Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Survey about microsoft.* newsgroups
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 12:53:56 PM6/30/21
to
Hi all,
I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed in
the Microsoft Community web forums)
Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
not representated in alt.*).
More background.
In 2010, Microsoft closed its public news server. The current list of
newsgroups in microsoft.* is exactly the official ones at that time.
That list of newsgroups was kept synchronized with other news servers
via special articles called "control articles" that I used to send. The
hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of msnews.microsoft.com.
Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not re-opened a news server
(and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what to do. Of course, the
microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is it the wish of its
users? That's the reason of my message since it appears this very
newsgroup is the most frequented.
There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
A quick look at the number of posts over the last year (July 2020-June
2021) gives:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20
With some newsgroups having 100% spam.
So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
newsgroups?
If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
Any thoughts to share?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Et s'il n'en reste qu'un, je serai celui-là ! » (Victor Hugo)
I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed in
the Microsoft Community web forums)
Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
not representated in alt.*).
More background.
In 2010, Microsoft closed its public news server. The current list of
newsgroups in microsoft.* is exactly the official ones at that time.
That list of newsgroups was kept synchronized with other news servers
via special articles called "control articles" that I used to send. The
hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of msnews.microsoft.com.
Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not re-opened a news server
(and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what to do. Of course, the
microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is it the wish of its
users? That's the reason of my message since it appears this very
newsgroup is the most frequented.
There aren't many active newsgroups left in the microsoft.* hierarchy.
A quick look at the number of posts over the last year (July 2020-June
2021) gives:
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general 2083
microsoft.public.it.office.excel 1579
microsoft.public.fr.excel 1363
microsoft.public.de.money 609
microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion 487
microsoft.public.de.excel 338
microsoft.public.fr.outlook 335
microsoft.public.excel.programming 323
microsoft.public.excel.misc 254
microsoft.public.outlook.general 253
microsoft.public.fr.windows.server 204
microsoft.public.word.docmanagement 122
microsoft.public.fr.office 107
microsoft.public.excel.worksheet.functions 107
microsoft.public.excel 104
microsoft.public.es.excel 93
microsoft.public.fr.windowsxp 80
microsoft.public.adsi.general 76
microsoft.public.nntp.test 63
microsoft.public.nl.office.excel 58
microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript 55
microsoft.public.es.word 54
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support 51
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching 45
microsoft.public.powerpoint 43
microsoft.public.it.office.access 43
microsoft.public.outlook 42
microsoft.public.test.here 38
microsoft.public.fr.access 36
microsoft.public.word.pagelayout 35
microsoft.public.word.newusers 30
microsoft.public.fr.word 30
microsoft.public.access 28
microsoft.public.mac.office.word 26
microsoft.public.greatplains 26
microsoft.public.es.access 26
microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp 26
microsoft.public.windows.server.general 22
microsoft.public.excel.setup 21
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion 20
With some newsgroups having 100% spam.
So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
newsgroups?
If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
Any thoughts to share?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Et s'il n'en reste qu'un, je serai celui-là ! » (Victor Hugo)
Mayayana
Jun 30, 2021, 1:12:01 PM6/30/21
to
"Julien ÉLIE" <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote
| Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
| newsgroups?
| If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
| we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
| is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
| hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
|
| Any thoughts to share?
|
I'd be all for killing groups that are both dead and
redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
posters lurking. I also subscribe to two XP groups that are
active. I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
to the other.
So that would be my preference: Remove only those
groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
redirect redundant live groups to one group. Alt XP and
Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
be only 1 relevant group. At one time I subscribed to
several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
where all critical speech magically disappears.
So the XP redundancy is the only one I'm noticing. There are
no longer any other cases where I subscribe to two related
groups.
| Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.*
| newsgroups?
| If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed,
| we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which
| is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another
| hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
|
| Any thoughts to share?
|
redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
posters lurking. I also subscribe to two XP groups that are
active. I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
to the other.
So that would be my preference: Remove only those
groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
redirect redundant live groups to one group. Alt XP and
Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
be only 1 relevant group. At one time I subscribed to
several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
where all critical speech magically disappears.
So the XP redundancy is the only one I'm noticing. There are
no longer any other cases where I subscribe to two related
groups.
😉 Good Guy 😉
Jun 30, 2021, 2:16:53 PM6/30/21
to
On 30/06/2021 17:53, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
Hi all,
I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
I haven't seen anybody complaining about anything. where have
seen that? Which newsgroup?
