Microsoft ending newsgroup support
in [MFC]
|
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 May 2010 21:37 Years ago, the only hit google would deliver for my name was a quote I made that someone posted, which went something like "I don't mind people reinventing the wheel, but I do tire of trapezoidal wheels with offset axles" I don't know how much of what I know is covered still by my NDA, so I won't say anything based on that information, but simply offer an opnion I've offered before: it appears that there is a history of technology at Microsoft being controlled not by people who cared about providing solutions, but by people who had political axes to grind about Doing It My Way Or No Way. Whose jobs at Microsoft seem to hinge on their ability to "make visible change" whether visible change makes sense or not. When IBM achieved this, they essentially suicided the company, because people who knew better ways to do things ignored them. I was fired in 1990 because IBM terminated a research contract I was working under, because they had to retrench after losing US$5,000,000,000.00, and a million-dollar University research contract was low-hanging fruit to the cost-cutters. 30 people lost their jobs. But what had happened was IBM had taken a high-handed approach to how they sold, serviced, and designed software, and the customer base walked away. It scares me that Microsoft is now behaving like IBM of the 1960s-1980s (when I was at various times an IBM customer, or more properly, worked for someone who had IBM equipment for which I had some kind of responsibiity). I remember my boss getting into a shouting match at an IBM conference with the IBM rep, who simply REFUSED to hear that a recent IBM decision was causing immense problems (we later bought mainframes from Digital, that repeated the same disaster in the 1980s-1990s, until they were so weakened that Compaq bought them!) Sun did something similar in the 2000s, and they are now owned by Oracle. These were BIG companies that failed because they got too arrogant. And decided that internal egos were more important than happy customers. I do not want to see this happen to Microsoft, but I don't know what we can do to stop it! joe On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:36:42 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme <steve(a)tropheus.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:26:15 +0100, David Lowndes ><DavidL(a)example.invalid> wrote: > >>>I already dont feel like taking the step of using the bridge. This >>>era is coming to a rather abrupt end. >> >>I've been trying to use the NNTP bridge with the forums, but quite >>frankly it's still a poor solution compared to using a proper NNTP >>source. I don't think I can be bothered much more. >> >>Dave > >Reliable bridging solutions like MPNews have been around for years. >Microsoft could use an existing solution rather than reinventing the >wheel. > >Steve Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Hector Santos on 5 May 2010 21:37 David Ching wrote: > "Hector Santos" <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message > news:eDihewK7KHA.4508(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> I was able to finally login into the bridge (once I change my profile >> settings at the web site) > > To be fair, there were pretty clear instructions before downloading the > bridge that you needed to change your profile, so this hopefully will > not be a hindrance to others. The directions are clear on what to do, but not clear in how to get there and I'm an expert and know that to look for. :) But it took me about 10-15 minutes to finally find that "My Settings" where that "Use NNTP Bridge" check box is located. Two basic instructions for needed for NNTP MUA accustom users: 1) How to get to that checkbox (I don't see why this is needed in the first place). 2) Use LocalHost for the new NNTP account in your MUA if the NNTP Bridge Server is installed on the same machine or use the computer host name if located on another machine. >> I'm going by what it says in the bridge login box: >> >> You are logging into (Microsoft Forums NntpBridge) which is >> not a Microsoft developed application. >> > I hadn't noticed that before and have asked MS for an explanation. Will > get back to you. I certainly got the idea that the bridge was developed > in-house at MS. Please also find out the issue with the API. These people are using a port 80 web server request. See my post to Geoff. >> Finally, I don't see any merging of the existing NNTP forums with the >> MS Web Forums. Was that suppose to be the case? I don't see it. >> > > No, for example I listed the equivalent MFC forum for this newsgroup, no > attempt will be made to merge the content or community of this one. I see that now, so it nullifies their concern of context abuse caused by these newsgroup. The impressive I had was they were merging, after all, its illogical to have two different message database? :) >> If that was not the case, then I don't see any reason why they can >> continue to sponsor NNTP servers with the current open NNTP newsgroups >> and continue to allow it to be USER/MVP supported. If Microsoft >> doesn't want to allow their employees to participate in the newsgroups >> anymore, then fine, don't allow them. Its not like they are have any >> high participation rate anyway. But that shouldn't be a reason to >> stop offering the long time NNTP based microsoft newsgroups. >> > > I hadn't heard the primary mover was stopping MS employees from > contributing. I had heard the current NNTP news servers had something > to do with some discontinued Exchange product, and while those could > have been replaced, there are other advantages to MS of moving to > forums. I see, its funny, we did it the other way. We once supported Exchange gateway for our backend storage system so that outlook users can see the server side conferences as FOLDERS on the client side. http://santronics.com/products/winserver/Exchange.php but we no longer develop it since the advent of the RFC based MUA. We replaced it with our NNTP Server so that all conferences, mail forums, etc