Discussion:
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
(too old to reply)
a***@anonymous.com
2010-06-02 17:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups

Even if those groups are still working, which it appears they are,
they will soon die, so why stay there. As as a Win98 user, I'll post
here from now on.

Later
Steven Saunderson
2010-06-02 23:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
Wow, this is exciting. Were you shunning this group previously ?

Cheers,
--
Steven
98 Guy
2010-06-03 00:00:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
Wow, this is exciting. Were you shunning this group previously ?
What I think is the case is that many people that read and post to the
microsoft.public set of groups do so either via microsoft's web
interface, or they do it with a direct connection to microsoft's usenet
server. In either case, for those people, that's the closest they come
to experiencing usenet - which is to say only the microsoft.public set
of groups - and most likely only a few groups for any given person.
They by-and-large do not know they are interacting with usenet (albeit
in a bastardized way).

So because Microsoft has begun the process of shutting down it's usenet
server, these people are flailing around, trying to figure out what to
do or how to deal with this. So there will be an influx of win-98 users
that will come here. Why they weren't here before is as I explained
above.
Steven Saunderson
2010-06-03 01:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
So because Microsoft has begun the process of shutting down it's usenet
server, these people are flailing around, trying to figure out what to
do or how to deal with this.
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ? Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ? Whether individual
servers support them or not is another matter. The possible difference
with MS groups is that the name starts with Microsoft so if they demand
the groups disappear then perhaps the administration will comply.

Cheers,
--
Steven
Auric__
2010-06-03 02:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by 98 Guy
So because Microsoft has begun the process of shutting down it's usenet
server, these people are flailing around, trying to figure out what to
do or how to deal with this.
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ?
Not really, but it depends on your server's admin.
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet administration that decides what groups exist ?
TINC.
Post by Steven Saunderson
Whether individual servers support them or not is another matter.
Exactly.
Post by Steven Saunderson
The possible difference
with MS groups is that the name starts with Microsoft so if they demand
the groups disappear then perhaps the administration will comply.
As long as there is traffic in the microsoft.* groups, admins are likely to
leave them be.
--
If you don't get the joke, you're probably the punchline.
98 Guy
2010-06-03 04:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ?
Here's the deal:

Microsoft has never had an "official" relationship with anything that
might resemble an authoritative usenet body. To be honest, I don't
really know *who* exactly is their primary usenet peer.

What we have instead is some guy named Julien ÉLIE that has taken the
role of sending out the appropriate control messages that enable new
groups to appear on usenet in-step with their creation by Microsoft on
their own server.

So when Microsoft creates the new group "Microsoft.public.windows.Vista"
on their server, Julien takes notice of this and sends out the
appropriate control message that is picked up by other usenet
"entities". By "entities", I mean other operators of usenet servers,
and other quasi-authoritative bodies such as the ISC.org. ISC.org
compiles it's own list of "approved" usenet groups.

So Julien's task up until now has been to be the trusted source of
"housekeeping" information on the microsoft.public.what-ever set of
groups, and as I mention it was always generally assumed that this task
was to *add* new groups over time.

Last November or December, Microsoft performed a major "cleaning" and
removed over 500 newsgroups on it's server. Many of them were
non-english-language groups, many of them for obscure microsoft
products, and many had little to no traffic for some time. Some
examples contrary to that were:

- microsoft.public.win98.display.multi-monitor
- microsoft.public.win98.fat32

So Julien did infact issue the appropriate control messages to remove
those 500+ groups from usenet, and those server operators that choose to
honor those control messages (one way or another) did infact remove
those groups from their server. This is basically an automatic process
for most of them - it's not like they were aware of this situation.

In the above two examples, the usenet server I'm using to post this
message (aioe.org) followed the ISC list and removed those two groups
from it's server.

So that was late last year. Then in early May, Microsoft drops this
bomb that they're going to phase out the operation of their usenet
server, starting June 1 and ending October 1. This has sparked a debate
in some circles as to how to generally handle this situation. One
side-track pertains to the idea or the question of whether or not it's
Julien's role to "administrate" these groups out of existance on
usenet. He seems adament that he thinks it's his role, and I believe
he's going to do it, and by doing it basically end his role or
responsibility for overseeing these groups.

Many people have gotten side-tracked with the idea that Microsoft
somehow controls these groups (either technically or legally) and that
indeed the microsoft groups will disappear from the world-wide usenet
because Microsoft wants them to disappear and can make them disappear.
That is quite a false understanding.