More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
As long as news-servers are willing to carry newsgroups, the
future is bright. Microsoft gave up on newsgroups a long time ago.
Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.?
If you are running your own news-server then it's up to you
whether you want to carry them or not. You can't impose your will
on every news-server on this planet.
Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general, alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10.
Correct. The requirement to create a new newsgroup on the alt.*
hierarchy is not as stringent as on the comp.*. The comp.*
hierarchy is a cartel and they are running it like an old boys
network. By the way, if you are running your own news-server then
nobody can stop you from creating any newsgroup as you want
including comp.* or alt.*. The only disadvantage is that other
news-servers won't propagate the posts on your server. I have seen
"alt.comp.os.windows-11" on couple of news-servers but posts won't
propagate until after one week from 25th June, 2021 or soon
thereafter.
I bet there will soon be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still not representated in alt.*).
Done by a couple of news servers!!
More background.
In 2010, Microsoft closed its public news server. The current list of newsgroups in microsoft.* is exactly the official ones at that time.
The problem is Microsoft didn't ask anybody to remove the
Microsoft hierarchy from their servers so these newsgroups
continued. It is no longer Microsoft's problem if spammers and
pedos have taken over them.
That list of newsgroups was kept synchronized with other news servers via special articles called "control articles" that I used to send.
This is only relevant these days for comp.* and perhaps free.*
but comp.* is a cartel and they are running it as an old boys
network and not allowing anybody to join their club.
With some newsgroups having 100% spam.
That's wonderful. That's one way to keep them active!!
So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
Young people don't know much about newsgroups. They know
everything about facebook and twitter and they can solve all their
problems (if any) on facebook or twitter. They don't need
newsgroups. The old people who used to use newsgroups in the 80s
and 90s are in their 80s and there are very few of them
(relatively speaking) left who are still using them. Windows 10 is
made up 95% people who are in their mid to late 80s so they won't
be around for long.
Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing alt.* newsgroups?
We have already switched to alt.* or free.*
If you running your own server then you can decide whether you
want all of them or not. You need to ask your customers whether
they are still using these newsgroups. There is no requirement for
any server to carry all of the newsgroups. I know some private
ones that are only carrying the newsgroups that they use. They
don't have time for all of them. It's pointless for them to carry
all of them. Giganews will not carry any new newsgroups unless
their customer asks for it. This makes sense to me.
If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
Any thoughts to share?
You will find that the use of newsgroups is declining at an
exponential rate. You'll be lucky to have these in 10 years time.
--
With over 1.3 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 30, 2021, 3:07:43 PM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 18:53:49, Julien ÉLIE
<iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared. They
would just either post to both, or ignore the new one. (And killing
those in microsoft.* might not be successful world-wide.)
>Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
>Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed
>in the Microsoft Community web forums)
If there is sufficient traffic that is specific to one of those
products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
than one.
creating any in microsoft.* .
[]
that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
[]
in a position to do so) ones that are both dead and not required.
Although I would express it as _do_ remove such. But how to test whether
they are required? Perhaps post a post asking "is anyone reading this
newsgroup", and if no replies - or other posts - in say three weeks, go
ahead.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)
<iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
>Hi all,
>
>I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that
>:)
>
>More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
Though it is non-ideal having the two hierarchies, I don't think it
>
>I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that
>:)
>
>More generally, how would you see the "future" of the microsoft.* hierarchy?
would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared. They
would just either post to both, or ignore the new one. (And killing
those in microsoft.* might not be successful world-wide.)
>Do you think it worthwhile keeping it and adding new newsgroups for
>Windows, Office 365, Teams, etc.? (basically for the products listed
>in the Microsoft Community web forums)
products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
than one.
>
>Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
>be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
>not representated in alt.*).
>
If you think they will appear in alt.* anyway, then hold back on
>Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10. I bet there will soon
>be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other Microsoft products still
>not representated in alt.*).
>
creating any in microsoft.* .
[]
>The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>to do. Of course, the microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is
>it the wish of its users? That's the reason of my message since it
>appears this very newsgroup is the most frequented.
Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>to do. Of course, the microsoft.* hierarchy can remain as-is. But is
>it the wish of its users? That's the reason of my message since it
>appears this very newsgroup is the most frequented.
that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
[]
>So, over the ~500 newsgroups in microsoft.*, very few are still active...
>
>Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>alt.* newsgroups?
>If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>
>Any thoughts to share?
>
I tend to agree with Mayayana that you should only _remove_ (if you are
>
>Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>alt.* newsgroups?
>If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>
>Any thoughts to share?
