Re: alt.windows7.general
Some Guy
> > Has any of the big commercial usenet services created a
> > windows-7 newsgroup?
>
> http://groupsearch.alt-config.net/engine.html
You could have just answered yes or no.
But I see that a wildcard search for "7" would have been too much work
for you to weed through the results to render a useful answer.
alt.windows7.general (1 server - astraweb)
alt.nl.os.windows.windows7 (4 servers)
alt.nl.os.windows.7
it.comp.os.win.windows7 (13 servers)
microsoft.public.it.windows7 (6 servers)
alt.fr.os.windows.7 - 10 servers
alt.nl.os.windows.7 - 10 servers
Interesing that there is this:
microsoft.public.it.windows7
Was the newgroup message for that one created by Microsoft?
Why is Windows 7 so important to Europeans? I thought they hated
Microsoft and specifically Windoze?
> > If microsoft won't issue a newgroup message for
> > microsoft.public.windows.7.whatever
> > then why can't that exact newsgroup name be created by any
> > other entity
>
> Why are you asking rhetorical questions?
>
> Any server can present any set of newsgroups to its users as
> it likes. You know this.
Do you not understand the difference between creating a new newsgroup,
and carrying a new newsgroup?
Aioe
> alt.windows7.general (1 server - astraweb)
> alt.nl.os.windows.windows7 (4 servers)
> it.comp.os.win.windows7 (13 servers)
> microsoft.public.it.windows7 (6 servers)
> alt.fr.os.windows.7 - 10 servers
> alt.nl.os.windows.7 - 10 servers
my server carries all of them
Aioe
> Why is Windows 7 so important to Europeans? I thought they hated
> Microsoft and specifically Windoze?
because microsoft.public.it.* is well developed
Some Guy
> Microsoft have no authority to create news:comp.* groups.
I don't think that anyone here said they did, or even would want to.
> They, and you, can initiate the democratic process of getting
> Windows 7 groups placed in the Big-8 news:comp.* hierarchy.
> News:comp.windows.* has about a score of groups, to which
> news:comp.windows.seven.* might possibly be added.
I still don't see answers to these questions:
a) Who issued the new-group message for microsoft.public.it.windows7
b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
d) Why is the numerical version of Windows 7 not 7.x ?
D. Stussy
news:4AEAE221...@Guy.com...
> "Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
> > > Has any of the big commercial usenet services created a
> > > windows-7 newsgroup?
> >
> > http://groupsearch.alt-config.net/engine.html
>
> You could have just answered yes or no.
>
> But I see that a wildcard search for "7" would have been too much work
> for you to weed through the results to render a useful answer.
Considering that the entire "fido7" hierarchy would also match "7", and it
carries about 3,200 groups, it WOULD be difficult to find 5 groups in
3,200+ in a non-sorted list (Google says there's 3,702 groups in the
hierarchy, but some may be defunct).
Some Guy
> Considering that the entire "fido7" hierarchy would also match "7"
WTF is fido7 anyways?
And why are there so many numerical-looking groups - look at the first
hundred pages of this:
http://groupsearch.alt-config.net/cgi-bin/prop.pl?action=search&group=7&pmatch=yes&sorting=group
Why does that show pages and pages of aioe.org?
D. Stussy
> "D. Stussy" wrote:
>
> > Considering that the entire "fido7" hierarchy would also match "7"
>
> WTF is fido7 anyways?
Russian FidoNet gated messages. A checkgroups message does come through
monthly.
See http://ddt.demos.su/ (in Russian) or http://ddt.demos.su/index.html.en
(English).
See http://groups.google.com/groups/dir?sel=gtype%3D0%2Cusenet%3Dfido7 for
a listing of archived groups.
> And why are there so many numerical-looking groups - look at the first
> hundred pages of this:
>
>
http://groupsearch.alt-config.net/cgi-bin/prop.pl?action=search&group=7&pmatch=yes&sorting=group
>
> Why does that show pages and pages of aioe.org?
