Microsoft ending newsgroup support
in [MFC]
|
From: Bo Persson on 9 May 2010 05:23 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > One of the myths Microsoft loves to propagate is the concept of "a > rich multiemedia Web Experience" and by this they mean "you love to > have annoying musing played, terminally cutesy animations shown, > and pointeless videos to watch". > > I have found that most Web videos suffer from low information > bandwidth, and could be done as text which I could read much faster > than the video delivery presents. I can read a 1-hour video > content in about 10 minutes, so why would I want to waste an hour > watching a video that conveys nothing more than the text document? > > Screw "rich multimedia experience". When you replace this with > "malware vector enabling technology" (which is all that it appears > to be) then it is even more obvious how bad it is. > > I don't need pictures; imagine how many horrible screen shots we > are going to have to download if people can post images! The forum > interfaces are among the worst interfaces I have seen in a long > time, and I work in the newsgroups because the bandwidth usage is > effective. I don't waste time with boring videos, I don't need to > enable any malware vectors, and I don't have to see annoying > flashing ads and be annoyed by other "rich multimedia" features > (the second time I got blasted by offensive rock music on a Web > site, I disabled the speakers on my computer; then I found there > was a way to disable playing sounds in the browser). > > My desire to maintain the integrity of my site means I have never > used YouTube, FaceBook, Yahoo Groups, or any of other social > networking site (I think most social sites are a waste of time, > although the Olcott Saga absorbed far more time than it deserved), > and I never use any information site that requires that I register > or login. > joe > Hear, hear! Bo Persson
From: Hector Santos on 9 May 2010 18:43 Test of news.aioe.org posting. HA! The server restricted the TOO many quoted lines.. cutting it down.... Hector Santos wrote: > > IMO, the reality is the centralization of MS NTTP Servers provided. > > Those other SITES only proved to work and be reliable with great > participation only because on the backend one way or another, directly > or indirectly, they were connecting to the main source: > > msnews.microsoft.com > > What people do not realize is that these microsoft.public.* were not > part of the usenet backbone. So its not like losing the MS NNTP Server > and everything will remain the same. > > No. Once that host is gone, the great participation we come to realize > from all over the world will be cut off and cut down. In fact, you will > see a major cut down in MVP input as well as the input from prolific > participators. > > >> Do they have the ability to shut down the name "microsoft.public." ? > > > I don't think they fully realize the impact with the "3rd party > branding" issues. Maybe they do and have outlined a plan when they cross > that bridge. >
From: Cholo Lennon on 9 May 2010 23:02 Joseph M. Newcomer wrote: > One of the myths Microsoft loves to propagate is the concept of "a rich multiemedia Web > Experience" and by this they mean "you love to have annoying musing played, terminally > cutesy animations shown, and pointeless videos to watch". > > I have found that most Web videos suffer from low information bandwidth, and could be done > as text which I could read much faster than the video delivery presents. I can read a > 1-hour video content in about 10 minutes, so why would I want to waste an hour watching a > video that conveys nothing more than the text document? > > Screw "rich multimedia experience". When you replace this with "malware vector enabling > technology" (which is all that it appears to be) then it is even more obvious how bad it > is. > > I don't need pictures; imagine how many horrible screen shots we are going to have to > download if people can post images! The forum interfaces are among the worst interfaces I > have seen in a long time, and I work in the newsgroups because the bandwidth usage is > effective. I don't waste time with boring videos, I don't need to enable any malware > vectors, and I don't have to see annoying flashing ads and be annoyed by other "rich > multimedia" features (the second time I got blasted by offensive rock music on a Web site, > I disabled the speakers on my computer; then I found there was a way to disable playing > sounds in the browser). > > My desire to maintain the integrity of my site means I have never used YouTube, FaceBook, > Yahoo Groups, or any of other social networking site (I think most social sites are a > waste of time, although the Olcott Saga absorbed far more time than it deserved), and I > never use any information site that requires that I register or login. > joe Hey Joe (god bless you jimi hendrix! :-), I can't stop laughing (and crying!) with your words, you're right!, I agree with you 100%, "rich multimedia experience" must be "wait...wait... (for) a multimedia experience :-P Regards -- Cholo Lennon Bs.As. ARG > On Fri, 07 May 2010 19:21:49 -0300, Cholo Lennon <chololennon(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/05/2010 14:13, Pete Delgado wrote: >>> "Tom