free collaborative tools for low BW and losy connections

[nick at foobar.org (Nick Hilliard)]

Joe Greco wrote on 29/03/2020 21:46:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 07:46:28PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> That's so hideously wrong.  It's like claiming web forums don't
>>> work because IP packet delivery isn't reliable.
>>
>> Really, it's nothing like that.
> 
> Sure it is.  At a certain point you can get web forums to stop working
> by DDoS.  You can't guarantee reliable interaction with a web site if
> that happens.

this is failure caused by external agency, not failure caused by 
inherent protocol limitations.

>>> Usenet message delivery at higher levels works just fine, except that
>>> on the public backbone, it is generally implemented as "best effort"
>>> rather than a concerted effort to deliver reliably.
>>
>> If you can explain the bit of the protocol that guarantees that all
>> nodes have received all postings, then let's discuss it.
> 
> There isn't, just like there isn't a bit of the protocol that guarantees
> that an IP packet is received by its intended recipient.  No magic.

tcp vs udp.

>> Flood often works fine until you attempt to scale it.  Then it breaks,
>> just like Bj??rn admitted. Flooding is inherently problematic at scale.
> 
> For... what, exactly?  General Usenet?

yes, this is what we're talking about.  It couldn't scale to general 
usenet levels.

> Perhaps, but mainly because you
> do not have a mutual agreement on traffic levels and a bunch of other
> factors.  Flooding works just fine within private hierarchies and since
> I thought this was a discussion of "free collaborative tools" rather than
> "random newbie trying to masochistically keep up with a full backbone
> Usenet feed", it definitely should work fine for a private hierarchy and
> collaborative use.

Then we're in violent agreement on this point.  Great!

>> delivered it.  TAKETHIS managed to sweep these problems under the
>> carpet, but it's a horrible, awful protocol hack.
> 
> It's basically cheap pipelining.

no, TAKETHIS is unrestrained flooding, not cheap pipelining.

> If you want to call pipelining in
> general a horrible, awful protocol hack, then that's probably got
> some validity.

you could characterise pipelining as a necessary reaction to the fact 
that the speed of light is so damned slow.

>> which is mostly because there are so few large binary sites these days,
>> i.e. limited distribution model.
> 
> No, there are so few large binary sites these days because of consolidation
> and buyouts.

20 years ago, lots of places hosted binaries.  They stopped because it 
was pointless and wasteful, not because of consolidation.

>> Right, so you've put your finger on the other major problem relating to
>> flooding which isn't the distribution synchronisation / optimisation
>> problem: all sites get all posts for all groups which they're configured
>> for.  This is a profound waste of resources + it doesn't scale in any
>> meaningful way.
> 
> So if you don't like that everyone gets everything they are configured to
> get, you are suggesting that they... what, exactly?  Shouldn't get everything
> they want?

The default distribution model of the 1990s was *.  These days, only a 
tiny handful of sites handle everything, because the overheads of 
flooding are so awful.  To make it clear, this awfulness is resource 
related, and the knock-on effect is that the resource cost is untenable.

Usenet, like other systems, can be reduced to an engineering / economics 
management problem.  If the cost of making it operate correctly doesn't 
work, then it's non-viable.

> None of this changes that it's a robust, mature protocol that was originally
> designed for handling non-binaries and is actually pretty good in that role.
> Having the content delivered to each site means that there is no dependence
> on long-distance interactive IP connections and that each participating site
> can keep the content for however long they deem useful.  Usenet keeps hummin'
> along under conditions that would break more modern things like web forums.

It's a complete crock of a protocol with robust and mature 
implementations.  Diablo is one and for that, we have people like Matt 
and you to thank.

Nick