The microsoft.public news groups will disappear on the world-wide usenet
if:

a) Julien ÉLIE issues the requisite check-group and/or rm-group control
messages, and

b) Julien's control messages are honored (directly or indirectly) by
some significant fraction of world-wide usenet servers.
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet administration that decides what groups exist ?
There is, when it comes to the "big-8" hierarchies, of which the
microsoft.public set of groups is not part of.
Post by Steven Saunderson
Whether individual servers support them or not is another matter.
As I described above.
Post by Steven Saunderson
The possible difference with MS groups is that the name starts
with Microsoft so if they demand the groups disappear then
perhaps the administration will comply.
And Microsoft can also ask that no books, magazines or newspaper
articles be written about them, or titled after them?

I think not. The names of usenet newsgroups are not anyone's legal
property. They are a form of free speech.

Microsoft can no more ask or demand that newsgroups containing
"microsoft" in the group-name be removed from usenet any more than they
can ask all librarians to remove any or all entries in their card
catalogs that have "microsoft" printed on the index cards.
Sunny
2010-06-03 07:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Steven Saunderson
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ?
Last November or December, Microsoft performed a major "cleaning" and
removed over 500 newsgroups on it's server. Many of them were
non-english-language groups, many of them for obscure microsoft
products, and many had little to no traffic for some time. Some
- microsoft.public.win98.display.multi-monitor
- microsoft.public.win98.fat32
So Julien did infact issue the appropriate control messages to remove
those 500+ groups from usenet, and those server operators that choose to
honor those control messages (one way or another) did infact remove
those groups from their server. This is basically an automatic process
for most of them - it's not like they were aware of this situation.
In the above two examples, the usenet server I'm using to post this
message (aioe.org) followed the ISC list and removed those two groups
from it's server.
Not true actually :-
I saw your test post from 2009 and checked microsoft.public.win98.fat32,
and

while it is not on the Microsoft, eternal and aioe servers it is still
available on
bigpond
Telstra
freenews.netfront
My replies to your 11 Dec 2009 "testing" were accepted on all servers (3
Jun 2010)
98 Guy
2010-06-04 00:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
Post by 98 Guy
- microsoft.public.win98.display.multi-monitor
- microsoft.public.win98.fat32
So Julien did infact issue the appropriate control messages to
remove those 500+ groups from usenet, and those server operators
that choose to honor those control messages (one way or another)
did infact remove those groups from their server.
In the above two examples, the usenet server I'm using to post
this message (aioe.org) followed the ISC list and removed those
two groups from it's server.
Not true actually :-
I saw your test post from 2009 and checked
microsoft.public.win98.fat32, and while it is not on the Microsoft,
eternal and aioe servers it is still available on (...)
What I said *IS* true, and you are admitting it.

I said that those two groups (above) are NOT on aioe.org, and you say
it's not true, then you say they are not on aioe.org (or eternal
september) but that they are on other servers.

I wasn't talking about other servers.

It is true that any server operator that follows the ISC group list
would have removed those groups. This is the case for aioe and Eternal
September.
Post by Sunny
bigpond
Telstra
freenews.netfront
My replies to your 11 Dec 2009 "testing" were accepted on all
servers (3 Jun 2010)
That's nice. It just proves that those servers don't seem to follow the
ISC group list - or perhaps they will wait until October 1 before they
actually start removing the microsoft groups - or perhaps they won't
remove ANY of them.

Microsoft has started to remove the groups on their hit-list according
to the June-1 termination date that they posted to the affected groups.
They seem to be doing it in alphabetical order.

Only 1 group was removed on June 1:

microsoft.public.arabic.iis

And 377 groups were removed on June 2, from:

microsoft.public.active.directory.interfaces
microsoft.public.activex.controls
microsoft.public.activex.programming.control.webdc
microsoft.public.ado.windowsce
microsoft.public.ageofempires
microsoft.public.applicationcenter.clb
microsoft.public.applicationcenter.healthmonitor
microsoft.public.applicationcenter.nlb
microsoft.public.applicationcenter.setup
microsoft.public.ar.inetexplorer.ie6beta
microsoft.public.arabic.design.gallery
microsoft.public.arabic.frontpage
(...)