>
in a position to do so) ones that are both dead and not required.
Although I would express it as _do_ remove such. But how to test whether
they are required? Perhaps post a post asking "is anyone reading this
newsgroup", and if no replies - or other posts - in say three weeks, go
ahead.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Wisdom is the ability to cope. - the late (AB of C) Michael Ramsey,
quoted by Stephen Fry (RT 24-30 August 2013)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 3:19:33 PM6/30/21
to
Hi Good Guy,
>> I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>> Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
>
> I haven't seen anybody complaining about anything. where have seen that?
> Which newsgroup?
This one: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
For instance in the thread "Upgrade Win7 or Win8 to Win10 for free and
then to Windows 11 for free" two days ago where I read "I know you like
Windows 11, but you're just spamming XP newsgroups."
Message-ID: <news:1rk9m36xzg4v3.l...@40tude.net>
On second thoughts, it seems much less frequent than I believed at first
glance!
>> Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>> already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>> alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10.
>
> Correct. The requirement to create a new newsgroup on the alt.*
> hierarchy is not as stringent as on the comp.*. The comp.* hierarchy is
> a cartel and they are running it like an old boys network.
I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*
For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
- microsoft.public.windows-10
- microsoft.public.windows-11
- microsoft.public.microsoft365
- microsoft.public.teams
- microsoft.public.yammer
...
besides the ones that already exist or could be created in alt.*?
>> I bet there will soon be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other
>> Microsoft products still not representated in alt.*).
>
> Done by a couple of news servers!!
Good news!
> Windows 10 is made up 95% people who are in their mid to late 80s
> so they won't be around for long.
As long as such people are still there, let's listen to their
expectations :-)
>> Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>> alt.* newsgroups?
>
> We have already switched to alt.* or free.*
Sure, but is there any point in trying to revive microsoft.* with new
newsgroups?
> There is no requirement for any server to carry
> all of the newsgroups. I know some private ones that are only carrying
> the newsgroups that they use.
I totally agree. I am just speaking of updating the list of microsoft.*
groups in:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
so that news administrators who wish to follow that (centralized) list
of newsgroups may update the list of newsgroups they carry.
This list is currently the one of old msnews.microsoft.com news server
when it was stopped in 2010.
> Giganews will not carry any new
> newsgroups unless their customer asks for it. This makes sense to me.
I thought they were automatically creating newsgroups when their news
servers were fed with articles posted in newsgroups they were not
carrying. I may be wrong though.
>> If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>> removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>> discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>> from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>>
>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
> You will find that the use of newsgroups is declining at an exponential
> rate. You'll be lucky to have these in 10 years time.
Then they'll be marked as defunct in 2030, as well as whole Usenet in a
Wikipedia page. Nonetheless, before it happens, it is still active.
So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
current and future needs?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Bravo ! avec tes idées assommantes… » (Astérix)
>> I see a few threads complaining about discussions for more recent
>> Windows versions than XP in this newsgroup. I totally understand that :)
>
> I haven't seen anybody complaining about anything. where have seen that?
> Which newsgroup?
For instance in the thread "Upgrade Win7 or Win8 to Win10 for free and
then to Windows 11 for free" two days ago where I read "I know you like
Windows 11, but you're just spamming XP newsgroups."
Message-ID: <news:1rk9m36xzg4v3.l...@40tude.net>
On second thoughts, it seems much less frequent than I believed at first
glance!
>> Or, another alternative would be to just use the alt.* hierarchy which
>> already has very active newsgroups like alt.windows7.general,
>> alt.comp.os.windows-8 or alt.comp.os.windows-10.
>
> Correct. The requirement to create a new newsgroup on the alt.*
> hierarchy is not as stringent as on the comp.*. The comp.* hierarchy is
> a cartel and they are running it like an old boys network.
For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
- microsoft.public.windows-10
- microsoft.public.windows-11
- microsoft.public.microsoft365
- microsoft.public.teams
- microsoft.public.yammer
...
besides the ones that already exist or could be created in alt.*?
>> I bet there will soon be one for Windows 11 (and if needed for other
>> Microsoft products still not representated in alt.*).
>
> Done by a couple of news servers!!
> Windows 10 is made up 95% people who are in their mid to late 80s
> so they won't be around for long.
expectations :-)
>> Is it really worth keeping it? Why not switch to already existing
>> alt.* newsgroups?
>
> We have already switched to alt.* or free.*
newsgroups?
