From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sun, 23 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:   
      
   >> It saves all messages in a local spool folder, and since nntp is a   
   >> nice and simple retro-protocols, it is trivial to understand the   
   >> format. So what you could do, between 2 leafnode servers, is to just   
   >> reverse engineer the format and "copy" the spool directory between the   
   >> two leafnode installations and all the messages will pop up on the   
   >> other leafnode as well.   
   >   
   > Okay, but the question was to just to confirm my mostly-forgotten   
   > recollections of Leafnode.  I wouldn't mind working on it to make it   
   > peer via NNTP itself.  But I would much rather write a completely new in   
   > a non-C language.   
      
   I wonder if there are any good C to Go converters out there? Would be   
   interesting to see how much effort it would take to convert leafnode from c to   
   go? Maybe then, it would be an easier code base to work with?   
      
   >>> I would be surprised if INN2 doesn't do all of this, but I think we   
   >>> should have other alternatives with newer ideas too.  For instance, I   
   >>   
   >> The reason I did not go the INN2 route was that I wanted some small   
   >> and simple, for pulling messages one way only. Leafnode at first had   
   >> some restrictions such as needing a valid DNS name which was a pain,   
   >> so I simply deleted its checks, and now the server can be named   
   >> anything I want, which is fine, since I'm not peering. This can of   
   >> course be added back if you want it.   
   >   
   > I never used INN2, but I do suspect that it's made for a serious USENET   
   > server and that it's more complex that it needs to be for the idea of a   
   > network of small NNTP servers.   
      
   Yes, I think it is way more complex than leafnode.   
      
   >> I think is perhaps somewhat of a downward trend. I feel awe when   
   >> talking to the older generations who had to learn the hardware,   
   >> program in assembler and so on.   
   >   
   > I feel the same.  Like you, I feel great learning from the older   
   > generations.  In fact, I often think that they were privileged for being   
   > able to be there first.  I identified this easily enough to develop a   
   > passion for studying the history of computer science, which makes me   
   > look very old now because I use a lot of very old tools, which are   
   > awesome tools despite their age.  I got a web post by Joel Spolsky the   
   > phrase that ``software doesn't get dusty''.   
      
   True. I have a retro-class on thursday and will show them some nice stuff in   
   the   
   form of vim, alpine, and midnight commander. Apart from a shell (bash) those   
   are   
   my main tools in the terminal.   
      
   >> In my generation, hardware and assembler were solved problems, so the   
   >> programming was done in higher level languages.   
   >>   
   >> Todays generation don't even see the hardware, they all use cloud   
   >> servers and python.   
   >>   
   >> So the original foundation gets further and further away. Only a small   
   >> set of hw wizards still care and know about that layer of the stack.   
   >   
   > That's quite right.  I went through the same.  The whole thing was   
   > pretty much already done.  I believe I am not very fond of directly   
   > interacting with hardware myself.  For example, I usually like to have a   
   > very clean office---no wires (if I could), not a lot of gadgets around.   
      
   When I was young, as a system administrator, I loved wires all around, disk   
   drives, NIC:s, power supplies etc. My office would look like a junk yard. But   
   as   
   I grew older and moved more and more into sales, I now have younger guys who   
   have taken over that role, and that messiness. ;) My office now has one cable,   
   and that is the power cable. Since I get about 13-14 hours out of my laptop, I   
   don't even need a power cable during the working day, unless I have many hours   
   of video calls on that day.   
      
   > Nevertheless, I feel obsessed by computers and I try to get close to the   
   > hardware by more abstract means.  For instance, I've been reading about   
   > the 6502 and it seems like such a simple CPU that it makes up for a very   
   > great computer architecture first introduction, unlike x86, say.   
      
   I remember programming for the Z80 when I was young, on my calculator, and   
   also,   
   of course, assembler on the 486. Those were the days! =)   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)