If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
On 05/06/2010 06:59 PM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message ... I'm also going to suggest again that Usenetters need to seriously consider cleaning up your "end", or you may not have an "end" anymore nor support. What has Google got to do with Usenet? (Except as a poor web based method of posting to Usenet servers.) I left Google "unaddressed" for a reason. Unless you understand the Internet AND Usenet and networking, discussing the Google interior is impossible to understand. That you even posted your question shows you have no comprehension of anything involved. BTW, it only takes 5 minutes for any posts through any of the four NNTP Servers, that I use. for them to appear on MS server. I see, per usual, you have zero to add, didn't bother to read any information, and instead just post more mindless junk... it means ZERO how long it took for your posts to appear save for those Usenet "services" *place* in the chain. A major portion of that chain is being removed and it ISN'T just access to or these groups. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
"MEB" wrote in message ... On 05/06/2010 06:59 PM, Sunny wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... I'm also going to suggest again that Usenetters need to seriously consider cleaning up your "end", or you may not have an "end" anymore nor support. What has Google got to do with Usenet? (Except as a poor web based method of posting to Usenet servers.) I left Google "unaddressed" for a reason. Unless you understand the Internet AND Usenet and networking, discussing the Google interior is impossible to understand. That you even posted your question shows you have no comprehension of anything involved. BTW, it only takes 5 minutes for any posts through any of the four NNTP Servers, that I use. for them to appear on MS server. I see, per usual, you have zero to add, didn't bother to read any information, and instead just post more mindless junk... it means ZERO how long it took for your posts to appear save for those Usenet "services" *place* in the chain. A major portion of that chain is being removed and it ISN'T just access to or these groups. Microsoft is a "Major" place in the "chain" ? Rich, coming from you and your "mindless junk" "Some people think that Microsoft has some "authority" over these groups, from either a control or administration or aggregation point of view (some people think that Microsoft's servers act as "primary" servers for those groups, and all other servers world-wide are secondary and hence are slaves to them). Another angle on this is that some people think that microsoft somehow owns these groups from a copyright POV, and can force other servers from carrying these groups. Naturally, such views are completely wrong, but some people think that's how it works". |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
"MEB" wrote in message ... On 05/06/2010 06:59 PM, Sunny wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... I'm also going to suggest again that Usenetters need to seriously consider cleaning up your "end", or you may not have an "end" anymore nor support. What has Google got to do with Usenet? (Except as a poor web based method of posting to Usenet servers.) I left Google "unaddressed" for a reason. Unless you understand the Internet AND Usenet and networking, discussing the Google interior is impossible to understand. That you even posted your question shows you have no comprehension of anything involved. BTW, it only takes 5 minutes for any posts through any of the four NNTP Servers, that I use. for them to appear on MS server. I see, per usual, you have zero to add, didn't bother to read any information, and instead just post more mindless junk... it means ZERO how long it took for your posts to appear save for those Usenet "services" *place* in the chain. A major portion of that chain is being removed and it ISN'T just access to or these groups. Microsoft is a "Major" place in the "chain" ? Rich, coming from you and your "mindless junk" "Some people think that Microsoft has some "authority" over these groups, from either a control or administration or aggregation point of view (some people think that Microsoft's servers act as "primary" servers for those groups, and all other servers world-wide are secondary and hence are slaves to them). Another angle on this is that some people think that microsoft somehow owns these groups from a copyright POV, and can force other servers from carrying these groups. Naturally, such views are completely wrong, but some people think that's how it works". |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
