Prev: Main window steals focus from child only when child is being moved
Next: Shared DLL question on win7
From: Peter Olcott on 10 Jun 2010 12:34
On 6/10/2010 11:10 AM, Tim Slattery wrote:
>
> Stuart Redmann<DerTopper(a)web.de> wrote:
>
>> This raised the following questions: How can MS shut down this
>> newsgroup at all? Won't this group still exist on every other
>> newsserver (or at least on Google Groups)?
>
> Yes, of course. MS will shut down its server, but other servers will
> continue to carry the group. That's the nature of Usenet.
>
There is something about an official delete message that must be
explicitly ignored. The group will be deleted from every server that
does not explicitly ignore this official delete message.
From: Stuart Redmann on 11 Jun 2010 07:52
Tim Slattery wrote on 6 Jun. :
> > Yes, of course. MS will shut down its server, but other servers will
> > continue to carry the group. That's the nature of Usenet.

Peter Olcott wrote on 10 Jun.:
> There is something about an official delete message that must be
> explicitly ignored. The group will be deleted from every server that
> does not explicitly ignore this official delete message.

I couldn't find it in RFC 3977. Is this possibly some kind of
extension?

Anyway, why are people concerned about the continuation of this
newsgroup at all? Or to put it better: Why should people bother to use
the web-based forum on MSDN if this newsgroup is (perceivably) fully
functional?

Thanks,
Stuart
From: David Wilkinson on 11 Jun 2010 11:17
Stuart Redmann wrote:
> Anyway, why are people concerned about the continuation of this
> newsgroup at all? Or to put it better: Why should people bother to use
> the web-based forum on MSDN if this newsgroup is (perceivably) fully
> functional?

Because it has a lot more traffic, and (if you so desire) it can be accessed
very well using the new and improved NNTP bridge(s).

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP
From: Stephen Wolstenholme on 11 Jun 2010 11:50
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 04:52:19 -0700 (PDT), Stuart Redmann
<DerTopper(a)web.de> wrote:

>Anyway, why are people concerned about the continuation of this
>newsgroup at all? Or to put it better: Why should people bother to use
>the web-based forum on MSDN if this newsgroup is (perceivably) fully
>functional?

The web forum is very busy but it's a pain in the neck to read. I use
the NNTP copy Msdn.en-US.vclanguage provided by the Jochen's NNTP
bridge.

Steve

--
Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. www.justnn.com
From: Hector Santos on 13 Jun 2010 20:20
The command is RMGROUP and hosting servers either honor it or not, but
most are automated and who wants to KEEP something that isn't part of
they feeds anyway. So it will individual sites that will ignore it
and they will have to create their own network - UseNet is more about
the control and sharing of a LIST FILE and a DIFF system. So once a
site has the official LIST FILE for usenet, from that point on they do
ADD and REMOVES. If the microsoft heirarchy is removed from the
"OFFICIAL" LIST FILE, well, you have to create and maintain your LIST
and get a network of server who is willing to support a different LIST
FILE.

The sad about all this is that its made out to be a black and white
issue. You seem to believe the web version will suffer if the
newsgroups continue.

No. The only thing it benefits is lowering cost of operations,
support, thats it. One less thing for MS to worry about.

But from a customer support, there is never just 1 group of people,
but a diversity and this is especially true for a old established
companies that has many customers from all different angles. That is
what makes it all odd - something has happen that allowed MS to make a
decision to go one way only when in reality they did not have to

1) They could of forcing authentication with the newsgroups using
user live id accounts, just like the web requires.

2) They could of easily single source the backend mail system to
archive a single mail system - not two.

It is was an odd decision - almost simple minded, yet easy and MS sees
reduced cost probably.

I also think that they realize there might be disruption and
inconvenience but at the end of day people will have no choice but to
use the web or the new bridges. The latter is something I'm afraid
they might disallow in the future IFF they believe it will hurt the
web side - it shouldn't but who knows.

--
HLS

Stuart Redmann wrote:

> Tim Slattery wrote on 6 Jun. :
>>> Yes, of course. MS will shut down its server, but other servers will
>>> continue to carry the group. That's the nature of Usenet.
>
> Peter Olcott wrote on 10 Jun.:
>> There is something about an official delete message that must be
>> explicitly ignored. The group will be deleted from every server that
>> does not explicitly ignore this official delete message.
>
> I couldn't find it in RFC 3977. Is this possibly some kind of
> extension?
>
> Anyway, why are people concerned about the continuation of this
> newsgroup at all? Or to put it better: Why should people bother to use
> the web-based forum on MSDN if this newsgroup is (perceivably) fully
> functional?
>
> Thanks,
> Stuart



--
HLS
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Main window steals focus from child only when child is being moved
Next: Shared DLL question on win7