The big NNTP vs HTML forum war collection

On 10/08/10 10:01, Morten Leikvoll wrote:

...

NNTP cons:

-------------

...

• Messages may look "boring" in plain text.

 

This is not an "entertainment" site

...(maybe Cadsoft has a low bandwidth to their servers?)

Our server is connected through a 100Mbit/s line - should be fast enough.

One more thing: have you ever tried reading the messages on a mobile device,

like a smart phone? It takes ages to fiddle your way though a web interface,

while it's a lot easier to use a news reader app

Klaus Schmidinger

--

_______________________________________________________________

Klaus Schmidinger                       Phone: +49-8635-6989-10

CadSoft Computer GmbH                   Fax:   +49-8635-6989-40

Pleidolfweg 15                          Email:   kls@cadsoft.de

D-84568 Pleiskirchen, Germany           URL:     www.cadsoft.de

_______________________________________________________________

Morten Leikvoll schrieb:

NNTP pros:

-------------

• Correct threading. (This is essential.)

HTTP cons:

------------

• All common webforum software messes up threading.

Tilmann

"Klaus Schmidinger" <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de> wrote in message

news:i8mk94$pqg$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Our server is connected through a 100Mbit/s line - should be fast enough.

Hmm.. Do you have any explanation why downloading the full, say

eagle.userchat.eng takes so long?

Is it just something in NNTP's nature, or is it just file access of several

small files that does it?

Loading headers only is fast, but messages is at the rate of 1-10 pr second.

Having 5209 messages, this is enough to give up waiting..

I'm on 50Mbit and here is my tracert:

Tracing route to cheetah.cadsoft.de

over a maximum of 30 hops:

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  10.20.0.1

  2    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  79.161.3.29.static.lyse.net

  3    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  209.81-167-101.customer.lyse.net

  4    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  233.84-234-190.customer.lyse.net

  5    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  138.213-167-114.customer.lyse.net

  6    14 ms    13 ms    13 ms  118.81-166-123.customer.lyse.net

  7    14 ms    15 ms    14 ms  init7.dix.dk

  8    26 ms    26 ms    26 ms  r1ams1.core.init7.net

  9    32 ms    32 ms    35 ms  r1fra1.core.init7.net

10    32 ms    32 ms    32 ms  gw-hetzner.init7.net

11    37 ms    37 ms    37 ms  hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de

12    37 ms    37 ms    37 ms  hos-tr3.ex3k2.rz10.hetzner.de

13    39 ms    37 ms    37 ms  cheetah.cadsoft.de

Trace complete.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Fri, 08 October 2010 04:01

Here is my list. I have triedto be neutral here!

I think that's largely reasonable, although there seems to be a little

misunderstanding of web forums.

However, let me state again what I was suggesting:

The official central "support site" or whatever you want to call it is web

forum.  However, recognizing that some people prefer the NNTP interface,

the forum software would provide a gateway to and from a NNTP server.  All

posts are stored and organized as forum posts.  That means the richer

meta-information like formatting, in-line images, HTML-like links (you can

make clickable words with the actual link text hidden), and a number of

other nice features are all preserved in the database.

The rich features would be converted to a plain text format on demand by

the NNTP interface software.  Most features have obvious enough mappings to

plain text, although some will be lost.  For example, there is no way to

change plain text to italics, bold, etc.  Perhaps italics could be shown as

/xxx/, underline as xxx, etc, or maybe its better to just leave it out.

Other features like HTML-like links can be implemented by writing the full

link text in line in parenthesis following the link target.  Included files

are stored on the server with the full link in the text message, making it

easily clickable with most all NNTP clients.  I don't want to design it

here, but the point is that in most cases there is a reasonable enough

mapping from the rich format to plain text, but in a few cases some

features will be lost.

The reverse is easier since plain text is a subset of the rich formatting.

In most cases, the plain text should be taken verbatim and additional

formatting not inferred.  If you try to infer formatting, you probably make

more of a mess then you gain in clarity.  One exception might be to infer

the quoting level from the number of leading ">" on a line.  That should

work most of the time and be useful enough to give it a try.  Again, I'm

not trying to design the details here, but am trying to show that

reasonable enough conversion is possible.

Note that this doesn't take away anything from the NNTP only users.  From

their point of view, it's just a NNTP server.  Nothing is lost from one

NNTP post to the outgoing NNTP messages resulting from that post.