Serface"<tom(a)camaswood.com> wrote in message >>> news:ue$VuEK7KHA.5708(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> I've just been using the web interface and it's not so bad once you get >>>> used to it. I have to be careful not to accidentally do something that >>>> makes it go "back" or I lose everything I've typed and offline work is not >>>> possible, but it's not too bad. >>>> >>> Tom, >>> I don't really have a problem with the manner in which the interface works, >>> but rather what is lost. For example, with nntp you can download all current >>> messages for offline viewing. While you can certainly try to cache the forum >>> using IE or a variety of other tools, I suspect that the JavaScript code >>> that guides the beahviour of the forum will not allow this to work properly. >>> >>> ...and speaking of JavaScript, people like Joe who refuse to allow it to run >>> on their machines are removed from the community. Thus we lose Joe's >>> valuable experience and knowledge. >>> >>> Then we have the case of mobile devices on which these relatively "heavy" >>> pages either do not render properly or are sluggish or inoperable because of >>> the scripting behind the pages or the size of the download. As a relatively >>> "lightweight" technology, the pure text newsgroup is much better for mobile >>> devices. Take a look at the size of each page that must be downloaded from >>> the forums on a mobile device. Most of what is downloaded for each page is >>> boilerplate markup and script. While some browsers can cache external script >>> and CSS files, the html written for the forums appears to not optimize that >>> aspect. >>> >>> I also dislike the fact that posters and responders cannot remain anonymous. >>> I think it restricts the discussion. >>> >>> Finally, I believe I may have already mentioned that you cannot filter out >>> particular posts, subjects etc. with the forum software. Something that you >>> can do with many newsreader clients. >>> >>> -Pete >>> >>> >> Well Pete, you have made an excellent description about the cons of web >> forums. I totally agree with you. As you said, even using mobile >> browsers with compression (like opera mini/mobile), is >> annoying/expensive/time consuming/etc the use of web forums. I like the >> simplicity of text newsgroups, I don't mind if I don't have syntax >> coloring, different fonts, etc, etc. >> >> >> Regards >> >> -- >> Cholo Lennon >> Bs.As. >> ARG > 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 9 May 2010 23:13 In article <uoQdDuj7KHA.3880(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, sant9442 @nospam.gmail.com says... [ ... ] > Those other SITES only proved to work and be reliable with great > participation only because on the backend one way or another, directly > or indirectly, they were connecting to the main source: > > msnews.microsoft.com Do you have any evidence that this is really true? An NNTP article has a "Path:" header that tells what servers it went through on the way from source to destination. I've done a search on all the messages in this newsgroup from a couple of different servers (aioe.org and sunsite.de) for roughly the last month. Of those, not even *one* message has a Path showing that it either originated from or passed through a Microsoft server at any point to get to those servers. Based on what I've been able to find so far, it's entirely possible that Microsoft has actually already had their servers shut down for months now. I'm not saying that *is* the case, but I am saying that I can't find any evidence that a significant, or even insignificant, percentage of messages here depend on their servers, or even go through their servers at all. -- Later, Jerry.
From: Doug Harrison [MVP] on 10 May 2010 01:26
On Sun, 9 May 2010 21:13:43 -0600, Jerry Coffin <jerryvcoffin(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >An NNTP article has a "Path:" header that tells what servers it went >through on the way from source to destination. I've done a search on >all the messages in this newsgroup from a couple of different servers >(aioe.org and sunsite.de) for roughly the last month. Of those, not >even *one* message has a Path showing that it either originated from >or passed through a Microsoft server at any point to get to those >servers. > >Based on what I've been able to find so far, it's entirely possible >that Microsoft has actually already had their servers shut down for >months now. I'm not saying that *is* the case, but I am saying that I >can't find any evidence that a significant, or even insignificant, >percentage of messages here depend on their servers, or even go >through their servers at all. Here's a counter-example for ya. :) I don't know if this ever improved, but it used to be that the Microsoft servers were really unreliable at propagating news. For example, before Agent supported multiple servers, I tried to use the Microsoft groups as presented on the AT&T WorldNet servers. Most of my posts never made it to the Microsoft servers. After several months fighting this, I conceded it was no longer worth the trouble and began to use multiple instances of Agent, with one dedicated to the Microsoft servers. Ever since, I've only ever posted to and read from the Microsoft servers. -- Doug Harrison Visual C++ MVP |