> There is no requirement for any server to carry
> all of the newsgroups. I know some private ones that are only carrying
> the newsgroups that they use.
groups in:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
so that news administrators who wish to follow that (centralized) list
of newsgroups may update the list of newsgroups they carry.
This list is currently the one of old msnews.microsoft.com news server
when it was stopped in 2010.
> Giganews will not carry any new
> newsgroups unless their customer asks for it. This makes sense to me.
servers were fed with articles posted in newsgroups they were not
carrying. I may be wrong though.
>> If new newsgroups were created in microsoft.* and obsolete ones
>> removed, we would end up with both alt.* and microsoft.* for
>> discussions, which is not efficient... Unless people decide to move
>> from one to another hierarchy, or keep participating in both of course.
>>
>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
> You will find that the use of newsgroups is declining at an exponential
> rate. You'll be lucky to have these in 10 years time.
Wikipedia page. Nonetheless, before it happens, it is still active.
So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
current and future needs?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Bravo ! avec tes idées assommantes… » (Astérix)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 3:22:33 PM6/30/21
to
Hi Mayayana,
> I'd be all for killing groups that are both dead and
> redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
> groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
> posters lurking.
I agree that considering a newsgroup as dead is not the same as "has not
received any post since 12 months".
> I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
> to the other.
Removing a newsgroup is not as trivial as it sounds because Usenet is
decentralized. Once a newsgroup exists, it cannot be "killed" (some
news servers will keep making it available).
Especially if we are speaking of an alt.* newsgroup.
> So that would be my preference: Remove only those
> groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
> redirect redundant live groups to one group.
Such a redirection cannot be done with newsgroups (we're not in the web
world).
> Alt XP and Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
> name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
> be only 1 relevant group.
So if alt.* and microsoft.* are the "same", is there any point in trying
to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?
> At one time I subscribed to
> several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
> and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
> now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
> programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
> where all critical speech magically disappears.
Is there a lack of Windows programming newsgroups? (Then why not try to
create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)
> I'd be all for killing groups that are both dead and
> redundant. But I've had experiences of asking questions in dead
> groups and getting good answers. There were legitimate
> posters lurking.
received any post since 12 months".
> I would think that if you kill one it should redirect
> to the other.
decentralized. Once a newsgroup exists, it cannot be "killed" (some
news servers will keep making it available).
Especially if we are speaking of an alt.* newsgroup.
> So that would be my preference: Remove only those
> groups that are dead *and* redundant, and if possible
> redirect redundant live groups to one group.
world).
> Alt XP and Microsoft XP are the same to me. I don't care about the
> name. With all other groups I subscribe to, there seems to
> be only 1 relevant group.
to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?
> At one time I subscribed to
> several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
> and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
> now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
> programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
> where all critical speech magically disappears.
create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Ex nihilo nihil. » (Perse)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 3:36:01 PM6/30/21
to
Hi John,
> Though it is non-ideal having the two hierarchies, I don't think it
> would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
> for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
> would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared.
Yup, I see.
> They would just either post to both, or ignore the new one.
As the newsgroup for Windows 11 in alt.* still has not been widely
adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
the hierarchy) would be worth trying?
> If there is sufficient traffic that is specific to one of those
> products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
> would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
> it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
> than one.
Got it.
>> The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>> msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>> re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>> to do.
>
and responds to the wishes of its users.
At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
server that have been configured to honour that key will normally create
it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in Usenet for
all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news administrators.
> Though it is non-ideal having the two hierarchies, I don't think it
> would be a good idea to (TRY to) change how things are by now, at least
> for the main (98/XP/7/10) ones; people know where the 'groups are, and
> would be confused - or at least irritated - if new ones appeared.
> They would just either post to both, or ignore the new one.
adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
the hierarchy) would be worth trying?
> If there is sufficient traffic that is specific to one of those
> products, _and_ a 'group doesn't _already_ exist, then creating a 'group
> would be justified. I don't think most users would mind which hierarchy
> it is in, though would be displeased if a 'group were created in more
> than one.
>> The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>> msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>> re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what
>> to do.
>
> Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
> that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
I'm just a Usenet participant still having in heart that Usenet works
> that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
and responds to the wishes of its users.
At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
server that have been configured to honour that key will normally create
it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in Usenet for
all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news administrators.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Jun 30, 2021, 4:02:02 PM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 at 21:35:56, Julien ÉLIE
not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
part is now meaningless).
[]
administrators would still recognise your key? (For creation and
deletion, as they might be different.)
- Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15
<iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote (my responses usually follow
points raised):
[]
points raised):
>As the newsgroup for Windows 11 in alt.* still has not been widely
>adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
>create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
>the hierarchy) would be worth trying?
