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
___---

"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".

"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".

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
___---

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
___---

"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/

"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/

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.

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.

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
___---