Because it's doing a simple grep of the active files, and you're matching
every group where the current high or low mark values has a '7' in it, as
well as group names containing a '7'. Look at your output carefully.
Some Guy
> > WTF is fido7 anyways?
>
> Russian FidoNet gated messages.
I just had a look at this: http://ddt.demos.su/aboutfido7.html
And shook my head. Who would want to participate in that pile of shit?
"Some may think that this is a facist scheme, but the gatekeeper assures
you that it is really necessary, not because the gatekeeper is a facist,
but because Fidonet moderators and readers are very nervous about
inappropriate postings,"
So Stalin came back to life and invented fido7.ru?
> Because it's doing a simple grep of the active files,
> and you're matching every group where the current high
> or low mark values has a '7' in it
Why can't it just give me a list of all the groups with the string "7"
in the group name?
Isin't that what this search page is for?
D. Stussy
Fido7 has a 7 in it. What you want is a string that has both "windows" and
"7" in it.
Sunny
"Some Guy" <So...@Guy.com> wrote in message
> Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
>> Microsoft have no authority to create news:comp.* groups.
>
> I don't think that anyone here said they did, or even would want to.
>
>> They, and you, can initiate the democratic process of getting
>> Windows 7 groups placed in the Big-8 news:comp.* hierarchy.
>> News:comp.windows.* has about a score of groups, to which
>> news:comp.windows.seven.* might possibly be added.
>
> I still don't see answers to these questions:
>
> a) Who issued the new-group message for microsoft.public.it.windows7
New? Microsoft.public server did have it, but not now (aioe server showed
posts from early 2009 to Jul 2009)
msnews.microsoft.com had it on their group list, but refreshing the list
caused it to disappear.
Adam H. Kerman
Gawd, you're being annoying.
All of this has been asked by you and answered many, many times.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>Has any of the big commercial usenet services created a windows-7 newsgroup?
>>http://groupsearch.alt-config.net/engine.html
>You could have just answered yes or no.
It's better that you learn.
>But I see that a wildcard search for "7" would have been too much work
>for you to weed through the results to render a useful answer.
I already knew the answer. I knew that there was no newgroup message.
>alt.windows7.general (1 server - astraweb)
Yes, I knew that it's a group local to that server.
What I don't know is if you learned something.
>Interesing that there is this:
>microsoft.public.it.windows7
>Was the newgroup message for that one created by Microsoft?
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>>>If microsoft won't issue a newgroup message for
>>>microsoft.public.windows.7.whatever then why can't that exact newsgroup
>>>name be created by any other entity
>>Why are you asking rhetorical questions?
>>Any server can present any set of newsgroups to its users as
>>it likes. You know this.
>Do you not understand the difference between creating a new newsgroup,
>and carrying a new newsgroup?
There is no difference. Newsgroups are created one server at a time.
They are not created Usenet-wide. Newgroup messages do not create newsgroups
and rmgroup messages do not remove them. It's up to the News administrator
to decide if his server will act on commands in such messages as they are
received, or to review them at a later time, or to drop them unprocessed.
In any event, the administrator of msnews.microsoft.com does not issue
control messages and has never issued control messages, which you already
knew from an extensive discussion we had of this topic a few months back.
Again, why are you asking rhetorical questions?
Julien ÉLIE
> a) Who issued the new-group message for microsoft.public.it.windows7
Please see:
http://usenet.trigofacile.com/hierarchies/index.py?see=MICROSOFT
Note that the microsoft.public.it.windows7 was removed and is no
longer available in the Microsoft news servers.
2009-07-01 16:50:02 rmgroup microsoft.public.it.windows7
2009-02-16 18:00:05 newgroup microsoft.public.it.windows7 y
> b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
> microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
> c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
I once wrote a miniFAQ on that subject:
http://www.trigofacile.com/divers/usenet/clefs/microsoft-faq.txt
--
Julien �LIE
� -- Dis, je crois avoir entendu parler gothique par l� !