>
I cannot see the advantage in doing so, and given it exists - even if
>adopted because its creation is pretty recent, maybe an attempt to
>create microsoft.public.windows11 (or any better name and position in
>the hierarchy) would be worth trying?
>
not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
part is now meaningless).
[]
>>> The hierarchy then stays as-is after the closure of
>>>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>>>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what >>>to do.
>> Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
>>that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
>
>I'm just a Usenet participant still having in heart that Usenet works
>and responds to the wishes of its users.
>At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
>back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
>server that have been configured to honour that key will normally
>create it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in
>Usenet for all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news
>administrators.
>
Do you have a feel for what proportion of the world's news server
>>>msnews.microsoft.com. Now, a decade after, Microsoft still has not
>>>re-opened a news server (and I doubt they will) so I'm wondering what >>>to do.
>> Is it still your personal responsibility to add or delete 'groups in
>>that hierarchy? _Can_ you even do so?
>
>I'm just a Usenet participant still having in heart that Usenet works
>and responds to the wishes of its users.
>At least I _can_ send a signed control message with the PGP key dating
>back to 2007 to create a newsgroup in the microsoft.* hierarchy; news
>server that have been configured to honour that key will normally
>create it automatically. For the others, as it always had been in
>Usenet for all hierarchies, it will be at the dicretion of their news
>administrators.
>
administrators would still recognise your key? (For creation and
deletion, as they might be different.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
You know what the big secret about posh people is? Most of them are lovely.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- Richard Osman, RT 2016/7/9-15
Mayayana
Jun 30, 2021, 4:22:43 PM6/30/21
to
"Julien ÉLIE" <iul...@nom-de-mon-site.com.invalid> wrote
| So if alt.* and microsoft.* are the "same", is there any point in trying
| to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?
|
It wouldn't matter to me. I understand that the MS
groups are no longer actually MS. The groups I use are a
mix of ms, comp and alt.
|
| > At one time I subscribed to
| > several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
| > and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
| > now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
| > programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
| > where all critical speech magically disappears.
|
| Is there a lack of Windows programming newsgroups? (Then why not try to
| create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?
|
There are a variety of aspects to that. There used
to be lots of groups for VB, C++, COM, IE, Win32 API,
etc. There was also a large population of dabblers, small
software companies, in-house corporate programmers, etc.
When MS started their private web forums they
managed to get most of the people to switch over to
those forums.
Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
actual Window native code programming. They came out
with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
it used to be.
Then there's the fact that few people under 60 seem
to even be aware of Usenet. So I think it's all of those things:
Less people doing Windows programming and most people
who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
out medals and award icons. :)
| So if alt.* and microsoft.* are the "same", is there any point in trying
| to create new newsgroups in microsoft.* compared to alt.*?
|
groups are no longer actually MS. The groups I use are a
mix of ms, comp and alt.
|
| > At one time I subscribed to
| > several for VB 5/6, several for Windows general prgramming,
| > and several for Windows scripting. But the VB/VBS topics
| > now seem to have only one active group each. Windows
| > programming forums have moved to Microsoft's walled garden
| > where all critical speech magically disappears.
|
| Is there a lack of Windows programming newsgroups? (Then why not try to
| create them?) or a lack of active lurkers in these newsgroups?
|
to be lots of groups for VB, C++, COM, IE, Win32 API,
etc. There was also a large population of dabblers, small
software companies, in-house corporate programmers, etc.
When MS started their private web forums they
managed to get most of the people to switch over to
those forums.
Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
actual Window native code programming. They came out
with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
it used to be.
Then there's the fact that few people under 60 seem
to even be aware of Usenet. So I think it's all of those things:
Less people doing Windows programming and most people
who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
out medals and award icons. :)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 4:34:51 PM6/30/21
to
Hi John,
> I cannot see the advantage in doing so, and given it exists - even if
> not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
> same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
> not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
> slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
> controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
> partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
> part is now meaningless).
That makes sense.
> Do you have a feel for what proportion of the world's news server
> administrators would still recognise your key?
I don't, unfortunately. A decade has passed since the last control article.