can be exposed as Real Newsgroup (Unmoderated) Real Newsgroup (Moderated) Locally Published Newsgroup with the latter, any can of mail conference can be used, including mailing list, private, public or both local or email, etc, including other network mail, such as the old Fidonet or QWK. Its just MAIL and we are the EXPERTS at it! :) The only thing we are behind with is the opening up all all the private stuff for sharing and producing more group ware results (like me seeing all your messages at MS Forums). > First, people who ask questions (as opposed to answering a ton > of them) find the web interface easier. (True enough, no need to deal > with an NNTP client.) I agree, but its not a matter of the interface, but how the server offers these features. Our mail software is inherently FOR YOU to quickly login, get your information and out. You don't need alerts, when you login, you see your "New mail (virtual) Inbox" virtual in the sense that its a collection of all your direct messages from email plus all the forums you participate in. The debate with us that the topical display (FORUMS) is a poor way to communicate for MOST users. Its a debates because more customers are wanting this style, but I believe its the OPERATORS that are saying this, not the users. In other words, the FORUMS view is not optimal for the casual users. That said, I do like MS FORUMS approach that was changed several times over the last 5-6 years. Now, I just finishing selecting my favorites forums about 8-10 of them, and I will browse them went I want to, but when I login in, foremost, I am interested in MY MAIL first, people who write to me or as part of a thread. > Second, MS has clearer ownership of property and > might leverage it on Bing (and hide it from Google, or something). Thats a farce. The ownership question is not locked in stone. They can write it all the TOS they want - it is not locked. They might own the PAPER, but not what I write on it, that is still a copyright as good as I am writing this message right now. Just consider also raises new Liability issues for Microsoft if they wish to claim context ownership - not I didn't say what they can do with it, and even then there are limitations. Furthermore, all google needs to do is create a silly account and hack the bridge http port 80 calls and reverse engineer what I will presume is an XML based exchange of mail. I guarantee you this will be among the first things done by many if only to automate the process and/or to create new or continue with existing service bureaus, which also raises another issue of Anti-trust of microsoft wishes to play games. > Third, NNTP doesn't support things like ratings, moderators, marking > answers, points, moving of threads, etc. (The value of such things are > debatable, but no denying NNTP doesn't support them.) Not quite David. The value of such things are rich and long sorted. NNTP protocol is RFC 5322 based (formerly RFC 2822, new one updated last year) and X- headers can be used for proprietary exchange information. We do it. The problem is the MUA (Mail User Access) agents need to be updated to support such things and as history has it, when MICROSOFT begins to supports such things, the industry do tend to follow the big gorrilla. So IMV, it was a matter of incompetent on the part of someone that simply doesn't know such technology that existed since the day 1. A guy locked in his brain that WEB is the only way when in fact, it can have long term strategic issues if not considered right. But it will take the "Microsoft" to do such things for MUAs to follow. We have that issue right now with DKIM, a new message authenticity system. No Microsoft, hence no widely adopted incentive to change MUAs to support it. The reason however, is the issue that many (including myself) believe that online centralization, like it all started, is making a comeback and is where we should be going to solve many of the exploitation issues, and also increase the leveraging of user information. But most of that is just a matter of logging in users and that can be done with any online or offline system. Leveraging the newsgroups information was possible - google proved it. >> People, if we really want this then we need to find out if Microsoft >> is open to keeping the NNTP servers active but that might mean on >> proposing how they be managed. > I don't believe they are, this has been a battle (with MVP's championing > NNTP) for several years, and it looks like we have lost. > > But at least our cries have netted the NNTP Bridge, which I think > everyone will agree is small condolence but better than nothing. > > I will miss this newsgroup. The equivalent forum is lacking in > community spirit (though that may improve as hopefully all of us migrate > there). The only good solution is an API. The storage is really a non-issue. NNTP too because people can write bridges. And this one does seem to do the basic job. But they have solve nothing. The only real way to do what they want is a complete lock out, one portal only using encryption (SSL). But that will create all cans of issues unless the portal is highly customizable and does not require javascript. The other (or alternative) solution is to offer a NATIVE GUI, which can be also part of the VS IDE support. WPF or Silverlight are good candidates. In fact, I just used Chrome to create an application shortcut for the MSDN forum and it is pretty fast. A native GUI might also be required if EOLAS are able to enforce their new patent on WEB 2.0 embedded activity. So far I don't see much on MSDN Forums (once they do, EOLAS went after them for the tune of $504 MILLION and won once before, they will do it again). So to do it right, an API even if it requires authentication, is what needs to be done to address all issues. I see all kinds of problems for Microsoft if they don't offer an API and only make it exclusive to one vendor. Note, this is all an opinion, but I feel pretty strong about it. -- HLS