to

(...)
microsoft.public.es.windowsme
microsoft.public.es.windowsmedia
microsoft.public.es.windowsnt
microsoft.public.es.windowsvista
microsoft.public.es.windowsxp.aplicaciones
microsoft.public.es.windowsxp.hardware
microsoft.public.es.windowsxp.instalacion
microsoft.public.es.windowsxp.seguridad
microsoft.public.es.xbox
microsoft.public.es.xml
Sunny
2010-06-04 00:40:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by 98 Guy
What I said *IS* true, and you are admitting it.
I said that those two groups (above) are NOT on aioe.org, and you say
it's not true, then you say they are not on aioe.org (or eternal
september) but that they are on other servers.
I started to compose my post while testing the other news servers.
Initially the two news groups were shown on my news reader (OE) as
available and only disappeared when I "Syncronised"
Post by 98 Guy
I wasn't talking about other servers.
It is true that any server operator that follows the ISC group list
would have removed those groups. This is the case for aioe and Eternal
September.
Post by Sunny
bigpond
Telstra
freenews.netfront
My replies to your 11 Dec 2009 "testing" were accepted on all
servers (3 Jun 2010)
That's nice. It just proves that those servers don't seem to follow the
ISC group list - or perhaps they will wait until October 1 before they
actually start removing the microsoft groups - or perhaps they won't
remove ANY of them.
What I don't understand is Microsoft's decision to get out of Usenet, then
bugger around with NNTP "Bridges" to let people use Usenet news readers,
to access their crappy web based rubbish.
w***@someplace.com
2010-06-04 04:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunny
What I don't understand is Microsoft's decision to get out of Usenet, then
bugger around with NNTP "Bridges" to let people use Usenet news readers,
to access their crappy web based rubbish.
This is the first I heard of this.
How does this work, where does one go to do it, and will it work with
any newsreader? I'm completely lost, or what is a NNTP bridge?
Sunny
2010-06-04 06:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by w***@someplace.com
Post by Sunny
What I don't understand is Microsoft's decision to get out of Usenet, then
bugger around with NNTP "Bridges" to let people use Usenet news readers,
to access their crappy web based rubbish.
This is the first I heard of this.
How does this work, where does one go to do it, and will it work with
any newsreader? I'm completely lost, or what is a NNTP bridge?
Probably will not help with "unsupported" OS
Microsoft does not have plans to replace old news groups (Win95 - 98 - ME)
http://www.rxs-enterprises.org/fp/newsgroup-closure.aspx
http://connect.microsoft.com/MicrosoftForums/content/content.aspx?ContentID=13816

Some opinions seem to be that the Microsoft "nntp bridge" is useless, and
other alternatives are being offered.
Hot-Text
2010-07-03 02:01:26 UTC
Permalink
microsoft.public.win98.fat32 is not on AIOE go more!
Post by Sunny
Post by 98 Guy
Post by Steven Saunderson
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ?
Last November or December, Microsoft performed a major "cleaning" and
removed over 500 newsgroups on it's server. Many of them were
non-english-language groups, many of them for obscure microsoft
products, and many had little to no traffic for some time. Some
- microsoft.public.win98.display.multi-monitor
- microsoft.public.win98.fat32
So Julien did infact issue the appropriate control messages to remove
those 500+ groups from usenet, and those server operators that choose to
honor those control messages (one way or another) did infact remove
those groups from their server. This is basically an automatic process
for most of them - it's not like they were aware of this situation.
In the above two examples, the usenet server I'm using to post this
message (aioe.org) followed the ISC list and removed those two groups
from it's server.
Not true actually :-
I saw your test post from 2009 and checked microsoft.public.win98.fat32,
and
while it is not on the Microsoft, eternal and aioe servers it is still
available on
bigpond
Telstra
freenews.netfront
My replies to your 11 Dec 2009 "testing" were accepted on all servers (3
Jun 2010)
Sunny
2010-07-04 01:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Never said it was.
Do you bother to read anything before replying ?
e.g. the statement at the bottom of this post ?
Post by Hot-Text
microsoft.public.win98.fat32 is not on AIOE go more!
Post by Sunny
I saw your test post from 2009 and checked
microsoft.public.win98.fat32, and
while it is not on the Microsoft, eternal and aioe servers it is still
available on
bigpond
Telstra
freenews.netfront
My replies to your 11 Dec 2009 "testing" were accepted on all servers
(3 Jun 2010)
Hot-Text
2010-07-03 01:58:02 UTC
Permalink
Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ?
NO not one at all!
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by 98 Guy
So because Microsoft has begun the process of shutting down it's usenet
server, these people are flailing around, trying to figure out what to
do or how to deal with this.
Will the Microsoft newsgroups actually disappear ? Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ? Whether individual
servers support them or not is another matter. The possible difference
with MS groups is that the name starts with Microsoft so if they demand
the groups disappear then perhaps the administration will comply.
Cheers,
--
Steven
Steven Saunderson
2010-07-03 23:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ?
NO not one at all!
I think there is. I don't know how much influence MS has and whether
they've requested that the groups be closed but since no-one has posted
recently to the few groups I monitor then it really doesn't matter.