-- Tu as des visions, Pamplemus ! � (Ast�rix)
Some Guy
> > You could have just answered yes or no.
>
> It's better that you learn.
It's funny how you think that posting a URL constitutes a learning
experience.
There was nothing to learn. It's not like I'm going to remember that
URL, or even bookmark it. There are several such search portals into
newsgroup lists. I already knew of the existance of them. Hence there
was nothing for me to learn, other than you did not want to just give me
a concise answer to my question.
If I encounter a question on usenet that I think is interesting, I will
search for an information resource on the net that might contain the
answer, and I will probe that resource for the answer. When I've found
an answer, *I will post the answer*, and possibly the resource where I
found it. If I don't find an answer, that outcome is (in and of itself)
information, and I will likely post that outcome as well.
> What I don't know is if you learned something.
I know that any NNTP operator can create any newsgroup on his server
that he wants to, and at the very least users of that server would be
able to read and post to it, but nobody else using other servers would
see those posts or even know the existance of the group. I know that
the operator can try to propagate that new group to his peers. I have
no idea how his peers or the usenet in general would react or respond to
encountering the new group in the peering feed.
> > microsoft.public.it.windows7
>
> > Was the newgroup message for that one created by Microsoft?
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
The content of that link does not answer the question you have quoted.
This would have been a better link for you to post:
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
And it would have been most useful to simply say that expanding the list
of groups on Microsoft's http interface does not show
microsoft.public.it.windows7.
So again, your link does not contain (or even act as a starting point)
to answer the question - who issued the newgroup command or message for
microsoft.public.it.windows7?
> > Do you not understand the difference between creating a new
> > newsgroup, and carrying a new newsgroup?
>
> There is no difference. Newsgroups are created one server at a
> time. They are not created Usenet-wide. Newgroup messages do
> not create newsgroups and rmgroup messages do not remove them.
> It's up to the News administrator to decide if his server will
> act on commands in such messages as they are received, or to
> review them at a later time, or to drop them unprocessed.
Somewhere, at some point in time, ONE person will decide to issue a
newgroup message.
As a result of that, there will be many individual decisions made down
the line that will act on that newgroup message.
I can't believe that you do not recognize the difference between these
two actions. Of course they are different. It's an action - reaction
sequence. The action is not equivalent to, or the same as, the
reaction.
> In any event, the administrator of msnews.microsoft.com does not
> issue control messages and has never issued control messages,
> which you already knew from an extensive discussion we had of
> this topic a few months back.
>
> Again, why are you asking rhetorical questions?
I'm asking who, or from where, did the newgroup message for
microsoft.public.it.windows7 originate from. How is that a rhetorical
question?
I'm also making the case that organizationally speaking, where else
other than microsoft.public.it.windows7 would be a better place to start
building a hierarchy for Windows 7 newsgroups? Why advocate for
alt.windows7.general when you can have
microsoft.public.it.windows7.general?
Some Guy
> I'm also making the case that organizationally speaking, where
> else other than microsoft.public.it.windows7 would be a better
> place to start building a hierarchy for Windows 7 newsgroups?
> Why advocate for alt.windows7.general when you can have
> microsoft.public.it.windows7.general?
Let me modify that.
Where else other than microsoft.public.windows.7 (and country-specific
derivatives thereof) would be a better place to start building a
hierarchy for Windows 7 newsgroups?
(If not microsoft.public.windows.7, then microsoft.public.windows7)
Why advocate for alt.windows7.general when you can have
microsoft.public.windows7.general?
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>You could have just answered yes or no.
>>It's better that you learn.
>It's funny how you think that posting a URL constitutes a learning
>experience.
Actually, it's a little sad. I won't try again.
>>>microsoft.public.it.windows7
>>>Was the newgroup message for that one created by Microsoft?
>>http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx
>The content of that link does not answer the question you have quoted.
