New usenet hierarchy proposal
in [Visual Basic]
|
Prev: data disapear
Next: monitor if computer is in idle
From: Bob Butler on 6 May 2010 19:28 "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote in message news:Ozl5nKX7KHA.4208(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: <cut> > I know next to nothing about creating new groups, much less an entire > hierarchy. So, this may be an ignorant question. > > Wouldn't it be easier, and perhaps make more sense, to hook into an > existing hierarchy? Perhaps creating a comp.lang.classicvb.* node, or > similar? That makes more sense to me; I'm not sure I see a need for more than one group per language either since the traffic is relatively low these days. comp.lang.vbclassic.<language> The one advantage of new groups over the comp.lang.basic.visual groups is that there'd be no valid argument that VB.Net questions were legitimate there.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 6 May 2010 19:36 After serious thinking Schmidt wrote : > I would second that... it's important IMO that we all agree > about *one* central place "to move to", to prevent "disruption" > of the community to several different "new homes". Sorry, just getting around to reading some of these, now... Is all this predicated on the thought that we can't rely on standard usenet propogation for the existing m.p.* hierarchy? > If we were satisfied with only a few (english) groups, we > could just move to comp.lang.basic.visual.... and > proceed there. Main advantage of that is folks are already somewhat accustomed to that location. > But if we would like to keep up a language-based group- > hierarchy (as Ulrich just proposed) - and which is IMO the right > thing to do - also with regards (at this occassion) to a new, > "well-recognized and non-interchangeable root-name" as: > 'vbclassic' seems to be... Question to the group, which is NOT AT ALL biased by my interest in any particular domain name (I swear <vbg>)... What's more common usage and/or well recogized - ClassicVB or VBclassic? > [Mailing-Lists + NNTP-reflection] > We would only need to find "someone", who has access to > a server which is not that limited with traffic-volume and > which does allow the creation of a bunch of mail-accounts, > to set up a simple mailing-list-scheme as e.g.: > (sorry Karl, when I anticipate something here, which is > not possible...<g> - it's just to give an example)... Wow. Not sure I've ever heard of that method/mechanism. Sounds interesting, alright. But it's still pretty non-standard, isn't it? I dunno, maybe not. I'd have to actually use it, I suppose, to get a feel.
From: Karl E. Peterson on 6 May 2010 19:40 Schmidt formulated the question : > But let Karl respond first (hope he's reading this thread) - > speaking for myself, I would like it very much, when a > wellknown site, with a focus and a history regarding > "community aspects of vbclassic" would act as the > *leading* mailing-list-server - and if we can get one or two > additional servers (as yours), which have the capabilities too, > to work as E-Mail-Mirrors for the "leading-list" - all the better. As long as my current server holds out, I could see contributing a bit to this. Can't take it on as the lead, though, because I just don't know how long I can keep the old box running. Is this what you're asking?
From: Karl E. Peterson on 6 May 2010 20:02 Bob Butler wrote: > "Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> wrote... >> Ulrich Korndoerfer wrote: > <cut> >> I know next to nothing about creating new groups, much less an entire >> hierarchy. So, this may be an ignorant question. >> >> Wouldn't it be easier, and perhaps make more sense, to hook into an >> existing hierarchy? Perhaps creating a comp.lang.classicvb.* node, or >> similar? > > That makes more sense to me; I'm not sure I see a need for more than one > group per language either since the traffic is relatively low these days. > > comp.lang.vbclassic.<language> > > The one advantage of new groups over the comp.lang.basic.visual groups is > that there'd be no valid argument that VB.Net questions were legitimate > there. Have the fanboys shown up there, too? I didn't see any of that garbage in a quick look-see. -- ..NET: It's About Trust! http://vfred.mvps.org
From: Schmidt on 6 May 2010 20:17
"Karl E. Peterson" <karl(a)exmvps.org> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:hrvjpd$s2j$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > After serious thinking Schmidt wrote : > > I would second that... it's important IMO that we all agree > > about *one* central place "to move to", to prevent "disruption" > > of the community to several different "new homes". > > Sorry, just getting around to reading some of these, now... > > Is all this predicated on the thought that we can't rely on standard > usenet propogation for the existing m.p.* hierarchy? Yes, and I (personally) would not want to use the 'm.' part of this hierarchy further, if I'm forced to "take action" now. > > If we were satisfied with only a few (english) groups, we > > could just move to comp.lang.basic.visual.... and > > proceed there. > > Main advantage of that is folks are already somewhat > accustomed to that location. Yep, and I could live with comp.lang.basic.visual... or comp.lang.somethingnew... as well. Though I see some problems with the establishing of a new 'subentry' behind comp.lang... "in time" ... *and* relying on the usual propagation-mechanisms *after* such a new subhierarchy behind comp.lang was allowed finally by the "appropriate instances" could then take another while - and aside from that, many users currently were connecting to msnews.microsoft.com directly and not over their ISPs or other free NewsServer-providers - and maybe could have problems, to setup their NewsClient appropriately, to follow into "real usenet" (just look at your efforts, until you got this "september-stuff" up and running... hope this patience is there with any other potential follower into the new groups. ;-) > > [Mailing-Lists + NNTP-reflection] > > We would only need to find "someone", who has access to > > a server which is not that limited with traffic-volume and > > which does allow the creation of a bunch of mail-accounts, > > to set up a simple mailing-list-scheme as e.g.: > > (sorry Karl, when I anticipate something here, which is > > not possible...<g> - it's just to give an example)... > > Wow. Not sure I've ever heard of that method/mechanism. > Sounds interesting, alright. But it's still pretty non-standard, isn't it? Nah, Mailing-Lists are a good candidate, if the contest is, how to establish a "publically visible black-board-communication" as "oldfashioned as possible". <g> Mailing-Lists are the standard communication in nearly all OpenSource-developer-communities. They usually set up MailMan as the MailService and then have pages like that: http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailman > I dunno, maybe not. I'd have to actually use it, I suppose, to get a > feel. > > |