In other words, we can have most of the pros from both catagories you

listed.

One thing you didn't mention is a email notification gateway.  I think

allowing posts to come in via email is dangerous, but letting people

subscribe to email notification is very useful.  I do this more than not

with forums I'm on.  I rarely actually go to the forum to check for

messages.  I quickly scan the email notification message and if I'm

interested in more or want to reply I click on the link in that message,

which takes me straight to that post in the forum.  The email message would

use the same web to text conversion the NNTP messages do.

Now I'll address some of your pros and cons.  Many of them aren't really

distinguishing features since the same or equivalent can be had with both

interfaces.

Quote:

NNTP pros:

-------------

• Quick access. Personally I always have my email reader open, and the

NNTP is within the same app.

Works the same for a forum if you keep the browser open, not that I

recommend that or would do that.  Speed isn't really a distinguishing

factor.

Quote:

• Quick overview. You can see instantly how many posting and a list of

topics

Same with web forum.  Good forums have a recent postings page or the like.

Quote:

• Cheap serving. There are lot of free noad servers out there.

I'm pretty sure Farnell already has the servers needed.

Quote:

• Fast navigation.

Same with a web forum.  In fact, I'd say probably even faster with a forum

since the tree structure of topics can be easily displayed.

Quote:

• Compact view

Probably true.

Quote:

• More spam resistant (that does not go for NNTP in general, but

cadsoft's forum has very little of it, if any at all)

Cadsoft has done a good job here, but so have forums I've been on.  Since

forums require you to create a account, it is actually easier to defend

against spammers.

Quote:

• Lowcost bandwidth

Even more so if you store attachments on a server and send only the links.

Quote:

• Low complexity

True.

Quote:

• Several free apps to use it

C'mon.  Surely you're aware of the many free browsers.

Quote:

• It takes a lot less time to get through all messages than on HTTP.

That's completely up to personal style.  Web forums generally create

multiple catagories that can be tree structured more finely that you would

with NNTP.  This allows you to "subscribe" or easily view activity in a

personlized subset of catagories.

Quote:

• No need to register

That's a bad thing.  If you want to join the group, you should be willing

to say who you are (you can lie of course) and give some information about

yourself.  This is is also one defense against spam.  Registration can

collect useful context about you that helps others interact with you, like

roughly when you were born (so the forum software can display your age),

your occupation, level of experience, geographic location, etc.  Of course

you can make up nonsense if you're worried about privacy, but this

information can help you get better responses and help others write

appropriate responses.  For example, you'd probably provide a rather

different answer to a high school kid asking what a "via" was than a 50

year old claiming to be a professional engineer.

Quote:

NNTP cons:

-------------

• Port access. Some paranoid network administrators block NNTP port

access.

All kind of things can be blocked, including specific web sites.  There are

also ways around this by providing alternate ports, not that I'm suggesting

Farnell actually bother with this.

Quote:

• Not very noob friendly. If you havent used a NNTP reader before, you

need to learn and get used to it.

Don't understimate this.  Anyone who didn't use newsgroups in the 1990s

simply isn't going to use NNTP.  They will also view Farnell as stuck in

the stone age if they don't have a good web forum.

Quote:

• Messages may look "boring" in plain text.

I don't think prettiness is the issue.

Quote:

• Text wrapping and quoting easily get messed up; in general not very

formatting friendly

This is unfortunately largely up to individual posters.  Some take the

care, some don't.  Sloppy people can make a mess of web posts too, but they

have to go a bit more out of their way.  Top posters are a problem, and web

forums make it a little easier to format well without work, but still can't

guarantee anyone does it right.

Quote:

• Search unfriendly. All search has to happen on local copy of the

message list.

Yes.

Quote:

• First time access load of all old messages takes a long time (maybe

Cadsoft has a low bandwidth to their servers?)

Yes, due to all messages being local copies for each user.

Quote:

• Sometimes need an extra app

I don't get this.  Is there any email client out there that can't also do

NNTP?

Quote:

HTTP pros:

------------

• Colors, emoticons, larger attachments (well, that is possible with

NNTP too, but not likely). In theory NNTP can do HTML content, but that

is not likely to happen.

Colors and emoticons are fluff, but the larger attachments that then aren't

replicated to each local user is a good thing.

Quote:

• Easier to get to (for computer illiterates)

Don't confuse preference with stupidity.  Let's keep the flaming out of

this.