>This would have been a better link for you to post:
>http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/list/en-us/default.aspx
>And it would have been most useful to simply say that expanding the list
>of groups on Microsoft's http interface does not show
>microsoft.public.it.windows7.
It would have been more helpful to point you to the Web page listing
of newsgroups of msnews.microsoft.com so that when you re-ask the same
question in a few days or a week, you'd know where to look.
Or you could just have your newsreader grap the active file from msnews.
>So again, your link does not contain (or even act as a starting point)
>to answer the question - who issued the newgroup command or message for
>microsoft.public.it.windows7?
The answer has not changed since the last several times we had exactly
the same discussion about how microsoft.* is administered.
>>>Do you not understand the difference between creating a new
>>>newsgroup, and carrying a new newsgroup?
>>There is no difference. Newsgroups are created one server at a
>>time. They are not created Usenet-wide. Newgroup messages do
>>not create newsgroups and rmgroup messages do not remove them.
>>It's up to the News administrator to decide if his server will
>>act on commands in such messages as they are received, or to
>>review them at a later time, or to drop them unprocessed.
>Somewhere, at some point in time, ONE person will decide to issue a
>newgroup message.
No, dude. microsoft.* is still not an administrated hierarchy, and didn't
become one between the time I posted the message you quoted and the time
you posted your followup to that message.
And if you post another followup to THIS message, it still won't have
become an administered hierarchy.
Now, Julien posted in this thread and gave you links to his activities
in sending control messages, which are IN LIEU OF hierarchy administration.
To understand what he does, YOU would actually have to pay attention and
process what he told you in your mind, and yes, read the Web pages he
posted links to.
But Julien has told you all these things in the past, and you haven't
paid attention. You wanna pay attention this time?
>I can't believe that you do not recognize the difference between these
>two actions. Of course they are different. It's an action - reaction
>sequence. The action is not equivalent to, or the same as, the
>reaction.
Well, I can believe that you rejected the answer I gave you, because that's
the way you are. If you have the wrong answer in mind to one of your silly
questions and don't wish to hear the right answer, then don't put yourself
in a situation in which someone might challenge your silly belief. If you
pre-rejected the correct answer, don't ask.
The act of issuing a newgroup message DOES NOT create a newsgroup. The act
of issuing a rmgroup message DOES NOT remove a newsgroup. Usenet is not
centrally administered. Every News administrator chooses for himself what
set of newsgroups to present to his users and what criteria to change the
set of newsgroups. Each decides for himself what action his server is set
to take upon receipt of a control message, whether it'll be acted upon
immediately, set aside for later consideration, or discard unprocessed.
That is the correct answer. Your belief that newsgroups are created Usenet
wide instead of one News server at a time upon issuance of a newgroup
message is false.
I don't expect you to learn that.
>>In any event, the administrator of msnews.microsoft.com does not
>>issue control messages and has never issued control messages,
>>which you already knew from an extensive discussion we had of
>>this topic a few months back.
>>Again, why are you asking rhetorical questions?
>I'm asking who, or from where, did the newgroup message for
>microsoft.public.it.windows7 originate from. How is that a rhetorical
>question?
A rhetorical question is one in which you already know the answer, again,
something you already knew.
>I'm also making the case that organizationally speaking, where else
>other than microsoft.public.it.windows7 would be a better place to start
>building a hierarchy for Windows 7 newsgroups? Why advocate for
>alt.windows7.general when you can have
>microsoft.public.it.windows7.general?
You really don't know that the latter would be an Italian language group?
You really haven't gleaned that the former has no proponent (NOT an
advocate) from all this discussion, just one guy requesting its creation
from a whole bunch of News administrators using various sockpuppets?
Some Guy
> Note that the microsoft.public.it.windows7 was removed and is no
> longer available in the Microsoft news servers.
Is it a "law" that if microsoft doesn't carry a specific
"microsoft.public." newsgroup, that it therefore can't exist on other
servers?
