Microsoft ending newsgroup support
in [MFC]
|
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 7 May 2010 14:28 Anyone who thinks the new Microsoft GUI designs give the "best experience that can be" has a serious problem with the Reality Distortion Field. It is interesting to watch the evolution of users over time, and as soon as they stop being newbies (usually after a few tens of hours of using the product) the newbie interfaces become painful to them; they want to get a smoother interface. As soon as someone says "protect <X>" I always ask "protect from what? And why? And what are the consequences of it not being protected against whatever?" If I have to do one of those horrible Captcha interfaces each time I access the newsgroup, I will probably lend up not participating, because I actually have problems with those (I get the wrong about 20% of the time). And it is an artificial barrier I do not want to deal with. So if we are protecting against spam, who determines it is spam? If someone is going to "move posts around" in the forums, who is the person who is going to be doing that? Decades ago, I was the moderator for a NG I was in, and it began to interfere with my real work,it took so much time. NG moderation is best done in moderation. joe **** On Fri, 7 May 2010 07:57:32 -0700, "Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote: > >Hi G, > >I think that is a factor, but the biggest factor, in my opinion, is tracking >participation and ensuring that the customer's experience (look and feel, >accessibility, etc.) is the best it can be. We are pretty high power users >and don't care about bells and whistles that much, but I think the typical >MSFT Windows 7 customer likes the fancier looking interface. > >I also think the forums protect the content. > >Tom > >"Giovanni Dicanio" <giovanniDOTdicanio(a)REMOVEMEgmail.com> wrote in message >news:uPP0v1b7KHA.5936(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote: >> >>> I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds like >>> nobody at >>> Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we often phrase it "their >>> reality-distortion >>> field was running full force that day". >> >> I think that they can do money on the web forums thanks to advertising; >> this is not possible with NNTP newsgroups. >> And on the web forum it is possible to delete posts and threads or move >> them around (again, not possible with NNTP). >> >> Giovanni >> >> Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 7 May 2010 14:30 Controlling the API is not the same as exposing the API. And if I can filter out ads, I will do so. Normally, I turn off playing sounds and all forms of animation, which makes the experience of some Web sites almost tolerable. joe On Fri, 7 May 2010 07:55:37 -0700, "Tom Serface" <tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote: > >I think it would be in MSFT's best interest to control the API as much as >possible. If people use the bridge and newsreaders they don't have as much >control over what is seen on the screen (other kinds of content). If I were >them I'd want to the ability to have better control over the whole >experience. > >Tom > >"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer(a)flounder.com> wrote in message >news:biv6u5hniaduavmrqsq2vgsem3sdnhhltg(a)4ax.com... >> >> So if the API is exposed, I would push Forte (vendor of my favorite NG >> reader) into >> considering a Microsoft-forum-capable version of Agent, so the silliness >> of the unusable >> Microsoft interface is no longer an issue. > Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Jerry Coffin on 7 May 2010 17:42 In article <s8v6u5dbf77frmmnrcco1dh8qpqb25i09m(a)4ax.com>, newcomer(a)flounder.com says... [ ... ] > I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds > like nobody at Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we > often phrase it "their reality-distortion field was running full > force that day". I think the impact of this announcement may be getting exaggerated a bit. In fact, if Microsoft had simply shut down their servers (without making a public announcement of doing so) I doubt much of anybody would have even noticed. NNTP allows almost any group of cooperating servers to exchange news, with no no reliance on one server or group of servers (such as Microsoft's). From a technical viewpoint, Microsoft shutting down their servers means nothing unless 1) you use them directly as your newsfeed, or 2) the sole path from you to some other group of servers is through them. Doing a quick search of headers of the articles I have on hand, I can't find a single post that originated from, or passed through, a Microsoft server to get to me. Some people may be seeing articles that come to them via a Microsoft server, but if so it's a fairly simple change in configuration to get news from elsewhere instead. The one problem this might cause would be more from the announcement than the shutdown itself. Some other administrators might quit carrying these newsgroups just because Microsoft did. If too many do, that could cause a problem, even though (from a technical perspective) things would be just fine. -- Later, Jerry.
From: r norman on 7 May 2010 17:55 On Fri, 7 May 2010 15:42:19 -0600, Jerry Coffin <jerryvcoffin(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >In article <s8v6u5dbf77frmmnrcco1dh8qpqb25i09m(a)4ax.com>, >newcomer(a)flounder.com says... > >[ ... ] > >> I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds >> like nobody at Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we >> often phrase it "their reality-distortion field was running full >> force that day". > >I think the impact of this announcement may be getting exaggerated a >bit. In fact, if Microsoft had simply shut down their servers >(without making a public announcement of doing so) I doubt much of >anybody would have even noticed. > >NNTP allows almost any group of cooperating servers to exchange news, >with no no reliance on one server or group of servers (such as >Microsoft's). From a technical viewpoint, Microsoft shutting down >their servers means nothing unless 1) you use them directly as your >newsfeed, or 2) the sole path from you to some other group of servers >is through them. > >Doing a quick search of headers of the articles I have on hand, I >can't find a single post that originated from, or passed through, a >Microsoft server to get to me. Some people may be seeing articles >that come to them via a Microsoft server, but if so it's a fairly >simple change in configuration to get news from elsewhere instead. > >The one problem this might cause would be more from the announcement >than the shutdown itself. Some other administrators might quit >carrying these newsgroups just because Microsoft did. If too many do, >that could cause a problem, even though (from a technical >perspective) things would be just fine. Thank you for a touch of reality. Just how many answers to questions on these news groups comes from Microsoft, anyway? If few or none (at least on the dozen news groups I follow, then what will change? Do they have the ability to shut down the name "microsoft.public." ?
From: Tom Serface on 7 May 2010 17:59
I don't think MSFT minds if anyone has a server to do support or discussions. I think they are just saying that they will not support NNTP either with their people or their hardware going forward. There are lots of other communities (like StackOverflow, CodeProject, etc.) that are not part of Microsoft's domain and are still quite popular. Tom "Jerry Coffin" <jerryvcoffin(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:MPG.264d69f8f42a0272989893(a)news.sunsite.dk... > In article <s8v6u5dbf77frmmnrcco1dh8qpqb25i09m(a)4ax.com>, > newcomer(a)flounder.com says... > > [ ... ] > >> I may be wrong. But a decision to kill off the NNTP forums sounds >> like nobody at Microsoft was in touch with reality. Or, as we >> often phrase it "their reality-distortion field was running full >> force that day". > > I think the impact of this announcement may be getting exaggerated a > bit. In fact, if Microsoft had simply shut down their servers > (without making a public announcement of doing so) I doubt much of > anybody would have even noticed. > > NNTP allows almost any group of cooperating servers to exchange news, > with no no reliance on one server or group of servers (such as > Microsoft's). From a technical viewpoint, Microsoft shutting down > their servers means nothing unless 1) you use them directly as your > newsfeed, or 2) the sole path from you to some other group of servers > is through them. > > Doing a quick search of headers of the articles I have on hand, I > can't find a single post that originated from, or passed through, a > Microsoft server to get to me. Some people may be seeing articles > that come to them via a Microsoft server, but if so it's a fairly > simple change in configuration to get news from elsewhere instead. > > The one problem this might cause would be more from the announcement > than the shutdown itself. Some other administrators might quit > carrying these newsgroups just because Microsoft did. If too many do, > that could cause a problem, even though (from a technical > perspective) things would be just fine. > > -- > Later, > Jerry. |