If we assume the configuration of news server has not changed, the ones
that have this exact list of newsgroups:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT&only=checkgroups
are the ones that either recognized the key in 2010 or somehow are
synchronizing from time to time their list of newsgroups (for probably
the hierarchies they carry) with the centralized list hosted by isc.org.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« S.M.I.G. : Sesterce Minimum d'Intérêt Gaulois. » (Astérix)
> I cannot see the advantage in doing so, and given it exists - even if
> not widely propagated yet - I think creating a second 'group with the
> same purpose would just irritate users. On the whole, I think users do
> not care where 'groups are; if they have any preference, it's probably
> slightly for alt.* - partly because of bad memories of Microsoft's
> controlling behaviour (even if this is incorrectly remembered), and
> partly just because microsoft.public is a lot to type (and the ".public"
> part is now meaningless).
> Do you have a feel for what proportion of the world's news server
> administrators would still recognise your key?
If we assume the configuration of news server has not changed, the ones
that have this exact list of newsgroups:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT&only=checkgroups
are the ones that either recognized the key in 2010 or somehow are
synchronizing from time to time their list of newsgroups (for probably
the hierarchies they carry) with the centralized list hosted by isc.org.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« S.M.I.G. : Sesterce Minimum d'Intérêt Gaulois. » (Astérix)
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 4:41:55 PM6/30/21
to
Hi Mayayana,
> Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
> actual Window native code programming. They came out
> with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
> actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
> it used to be.
OK, many thanks for your detailed response.
> Less people doing Windows programming and most people
> who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
> a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
> next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
> out medals and award icons. :)
Ha ha :-)
Kudos!
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Cuius cura non est, recedat. »
> Additionally, Microsoft have gradually de-emphasized
> actual Window native code programming. They came out
> with .Net, then WinRT, and so on. So the number of people
> actually doing Windows programming is much smaller than
> it used to be.
> Less people doing Windows programming and most people
> who do are going to the MS forums where they can develop
> a reputation for being a friend of MS and collect "medals"
> next to their username. Maybe it would help if you gave
> out medals and award icons. :)
Kudos!
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Cuius cura non est, recedat. »
😉 Good Guy 😉
Jun 30, 2021, 5:09:43 PM6/30/21
to
On 30/06/2021 20:19, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*
For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
- microsoft.public.windows-10
- microsoft.public.windows-11
- microsoft.public.microsoft365
- microsoft.public.teams
- microsoft.public.yammer
There is no way to create new groups in Microsoft.* hierarchy.
Microsoft won't allow that. Some servers can do that but as I said
in the previous post, some big news-servers won't host them. They
don't won't to get into trouble with Microsoft. So in short,
Microsoft hierarchy is what we have and can't be expanded any
further.
Then they'll be marked as defunct in 2030, as well as whole Usenet in a Wikipedia page. Nonetheless, before it happens, it is still active.
Wikipedia is not something you want your decisions to be based
upon. It is a big jungle and anybody can edit the pages. I have
seen people promoting fake medicines and treatments on Wikipedia
and some doctors and academics try to correct them but they always
come back. James Randi's organization was actively re-writing
Wikipedia pages where falsehood was promoted but he is now dead
and his organization is not as active as it used to be. James
Randi exposed many quacks like Uri Geller, Peter Popoff, and other
faith healers and he also challenged them to sue him. None of them
had the guts to do so.
So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for current and future needs?
Correct. alt.* is pretty easy to handle and create new groups but
Microsoft.* and comp is almost impossible. Even Google Groups
isn't creating any new forums.
Julien ÉLIE
Jun 30, 2021, 6:33:19 PM6/30/21
to
Hi Good Guy,
>> I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*
>>
>> For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
>> - microsoft.public.windows-10
>> - microsoft.public.windows-11
>> - microsoft.public.microsoft365
>> - microsoft.public.teams
>> - microsoft.public.yammer
>>
> There is no way to create new groups in Microsoft.* hierarchy. Microsoft
> won't allow that. Some servers can do that but as I said in the previous
> post, some big news-servers won't host them. They don't won't to get
> into trouble with Microsoft.
I'm not willing to start a troll but how do you know Microsoft would not
allow a microsoft.public.teams newsgroup? Are they against people
discussing the Microsoft products in a Usenet hierarchy? (a medium
"declining at an exponential rate", like you said) Do they similarly
disallow Reddit or web forums whose topic is "Microsoft Teams"?
> So in short, Microsoft hierarchy is what we have and can't be
> expanded any further.
I tend to disagree.
It's Usenet, the hierarchy can be expanded further. Propagation issues
is another matter. I know news server that do not carry alt.*; same
thing for any other hierarchy. Some news servers, well administrated by
fellows who are still involved in Usenet and have faith in it, will
reflect changes.
>> So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
>> microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
>> current and future needs?