On 05/06/2010 07:46 PM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message ... On 05/06/2010 06:59 PM, Sunny wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... I'm also going to suggest again that Usenetters need to seriously consider cleaning up your "end", or you may not have an "end" anymore nor support. What has Google got to do with Usenet? (Except as a poor web based method of posting to Usenet servers.) I left Google "unaddressed" for a reason. Unless you understand the Internet AND Usenet and networking, discussing the Google interior is impossible to understand. That you even posted your question shows you have no comprehension of anything involved. BTW, it only takes 5 minutes for any posts through any of the four NNTP Servers, that I use. for them to appear on MS server. I see, per usual, you have zero to add, didn't bother to read any information, and instead just post more mindless junk... it means ZERO how long it took for your posts to appear save for those Usenet "services" *place* in the chain. A major portion of that chain is being removed and it ISN'T just access to or these groups. Microsoft is a "Major" place in the "chain" ? Rich, coming from you and your "mindless junk" "Some people think that Microsoft has some "authority" over these groups, from either a control or administration or aggregation point of view (some people think that Microsoft's servers act as "primary" servers for those groups, and all other servers world-wide are secondary and hence are slaves to them). Another angle on this is that some people think that microsoft somehow owns these groups from a copyright POV, and can force other servers from carrying these groups. Naturally, such views are completely wrong, but some people think that's how it works". And your linked source is: -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
On 05/06/2010 07:46 PM, Sunny wrote:
"MEB" wrote in message ... On 05/06/2010 06:59 PM, Sunny wrote: "MEB" wrote in message ... I'm also going to suggest again that Usenetters need to seriously consider cleaning up your "end", or you may not have an "end" anymore nor support. What has Google got to do with Usenet? (Except as a poor web based method of posting to Usenet servers.) I left Google "unaddressed" for a reason. Unless you understand the Internet AND Usenet and networking, discussing the Google interior is impossible to understand. That you even posted your question shows you have no comprehension of anything involved. BTW, it only takes 5 minutes for any posts through any of the four NNTP Servers, that I use. for them to appear on MS server. I see, per usual, you have zero to add, didn't bother to read any information, and instead just post more mindless junk... it means ZERO how long it took for your posts to appear save for those Usenet "services" *place* in the chain. A major portion of that chain is being removed and it ISN'T just access to or these groups. Microsoft is a "Major" place in the "chain" ? Rich, coming from you and your "mindless junk" "Some people think that Microsoft has some "authority" over these groups, from either a control or administration or aggregation point of view (some people think that Microsoft's servers act as "primary" servers for those groups, and all other servers world-wide are secondary and hence are slaves to them). Another angle on this is that some people think that microsoft somehow owns these groups from a copyright POV, and can force other servers from carrying these groups. Naturally, such views are completely wrong, but some people think that's how it works". And your linked source is: -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
... On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:14:41 -0700 (UTC), put finger to keyboard and composed: Date 5/4/2010 Starting in early summer 2010, Microsoft will begin progressively closing down the Microsoft public newsgroups to enrich conversations in the rapidly-growing forum platform. I don't want a two-paragraph text based conversation to be "enriched" by 1MB of Javascript, plus ads and banners, and other inducements and enticements. I should be able to exchange 10 lines of text using just a 2400bps dialup modem on a 286 machine running any version of DOS. Thankfully, some technical forums have RSS feeds, and many will deliver replies and notifications via email. These days I make much greater use of OB1 (no JS support), and I visit Google's cached text-only version of certain web sites whenever possible. This decision is in response to worldwide market trends and evolving customer needs. This decision is in response to consumer ignorance. Most customers have never heard of Usenet, or an email client. They think they need web based interfaces for everything, including email, and they carry on their vacuous lives via Facebook and Twitter. In the eternal-september.org (E-S) support group on their server, "Joe Banana", who AFAICT runs the newsserver, had this comment in response to questions about continuing to carry the MS groups: quote "Microsoft has never bothered to issue control messages for its microsoft.* groups and I assume they will just switch off their servers and leave the mess behind that they have been inflicting on Usenet for more than fifteen years. Right now, there are 1772 microsoft.public.* groups on E-S and many of them are empty or just filled with spam. "As Microsoft will not create new "official" groups or remove obsolete groups on its own servers anymore, Julièn Élie will consequentially stop issuing "virtual" checkgroups control messages for the microsoft.* hierarchy and hence it's in the sole discretion of each NSP to decide which microsoft.* groups, if any, they are going to carry after Microsoft will finally FOAD Usenet-wise, which will inevitably lead to inconsistent group lists and will definitely not improve the usability of this hierarchy. It would take enormous efforts to restructure the namespace, cut back the proliferations of Microsoft's naming conventions and make it Usenet compliant, so I doubt this can be achieved without a maintainer. With all this in mind, I would suggest to abandon the microsoft.* mess as FUBAR and create a set of newsgroups within and in accordance with the rules of the existing and established hierarchies. " /quote -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message
