.
>>>
>>> Change 50 to 30 or 40 and you may be right. The Web only became a
>>> sigfificant part of the Internet in 1993. So someone who is 50 now
>>> was 20 then.
>>
>> Oops. I hit 70 in less than two months. 93 feels 50 years away.
>
> [Hal Heydt]
> I'm 74. If I make it to 93 (years old), my youngest grandchild
> will be 21 and I will have fulfilled Dorothy's last wishes.
> After that...I don't care what happens to me.

My screw up there. I posted that 50 year olds might not even reference
the internet and Kieth rightly pointed out that the web came about in
1993 so maybe 30 or 40 year olds wouldn't. In my reply I should have
said that to me 1993 feels a lot farther away than 50 years.