>>
> Correct. alt.* is pretty easy to handle and create new groups but
> Microsoft.* and comp is almost impossible.
Which does not imply it cannot be tried.
For another group than Windows 11 (for instance microsoft.public.edge if
the remaining community in Usenet deems it useful, or any other more
needed forum currently not existing elsewhere).
> Even Google Groups isn't creating any new forums.
Indeed. Their service, their rules I would say. They abandoned the
true spirite of Usenet several years ago...
Besides, I note they do not have alt.comp.os.windows-10 either, so it
won't mind much for the current discussion (new groups in alt.* and
microsoft.* will equally be ignored by Google Groups).
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Un sourire coûte moins cher que l'électricité mais donne autant de
lumière. » (Abbé Pierre)
>> I was speaking of newsgroups in microsoft.*, not comp.*
>>
>> For instance, would it be interesting to have newsgroups like:
>> - microsoft.public.windows-10
>> - microsoft.public.windows-11
>> - microsoft.public.microsoft365
>> - microsoft.public.teams
>> - microsoft.public.yammer
>>
> There is no way to create new groups in Microsoft.* hierarchy. Microsoft
> won't allow that. Some servers can do that but as I said in the previous
> post, some big news-servers won't host them. They don't won't to get
> into trouble with Microsoft.
allow a microsoft.public.teams newsgroup? Are they against people
discussing the Microsoft products in a Usenet hierarchy? (a medium
"declining at an exponential rate", like you said) Do they similarly
disallow Reddit or web forums whose topic is "Microsoft Teams"?
> So in short, Microsoft hierarchy is what we have and can't be
> expanded any further.
It's Usenet, the hierarchy can be expanded further. Propagation issues
is another matter. I know news server that do not carry alt.*; same
thing for any other hierarchy. Some news servers, well administrated by
fellows who are still involved in Usenet and have faith in it, will
reflect changes.
>> So if I understand well your points, your suggestion is to keep the
>> microsoft.* hierarchy as-is, do nothing more on it, and use alt.* for
>> current and future needs?
>>
> Correct. alt.* is pretty easy to handle and create new groups but
> Microsoft.* and comp is almost impossible.
For another group than Windows 11 (for instance microsoft.public.edge if
the remaining community in Usenet deems it useful, or any other more
needed forum currently not existing elsewhere).
> Even Google Groups isn't creating any new forums.
true spirite of Usenet several years ago...
Besides, I note they do not have alt.comp.os.windows-10 either, so it
won't mind much for the current discussion (new groups in alt.* and
microsoft.* will equally be ignored by Google Groups).
--
Julien ÉLIE
« Un sourire coûte moins cher que l'électricité mais donne autant de
lumière. » (Abbé Pierre)
Paul in Houston TX
Jun 30, 2021, 7:33:06 PM6/30/21
to
It works just fine.
Julien ÉLIE
Jul 1, 2021, 9:30:20 AM7/1/21
to
Hi Paul,
>> Any thoughts to share?
>
> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
> It works just fine.
Sure!
This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
posted to it), must of course remain untouched.
The questions are:
1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
"no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".
2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
>> Any thoughts to share?
>
> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
> It works just fine.
This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
posted to it), must of course remain untouched.
The questions are:
1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
"no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".
2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
=> it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
Jul 5, 2021, 10:09:02 AM7/5/21
to
I would try to generalise, combine groups to create critical mass. For
example, some questions apply to all versions of Windows or VB or Excel or
Word, or are largely interchageable.
If interested, send me a private message about reviving the usenet in
general, perhaps by producing an app that behaves like social media as a
front end. I for one, would still use tin from unix, but for the others.
Also make the hierarchies more like university departments, but avoid getting
too specialised. I've been to meetings on crowdsourcing where scientists
lament loss of usenet. It wudda helped to be able to network with scientists
during the pandemic the way we did in the 1990s. I studies innovation
management in the 1980s and those who oppose cross posting are anti innovation.
So are most who call for moderation when I can use kill files very expertly
in even the noisiest groups. Heck the first thing I kill is posts from google.
--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus
blog: panix.com/~vjp2/ruminatn.htm - = - web: panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
facebook.com/vasjpan2 - linkedin.com/in/vasjpan02 - biostrategist.com
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
example, some questions apply to all versions of Windows or VB or Excel or
Word, or are largely interchageable.
If interested, send me a private message about reviving the usenet in
general, perhaps by producing an app that behaves like social media as a
front end. I for one, would still use tin from unix, but for the others.