> > b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
> > microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
> > c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
> I once wrote a miniFAQ on that subject:
> http://www.trigofacile.com/divers/usenet/clefs/microsoft-faq.txt
The information on that page does not answer the two questions (b and c)
posed above.
Will you answer them?
Julien ÉLIE
>> Note that the microsoft.public.it.windows7 was removed and is no
>> longer available in the Microsoft news servers.
>
> Is it a "law" that if microsoft doesn't carry a specific
> "microsoft.public." newsgroup, that it therefore can't exist on other
> servers?
It is not a "law". Neither it is for other hierarchies.
The fact that "perl.foo.bar" does not exist on nntp.perl.org does
not mean it cannot exist on other servers.
>> > b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
>> > microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
>> > c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
>
>> I once wrote a miniFAQ on that subject:
>> http://www.trigofacile.com/divers/usenet/clefs/microsoft-faq.txt
>
> The information on that page does not answer the two questions (b and c)
> posed above.
>
> Will you answer them?
b) Nowhere. Neither it is said that I cannot create "comp.foo.bar"
if I wish. I can send a newgroup control article (not signed with
the PGP key of the Big-Eight management board) for it if I want,
which means I can create "comp.foo.bar". It is up to news administrators
to decide whether they want it or not.
The same for the microsoft.* hierarchy.
c) Please do. Send your newgroup control article, and your checkgroups.
--
Julien �LIE
� Medicina animi. �
Adam H. Kerman
>Will you answer them?
Is it a law that you refuse to accept these same answers when given to
you the first 20 times? Neither Julien nor anyone else will give you
different answers that what you've already been told, what you already
know. Gawd you are annoying.
As you don't like Julien's FAQ, write your own.
Some Guy
> >>> b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
> >>> microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
> >>> c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
> Is it a law that you refuse to accept these same answers when given
> to you the first 20 times?
Please provide a link or point to a post where those questions were
specifically answered.
> Neither Julien nor anyone else will give you different answers
> that what you've already been told,
Julien has just stated that Microsoft is NOT (or is NO LONGER, or
perhaps NEVER WAS) the definative "keeper" or "maintainer" or
"gate-keeper" of the microsoft.public hierarchy, or of any new groups
that might be added to that hirarchy now or in the future.
Nobody else had the balls or the brains to answer that question so
definatively.
So I'm stating right here, right now, that if any windows-7 newsgroups
are created, then their logical place should be within the
microsoft.public hirearchy, even if Microsoft itself does not issue the
newgroup or checkgroup commands, and even if Microsoft does not carry
those groups on their server.
Do you (or anyone else) want to argue that point?
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>>>> b) Where is it written that only Microsoft can create a
>>>>> microsoft.public.whatever newsgroup?
>>>>> c) Why not create microsoft.public.windows.7 if microsoft won't?
>>Is it a law that you refuse to accept these same answers when given
>>to you the first 20 times?
>Please provide a link or point to a post where those questions were
>specifically answered.
Moron: A News administrator presents a set of newsgroups to his users as
he sees fit. You've been told this countless times. Every other Usenet
user accepts it as a News administrator's perogative. There's no valid
reason for you refusing to do so.
>>Neither Julien nor anyone else will give you different answers
>>that what you've already been told,
>Julien has just stated that Microsoft is NOT (or is NO LONGER, or
>perhaps NEVER WAS) the definative "keeper" or "maintainer" or
>"gate-keeper" of the microsoft.public hierarchy, or of any new groups
>that might be added to that hirarchy now or in the future.
He's treating you like a child, too, but he's more polite than I.
>Nobody else had the balls or the brains to answer that question so
>definatively.
>So I'm stating right here, right now, that if any windows-7 newsgroups
>are created, then their logical place should be within the
>microsoft.public hirearchy, even if Microsoft itself does not issue the
>newgroup or checkgroup commands, and even if Microsoft does not carry
>those groups on their server.
>Do you (or anyone else) want to argue that point?
Argue? Ask in a few moments when the giggling subsides.