Quote:

• Normally doesnt need an extra app; most users already got a browser

installed.

Don't they also have a email/NNTP client installed?

Quote:

HTTP cons:

------------

• I normally don't have a browser open at all times, and it takes a few

seconds to load the browser, even if I make a shortcut link to the site.

This is a preference thing.  I don't keep my email reader open at all times

either, so the same thing applies.  Where a browswer has to load all silly

little images the web designer couldn't resist adding, the NNTP client has

to download all the new messages.  I think it comes out about the same in

the end with a good web interface.  That said, the Eagle Central forums are

unusually and annoyingly slow, and NNTP is likely a lot faster than the

current Eagle Central setup.

Quote:

• Navigation complexity. I have only see one forum which has a nice way

of navigating, but it only does plain text too.

This is up to the web designer, of course, but can be a plus for forums if

done right.  The Microchip forums are a decent example of where it's easy

to find your way around.  The tree structure of topics is easy to

understand and navigate.  Element-14 on the other hand is the worst I've

ever seen.  I never know where I'm at within the big picture.

Quote:

• Navigation speed. Moving from one message to the next is slower than

NNTP.

True.  Web navigation can be quick, but not as quick as calling up a

message already sitting on your disk.

Quote:

• Currently two custom 'accents' (element14 or eaglecentral) that needs

to be learned. There exist some common web forum formats, but afaik none

of them are used.

We're talking about how things should be, making things how they currently

are irrelevant.

Quote:

• Higher cost and complexity of serving

Since Farnell already has element-14, I doubt this is a issue for them.

Quote:

• Spam protection is harder

I disagree.  Registration helps prevent spam.  That said, Cadsoft seems to

be doing a amazingly good job of filtering spam from their NNTP server.  On

the other hand, when was the last time you saw spam come in thru Eagle

Central either?  This not a distinguishing feature, with the advantage

going to forums if there is one.

Quote:

• User account normally needed

Again, that's a good thing.

Note that most of what you mentioned aren't really advantages and

disadvantages as much as personal preferences.  However, I think we can

have most of the pros without most of the cons with the system I

described.

--

Web access to CadSoft support forums at www.eaglecentral.ca.  Where the CadSoft EAGLE community meets.

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i8n337$2ua$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

Oops, sorry for that posting. It was the horrible ctrl+enter thing in

outlook express....

"Morten Leikvoll" <mleikvol@yahoo.nospam> wrote in message

news:i8n521$fpv$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

 

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i8n337$2ua$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

(Catching up here)

<deleted:too many arguments>

The BIG con of html after reading you comments is that the perfect html

interface is vaporware.

Who wants to pay for the development and testing?

Oops, sorry for that posting. It was the horrible ctrl+enter thing in

outlook express....

"Morten Leikvoll" <mleikvol@yahoo.nospam> wrote in message

news:i8n521$fpv$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

 

"Olin Lathrop" <eagle@embedinc.com> wrote in message

news:i8n337$2ua$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

(Catching up here)

<deleted:too many arguments>

The BIG con of html after reading you comments is that the perfect html

interface is vaporware.

Who wants to pay for the development and testing?

"Morten Leikvoll" wrote:

>For the ones that can't hold it back, here you can put your pro's and con's

Good compilation.

Threading and efficient user interface are my most important

arguments.

>NNTP cons:

>* Text wrapping and quoting easily get messed up; in general not very

>formatting friendly

most forum software makes smart quoting very, very complicated. Ever

tried to quote several parts separately, and to trim quotes? So this

is a NNTP con only if someone makes a really web good forum software.

>HTTP pros:

>----

>* Colors, emoticons,

I want to transport facts, not play with fancy emoticons. I found that

most people don't need long to understand ASCII emoticons. And it's

typed much faster than selected with the mouse. Well, no problem for

me if the gateway translates it. BTW: IM clients use ASCII to encode

emoticons.

larger attachments (well, that is possible with NNTP

File storage can be separate (IOW an addition) from the discussion

solution. Look at the SwitcherCad mailing list.

Oliver

Morten Leikvoll Inscribed thus:

"Klaus Schmidinger" <Klaus.Schmidinger@cadsoft.de> wrote in message

news:i8mk94$pqg$1@cheetah.cadsoft.de...

>> Our server is connected through a 100Mbit/s line - should be fast

>> enough.

 

Hmm.. Do you have any explanation why downloading the full, say

eagle.userchat.eng takes so long?