Also make the hierarchies more like university departments, but avoid getting
too specialised. I've been to meetings on crowdsourcing where scientists
lament loss of usenet. It wudda helped to be able to network with scientists
during the pandemic the way we did in the 1990s. I studies innovation
management in the 1980s and those who oppose cross posting are anti innovation.
So are most who call for moderation when I can use kill files very expertly
in even the noisiest groups. Heck the first thing I kill is posts from google.
--
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus
blog: panix.com/~vjp2/ruminatn.htm - = - web: panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
facebook.com/vasjpan2 - linkedin.com/in/vasjpan02 - biostrategist.com
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
Lu Wei
Aug 9, 2021, 2:20:51 AM8/9/21
to
On 2021-7-1 21:30, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> ...
manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
meaningful opposition, then delete the group.
--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luwe...@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA
> ...
> 2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
>
I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
>
manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
meaningful opposition, then delete the group.
--
Regards,
Lu Wei
IM: xmpp:luwe...@riotcat.org
PGP: 0xA12FEF7592CCE1EA
JJ
Aug 9, 2021, 8:04:09 AM8/9/21
to
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 14:21:44 +0800, Lu Wei wrote:
>>
> I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
> manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
> newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
> for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
> meaningful opposition, then delete the group.
I wouldn't delete history.
>>
> I second that dead newsgroups should be removed, in a very cautious
> manner: Announce calling for comment of removing in the target
> newsgroups and relative newsgroups on most if not all servers, then wait
> for 1 or 2 years (keep announcing once a month); If no one gives any
> meaningful opposition, then delete the group.
Rink
Aug 20, 2021, 12:10:19 PM8/20/21
to
Op 1-7-2021 om 15:30 schreef Julien ÉLIE:
1.
microsoft.* was the hierarchie from Microsoft.
So Microsoft is the one who should create new newsgroups.
(and of course they don't)
2.
If you remove dead Microsoft.* newsgroups,
some newsservers will delete them, but some don't.
The posters in the second group of newsservers cannot see
that the first group of newsservers has removed the newsgroup.
They have less chance for an answer.
I think it has no use to remove dead newsgroups.
And if they are dead, they have little bits :-)
I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?
Rink
> Hi Paul,
>
>>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
>> It works just fine.
>
> Sure!
> This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
> microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
> posted to it), must of course remain untouched.
>
> The questions are:
> 1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> "no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".
>
> 2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
Sorry for being so late...
>
>>> Any thoughts to share?
>>
>> Nothing wrong with this one (ms.pub.winxp.gen).
>> It works just fine.
>
> Sure!
> This newsgroup, as well as all other still alive newsgroups in
> microsoft.* (alive = with participants who would respond to a question
> posted to it), must of course remain untouched.
>
> The questions are:
> 1/ should new newsgroups be created in microsoft.*?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> "no, just use another hierarchy like alt.*".
>
> 2/ should dead newsgroups be removed?
> => it seems that the wish of the persons who have responded until now is
> either "no" or "why not, if dead, a clean up would be good".
1.
microsoft.* was the hierarchie from Microsoft.
So Microsoft is the one who should create new newsgroups.
(and of course they don't)
2.
If you remove dead Microsoft.* newsgroups,
some newsservers will delete them, but some don't.
The posters in the second group of newsservers cannot see
that the first group of newsservers has removed the newsgroup.
They have less chance for an answer.
I think it has no use to remove dead newsgroups.
And if they are dead, they have little bits :-)
I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?
Rink
Julien ÉLIE
Aug 31, 2021, 3:05:04 AM8/31/21
to
Hi Rink,
> I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
> where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
> windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
> Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?
Thanks for your answers.
The microsoft.* will very certainly remain as-is.
As for the comp.* hierarchy, why not ask in news.groups.proposals or
contact the Big Eight board?
https://www.big-8.org/
I reckon such newsgroups should exist, or at least general ones without
versions.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« L'ordinateur obéit à vos ordres, pas à vos intentions. »
> I think it is strange that there is an "international" comp.* hierachie
> where there are no newsgroups for win98, win2000, windows-xp,
> windows7, windows8, windows10 and windows11....
> Did they stop creating newsgroups after win95?
The microsoft.* will very certainly remain as-is.
As for the comp.* hierarchy, why not ask in news.groups.proposals or
contact the Big Eight board?
https://www.big-8.org/
I reckon such newsgroups should exist, or at least general ones without
versions.
--
Julien ÉLIE
« L'ordinateur obéit à vos ordres, pas à vos intentions. »
0 new messages