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 May 2010 21:42 If they opened up the API, then vendors like Forte and others could build interfaces to it. But that smacks of an Open Standard. Horrors! joe On Wed, 05 May 2010 19:38:37 -0400, Hector Santos <sant9442(a)nospam.gmail.com> wrote: >I was able to finally login into the bridge (once I change my profile >settings at the web site) and was able create a MUA (Thunderbird) NNTP >account to the local host server. Slow as molasses > >Man, Microsoft should of came to us to private single source gateway >software that support NNTP, WEB, NATIVE GUI and EVEN TELNET TEXT. > >If they are going to dump the NNTP servers, then they need to OPEN UP >THE WEB SERVER/REST API. > >It would be totally unfair to only allow exclusivity solely to a 3rd >party NNTP Bridge vendor. It really SUCKS that Microsoft is allowing >this to happen. > >I'm going by what it says in the bridge login box: > > You are logging into (Microsoft Forums NntpBridge) which is > not a Microsoft developed application. > >Finally, I don't see any merging of the existing NNTP forums with the >MS Web Forums. Was that suppose to be the case? I don't see it. > >If that was not the case, then I don't see any reason why they can >continue to sponsor NNTP servers with the current open NNTP newsgroups >and continue to allow it to be USER/MVP supported. If Microsoft >doesn't want to allow their employees to participate in the newsgroups >anymore, then fine, don't allow them. Its not like they are have any >high participation rate anyway. But that shouldn't be a reason to >stop offering the long time NNTP based microsoft newsgroups. > >People, if we really want this then we need to find out if Microsoft >is open to keeping the NNTP servers active but that might mean on >proposing how they be managed. Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Joseph M. Newcomer on 5 May 2010 21:45 I've been using newsguy.com for several years and have had very few problems with the service. Occasional outages, less than a couple hours, no big deal. Highly reliable, high bandwidth. The forum interface looks like something designed by a third-grader as a semester project. joe On 5 May 2010 15:58:47 -0700, Randall <randall.mcg(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >In article <0968667e-66c8-42d2-904d-2851a815f645(a)h9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >Ajay Kalra says... >> >>On May 4, 9:22=A0pm, "MP" <mpNoS...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> Microsoft said it plans to end support for more than 4,000 old-style >>> newsgroups starting next month, pushing users instead to discussion forum= >>s >>> such as those found on the Microsoft Answers, TechNet, and MSDN sites. >>> >>> Although venerable, Microsoft said that so-called NNTP newsgroups are pas= >>t >>> their time in terms of being usable and secure. >>> >>> Link: >>> >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20004109-56.htm >>> >>> Mike P >> >>Truly sad. I dont really understand the reasons. > >It is sad and it sucks. The move solely benefits Microsoft by driving traffic >through their sites rather than an outside community (Usenet)... they can >control the content, and they can profit from the traffic. > >Many web-based discussion forums are cumbersome to use, require the acceptance >of intrusive applications, and they collect a fair amount of personal data, so >it's funny to hear Microsoft condemn Usenet for not being usable and secure lol. > >I prefer Usenet to the above mentioned alternatives, and will continue to use >them. I picked up a paid account with a dedicated Usenet provider (newsguy.com) >awhile back so I didn't have to worry about my ISP or free resources dropping >newsgroups at some point. > >For what it's worth I get 12 months for $19, binary & text groups, NNTP & Web >access, newsgroup search engine, free SSL, tech support. Wasn't crazy about >paying for Usenet, but it works out to about a $1.60 month so it's not exactly >breaking the bank lol. > >Randy Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP] email: newcomer(a)flounder.com Web: http://www.flounder.com MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
From: Hector Santos on 5 May 2010 21:49
Geoff wrote: >> People, if we really want this then we need to find out if Microsoft >> is open to keeping the NNTP servers active but that might mean on >> proposing how they be managed. > > Why all this discussion? Bridged or not, the web forums will be > proprietary to MS and controlled by them. I see this as mostly a move > to exclude Google Groups from participation in the forums and a > closure of the support system from a global resource to a private one > that MS can censor or close at their discretion. I agree that a silly attempt to lock out google might be seen, but all GOOGLE needs to do is create an account and reverse engineer the bridge HTTP request and response. > The microsoft.public.* groups exist on NNTP servers around the globe > whether or not the Microsoft NNTP servers exist or not. Unless > Microsoft is prepared to make demands on those providers that the > groups be deleted I see no reason to abandon use of the groups on > other servers. I been the primary host is Microsoft, in other words, GOOGLE and others has to start somewhere to get the original source and then you might have other mirrorings. If MS stops the NNTP servers, I also will think they will not any other kinds 3rd party branding using their name sake for non MS newsgroups. So it is interesting question that probably will be played out after the servers is stopped. They may feel that there will be some legacy time, 1, 2 or 3 years. But consider that is there are an industry that make their living on Microsoft groups and Microsoft does not provide an avenue for theirs 3rd party service bureaus, don't be surprise when one of these proprietors wake up one morning and see their profits are seriously down and call their lawyers when Microsoft denies them access to have an automated exchange system - its called anti-trust or even tortious inference. It doesn't sound like they really though this through. I'm saying their only option is an API to resolve this pending disruption that I don't believe many will realize until it actually happens. -- HLS |