Is it just something in NNTP's nature, or is it just file access of

several small files that does it?

Loading headers only is fast, but messages is at the rate of 1-10 pr

second. Having 5209 messages, this is enough to give up waiting..

 

I'm on 50Mbit and here is my tracert:

 

Tracing route to cheetah.cadsoft.de

over a maximum of 30 hops:

 

  1    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  10.20.0.1

  2    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  79.161.3.29.static.lyse.net

 

  3    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  209.81-167-101.customer.lyse.net

  4    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  233.84-234-190.customer.lyse.net

  5    <1 ms    <1 ms    <1 ms  138.213-167-114.customer.lyse.net

  6    14 ms    13 ms    13 ms  118.81-166-123.customer.lyse.net

  7    14 ms    15 ms    14 ms  init7.dix.dk

  8    26 ms    26 ms    26 ms  r1ams1.core.init7.net

  9    32 ms    32 ms    35 ms  r1fra1.core.init7.net

10    32 ms    32 ms    32 ms  gw-hetzner.init7.net

11    37 ms    37 ms    37 ms  hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de

12    37 ms    37 ms    37 ms  hos-tr3.ex3k2.rz10.hetzner.de

13    39 ms    37 ms    37 ms  cheetah.cadsoft.de

 

Trace complete.

Here is mine FWIW. I'm in the UK.

traceroute to 188.40.46.46 (188.40.46.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets

using UDP

1  Lan  17.768 ms   12.271 ms   100.270 ms

2  * * *

3  * * *

4  * * *

5  * xe-9-2-0.edge3.London1.Level3.net (212.113.15.69)  21.757 ms 

22.860 ms

6  ae-34-52.ebr2.London1.Level3.net (4.69.139.97)  23.002 ms   23.766

ms   24.037 ms

7  ae-45-45.ebr2.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.143.69)  30.528 ms

ae-46-46.ebr2.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.143.73)  31.964 ms

ae-47-47.ebr2.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.143.77)  30.667 ms

8  ae-1-100.ebr1.Amsterdam1.Level3.net (4.69.141.169)  30.620 ms 

29.451 ms   31.002 ms

9  ae-47-47.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.206)  33.580 ms

ae-45-45.ebr2.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.143.198)  34.502 ms   35.209

ms

10  ae-1-100.ebr1.Dusseldorf1.Level3.net (4.69.141.149)  37.921 ms 

42.508 ms   41.281 ms

11  ae-45-45.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.143.166)  37.459 ms

ae-46-46.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.143.170)  40.167 ms

ae-45-45.ebr2.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.143.166)  36.962 ms

12  ae-82-82.csw3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.26)  37.093 ms 

41.820 ms ae-62-62.csw1.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.69.140.18)  44.650 ms

13  ae-1-69.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.11)  38.717 ms

ae-3-89.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.139)  38.018 ms

ae-2-79.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (4.68.23.75)  38.350 ms

14  HETZNER-ONL.edge3.Frankfurt1.Level3.net (212.162.40.206)  36.456 ms 

36.184 ms   35.698 ms

15  hos-bb1.juniper1.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.242)  43.514 ms

hos-bb1.juniper2.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.243)  41.793 ms

hos-bb1.juniper1.fs.hetzner.de (213.239.240.242)  41.623 ms

16  hos-tr3.ex3k2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.195)  41.380 ms

hos-tr2.ex3k2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.163)  40.579 ms

hos-tr4.ex3k2.rz10.hetzner.de (213.239.227.227)  42.186 ms

end

--

Best Regards:

                     Baron.

Morten Leikvoll wrote on Fri, 08 October 2010 04:01

• Not very noob friendly. If you havent used a NNTP reader before, you

need to learn and get used to it.

>"Olin Lathrop"  replied

............Don't understimate this.  Anyone who didn't use newsgroups in

the 1990s

simply isn't going to use NNTP.  ........They will also view Farnell as

stuck in

the stone age if they don't have a good web forum.

......

Wrong! I am a recent adopter of NNTP (only for Cadsoft). I'm a fan and

prefer it by far over the many and varied web forums for reasons of speed.

"On the go" web access for mobile devices will see the modern revival  of

NNTP (or similar). The smart company will repackage its NNTP as a light

weight mobile service. Out of the stone age in one leap!

So I see all three avenues coexisting. NNTP and a mobile service (view)

along with the full experience desktop web site.

Warren