... On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:14:41 -0700 (UTC), put finger to keyboard and composed: Date 5/4/2010 Starting in early summer 2010, Microsoft will begin progressively closing down the Microsoft public newsgroups to enrich conversations in the rapidly-growing forum platform. I don't want a two-paragraph text based conversation to be "enriched" by 1MB of Javascript, plus ads and banners, and other inducements and enticements. I should be able to exchange 10 lines of text using just a 2400bps dialup modem on a 286 machine running any version of DOS. Thankfully, some technical forums have RSS feeds, and many will deliver replies and notifications via email. These days I make much greater use of OB1 (no JS support), and I visit Google's cached text-only version of certain web sites whenever possible. This decision is in response to worldwide market trends and evolving customer needs. This decision is in response to consumer ignorance. Most customers have never heard of Usenet, or an email client. They think they need web based interfaces for everything, including email, and they carry on their vacuous lives via Facebook and Twitter. In the eternal-september.org (E-S) support group on their server, "Joe Banana", who AFAICT runs the newsserver, had this comment in response to questions about continuing to carry the MS groups: quote "Microsoft has never bothered to issue control messages for its microsoft.* groups and I assume they will just switch off their servers and leave the mess behind that they have been inflicting on Usenet for more than fifteen years. Right now, there are 1772 microsoft.public.* groups on E-S and many of them are empty or just filled with spam. "As Microsoft will not create new "official" groups or remove obsolete groups on its own servers anymore, Julièn Élie will consequentially stop issuing "virtual" checkgroups control messages for the microsoft.* hierarchy and hence it's in the sole discretion of each NSP to decide which microsoft.* groups, if any, they are going to carry after Microsoft will finally FOAD Usenet-wise, which will inevitably lead to inconsistent group lists and will definitely not improve the usability of this hierarchy. It would take enormous efforts to restructure the namespace, cut back the proliferations of Microsoft's naming conventions and make it Usenet compliant, so I doubt this can be achieved without a maintainer. With all this in mind, I would suggest to abandon the microsoft.* mess as FUBAR and create a set of newsgroups within and in accordance with the rules of the existing and established hierarchies. " /quote -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
glee wrote:
In the eternal-september.org (E-S) support group on their server, "Joe Banana", who AFAICT runs the newsserver, had this comment in response to questions about continuing to carry the MS groups: (message not repeated) I thought it was Ray Banana. If Mr. Banana could separate his hostility toward microsoft (the corporate pirana) from his logistical argument, one would find that his logistical argument is largely hollow and disengenous. There are thousands of alt groups in a similar state of abandonment and discoordination with various lists. At least the microsoft.public list of groups (as it exists today) is a known entity with no internal conflicts. Groups that get no posts are not a drain (not to usenet, nor to individual servers) so again he puts forward a disengenuous argument that as a hierarchy it needs to be cleaned up before it can continue to exist after microsoft turns off it's server. As I said in a previous post, there are many people (particularly those that are advocates of usenet and/or run their own servers) that are firmly entrenched in the Unix/Linux camp and loath Microsoft for what they are or for what they've done to the computing world, and would like nothing better than to strip usenet of any group with microsoft in the name. And Microsoft would like nothing more than for that to happen. Because it would eliminate a major venue for anonymous and uncensored discourse about it's products - new AND old. And it does not want people using it's old (especially discontinued) products. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
glee wrote:
In the eternal-september.org (E-S) support group on their server, "Joe Banana", who AFAICT runs the newsserver, had this comment in response to questions about continuing to carry the MS groups: (message not repeated) I thought it was Ray Banana. If Mr. Banana could separate his hostility toward microsoft (the corporate pirana) from his logistical argument, one would find that his logistical argument is largely hollow and disengenous. There are thousands of alt groups in a similar state of abandonment and discoordination with various lists. At least the microsoft.public list of groups (as it exists today) is a known entity with no internal conflicts. Groups that get no posts are not a drain (not to usenet, nor to individual servers) so again he puts forward a disengenuous argument that as a hierarchy it needs to be cleaned up before it can continue to exist after microsoft turns off it's server. As I said in a previous post, there are many people (particularly those that are advocates of usenet and/or run their own servers) that are firmly entrenched in the Unix/Linux camp and loath Microsoft for what they are or for what they've done to the computing world, and would like nothing better than to strip usenet of any group with microsoft in the name. And Microsoft would like nothing more than for that to happen. Because it would eliminate a major venue for anonymous and uncensored discourse about it's products - new AND old. And it does not want people using it's old (especially discontinued) products. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
On 05/06/2010 11:06 PM, glee wrote:
"Franc Zabkar" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 May 2010 12:14:41 -0700 (UTC), put finger to keyboard and composed: Date 5/4/2010 Starting in early summer 2010, Microsoft will begin progressively closing down the Microsoft public newsgroups to enrich conversations in the rapidly-growing forum platform. I don't want a two-paragraph text based conversation to be "enriched" by 1MB of Javascript, plus ads and banners, and other inducements and enticements. I should be able to exchange 10 lines of text using just a 2400bps dialup modem on a 286 machine running any version of DOS. Thankfully, some technical forums have RSS feeds, and many will deliver replies and notifications via email. These days I make much greater use of OB1 (no JS support), and I visit Google's cached text-only version of certain web sites whenever possible. This decision is in response to worldwide market trends and evolving customer needs. This decision is in response to consumer ignorance. Most customers have never heard of Usenet, or an email client. They think they need web based interfaces for everything, including email, and they carry on their vacuous lives via Facebook and Twitter. In the eternal-september.org (E-S) support group on their server, "Joe Banana", who AFAICT runs the newsserver, had this comment in response to questions about continuing to carry the MS groups: quote "Microsoft has never bothered to issue control messages for its microsoft.* groups and I assume they will just switch off their servers and leave the mess behind that they have been inflicting on Usenet for more than fifteen years. Right now, there are 1772 microsoft.public.* groups on E-S and many of them are empty or just filled with spam. "As Microsoft will not create new "official" groups or remove obsolete groups on its own servers anymore, Julièn Élie will consequentially stop issuing "virtual" checkgroups control messages for the microsoft.* hierarchy and hence it's in the sole discretion of each NSP to decide which microsoft.* groups, if any, they are going to carry after Microsoft will finally FOAD Usenet-wise, which will inevitably lead to inconsistent group lists and will definitely not improve the usability of this hierarchy. It would take enormous efforts to restructure the namespace, cut back the proliferations of Microsoft's naming conventions and make it Usenet compliant, so I doubt this can be achieved without a maintainer. With all this in mind, I would suggest to abandon the microsoft.* mess as FUBAR and create a set of newsgroups within and in accordance with the rules of the existing and established hierarchies. " /quote And that makes sense to me... though I'm not exactly sure, nor is apparently "Joe Banana", what will actually be done when this service and hosting ends, nor what Microsoft will do "this time" with this complete closure. I also disagree with "Microsoft has never bothered to issue control messages", compliant services removed those groups when "refreshed". Microsoft may ignore the continuance as it has before allowing supposed users a "forum"; it may issue the control message(s); it may do...; whatever Microsoft does, and who ever actually knows everything Microsoft will do even WITHIN Microsoft. Things change constantly, one department changes another's intents, and we have seen retractions and modifications from even those supposedly "in control". So in this instance I think it will be interesting to see exactly what IS done since Microsoft has never followed many of the "standards" which apply to the Web, and elsewhere. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Microsoft Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook | 98 Guy | General | 58 | February 27th 10 03:15 PM |
Microsoft Takes on Google and Yahoo with Microsoft Adcenter and Adlabs | [email protected] | General | 1 | May 8th 07 01:55 AM |
Microsoft makes errors in Microsoft Security Advisory (912840) | Jim | General | 22 | January 5th 06 04:56 PM |
Windows 98 screen properties/settings no longer responds | Philip | General | 8 | December 27th 05 01:18 AM |
Inability to access Microsoft Online Assisted Support | Ellis Butler | General | 0 | August 13th 04 09:51 PM |