Why don't you try posting a message to
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general and see what happens. If you can't
then I could try and we can see the difference.
--
Steven
Sjouke Burry
2010-07-03 23:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ?
NO not one at all!
I think there is. I don't know how much influence MS has and whether
they've requested that the groups be closed but since no-one has posted
recently to the few groups I monitor then it really doesn't matter.
Why don't you try posting a message to
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general and see what happens. If you can't
then I could try and we can see the difference.
I just subscribed, and posted a message
the last message there was 6/1/2010
Sjouke Burry
2010-07-04 00:22:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet
administration that decides what groups exist ?
NO not one at all!
I think there is. I don't know how much influence MS has and whether
they've requested that the groups be closed but since no-one has posted
recently to the few groups I monitor then it really doesn't matter.
Why don't you try posting a message to
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general and see what happens. If you can't
then I could try and we can see the difference.
I just subscribed, and posted a message
the last message there was 6/1/2010
And I found the test message there.
98 Guy
2010-07-04 00:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by Steven Saunderson
Isn't there a Usenet administration that decides what groups
exist ? NO not one at all!
I think there is.
Once you get beyond the "big 8" hierarchies, there is no single agreed
upon authoritative list or list-master.

ISC.org maintains a list that is followed by (some ? many ? most ?)
usenet operators.
Post by Steven Saunderson
I don't know how much influence MS has and whether they've
requested that the groups be closed
I've repeated this explanation many times. I guess I'll do it again.

Those that have some opinion or belief or understanding of Microsoft's
relationship to the microsoft.public usenet hierarchy fall into one of
the following catagories:

a) they believe that the server that microsoft operates acts like some
sort of "master" or "root" server for the microsoft.public hierarchy of
groups, and that this MS server (or servers) are required for these
groups to exist on usenet, for messages posted to them to propagate
world wide, etc.

b) they believe that the newsgroup hierarchy "microsoft.public" is the
legal property of Microsoft, and therefore microsoft can force those
groups off of usenet world-wide by threat of legal action if necessary.

Some people fall into both (a) and (b).

Both (a) and (b) are wrong.

For those that don't fall into (a) or (b), the only remaining class is:

c) they believe that usegroup names are just a string of ASCII
characters, and individual NNTP server operators can choose to carry
what-ever newsgroups they want. Or they can defer that choice to any
number of authoritative and pseudo-authoritative bodies that forumulates
so-called "official" lists of newsgroups.
Post by Steven Saunderson
Why don't you try posting a message to
microsoft.public.win98.disks.general and see what happens.
microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion still exists on most news
servers. It was removed from Micrsoft's server yesterday about 4:30 pm
pacific-coast time. It was removed as part of a mass removal that took
Microsoft's server down from 1730 groups to about 214.
a***@anonymous.com
2010-06-03 05:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
Wow, this is exciting. Were you shunning this group previously ?
Cheers,
Nope, I used to come here a lot, but this group sort of died and
everyone was on the ms.public groups. Now that they're supposed to
die, I'm back here. Actually they all work the same, so who cares
what the name is. Maybe those MS groups wont disappear, but I'd
rather get settled here now. No sense posting to a group that may
vanish any day now.
Hot-text
2010-06-06 04:50:50 UTC
Permalink
We see on 10/10 if all MS groups wont disappear!
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Post by Steven Saunderson
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
Wow, this is exciting. Were you shunning this group previously ?
Cheers,
Nope, I used to come here a lot, but this group sort of died and
everyone was on the ms.public groups. Now that they're supposed to
die, I'm back here. Actually they all work the same, so who cares
what the name is. Maybe those MS groups wont disappear, but I'd
rather get settled here now. No sense posting to a group that may
vanish any day now.
T.K
2010-06-06 10:52:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@anonymous.com
Hello everyone.
I'm moving here from the Microsoft.public groups
Even if those groups are still working, which it appears they are,
they will soon die, so why stay there. As as a Win98 user, I'll post
here from now on.
Later
Hi everyone,

IŽm also moving here alt.windows98 and alt.windows95. As a Win95 and 98 user
I am going to read and post here, because I guess(?) those Microsoft.public
groups are going to die, also on this news server. I hope that others who
were posting at eg. microsoft.public.win98(and 95)gen.discussion, would also
move here.

See you,
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...