Where do you want to go tomorrow?
in [Device Drivers]
|
From: Hector Santos on 8 May 2010 00:38 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > >>> >>> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups... >>> >> This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet" :-) >> > No. It's just Usenet. It's a |microsoft.*| hierarchy of newsgroups, > but that doesn't make it owned, or run, by Microsoft. Much of what M. > Santos is writing in this thread about star networks, hubs, "backbone > listings", and so forth is just complete unadulterated twaddle. The > statements about "owners of newsgroups" are more of the same, alas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet Looks like a star topology Microsoft "owns" the microsoft.* groups. Whether they wish keep it listed on the backbone listing, its up to them and yes, there is a "administrator" that issues controls. > Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of the > problem for Microsoft. It has no control. Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have the power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing. That doesn't mean other usenet feed sites has to honor a change request or new listing. Thats up to them. But if they want to be in sync with the rest of the feeds, they will work with the new listing. As Russ Allbery clearly stated here in response to Julien's plan to have the microsoft.* newsgroups remove from the usenet BACKBONE listing: http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.news.server/msg/6cf4bbc6284d92a3 The whole point of that hierarchy was that it was synchronized with Microsoft; without that point, there are lots of other hierarchies that can absorb the traffic, and without spreading it across way more groups than the residual traffic is likely to require. Look at the word *synchronized with Microsoft" - study what it means. As soon as MS pulls the plug, Julien plans to remove the groups from the listings. I just wanted to let you know that I will issue rmgroup control articles, reflecting the changes that are bound to happen on msnews.microsoft.com, when they occur. -- HLS
From: John John - MVP on 8 May 2010 07:28 Hector Santos wrote: > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet >>>> groups... >>>> >>> This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet" :-) >>> >> No. It's just Usenet. It's a |microsoft.*| hierarchy of newsgroups, >> but that doesn't make it owned, or run, by Microsoft. Much of what M. >> Santos is writing in this thread about star networks, hubs, "backbone >> listings", and so forth is just complete unadulterated twaddle. The >> statements about "owners of newsgroups" are more of the same, alas. > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet > > Looks like a star topology How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3 servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe you should have read instead of just looking at pictures: "One notable difference between a BBS or web forum and Usenet is the absence of a central server and dedicated administrator. Usenet is distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers that store and forward messages to one another. These servers are loosely connected in a variable mesh. This is similar to the complex transportation plan of a city. There are multiple ways to get to any point in the city. If one of those ways is blocked for some reason, there is always another avenue available to get there. In this manner, the User Network or Usenet allows newsgroup postings to reach their many destinations robustly." This is what a star network looks like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_network It is completely unsuitable for Usenet robustness, as mentioned in the article: "The primary disadvantage of a star topology is the high dependence of the system on the functioning of the central hub. While the failure of an individual link only results in the isolation of a single node, the failure of the central hub renders the network inoperable, immediately isolating all nodes. The performance and scalability of the network also depend on the capabilities of the hub." > > Microsoft "owns" the microsoft.* groups. Whether they wish keep it > listed on the backbone listing, its up to them and yes, there is a > "administrator" that issues controls. > >> Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of >> the problem for Microsoft. It has no control. > > > Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have the > power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing. IETF? ISC.ORG? Do you even know what are the missions and mandates of these organizations? Here is a hint, it has to do with protocols and technical aspects of Usenet/Internet traffic, they don't have any powers whatsoever to force anyone to do anything and they certainly wouldn't get involved in any squabbles between individuals or entities about newsgroups! John
From: Hector Santos on 8 May 2010 08:07 John John - MVP wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet >> >> Looks like a star topology > > How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3 > servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe > you should have read instead of just looking at pictures: As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught: A mesh is just a form of a star network. And I further added: Now, in a mesh, redundancy may be part of the expectation with duplicity considered a lower overhead operation then it was in older days where hardware did not allow for such low efficiency however it still needed to be checked. But you probably don't know what that means. >>> Of course, the fact that this is Usenet is almost certainly part of >>> the problem for Microsoft. It has no control. >> >> Not true, they can ask to get it remove. If they don't others have >> the power (IETF, ISC.ORG) to remove it from the listing. > > IETF? ISC.ORG? Do you even know what are the missions and mandates of > these organizations? Here is a hint, it has to do with protocols and > technical aspects of Usenet/Internet traffic, they don't have any powers > whatsoever to force anyone to do anything HA! well, you don't seem to be have been involved much around the IETF then! > and they certainly wouldn't get involved in any squabbles between > individuals or entities about newsgroups! You are right, they will do want they want. They don't need to explain anything to you. Go get your current usenet listing at: ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups And see if you can POLITELY ask to manage it yourself. http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.news.server/msg/6cf4bbc6284d92a3 But you are certainly welcome to maintain your own list and share it among your network of friends who know about you. If there is one thing about the old guards, including the old Fidonet, they LOVE to maintain LIST. Oh its FREE - now go try to take control of it. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 8 May 2010 08:36 John John - MVP wrote: > Hector Santos wrote: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet >> >> Looks like a star topology > > How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3 > servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? Maybe > you should have read instead of just looking at pictures: > > "One notable difference between a BBS or web forum and Usenet is the > absence of a central server and dedicated administrator. Usenet is > distributed among a large, constantly changing conglomeration of servers > that store and forward messages to one another. These servers are > loosely connected in a variable mesh. This is similar to the complex > transportation plan of a city. There are multiple ways to get to any > point in the city. If one of those ways is blocked for some reason, > there is always another avenue available to get there. In this manner, > the User Network or Usenet allows newsgroup postings to reach their many > destinations robustly." > > This is what a star network looks like: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_network > > It is completely unsuitable for Usenet robustness, as mentioned in the > article: > > "The primary disadvantage of a star topology is the high dependence of > the system on the functioning of the central hub. While the failure of > an individual link only results in the isolation of a single node, the > failure of the central hub renders the network inoperable, immediately > isolating all nodes. The performance and scalability of the network also > depend on the capabilities of the hub." Whats funny about this is that you really don't know what it means because you probably never operated or hosted a server. I'll try to explain it to you: Its relative - think of yourself as a HOST operator. When you first install whatever hosting software you have, it begins EMPTY! Now YOU, as a HUMAN have to decide where you will get your feeds for whatever information you wish to provide for your users and/or LOCALLY HOSTED host operator. Old school operators will understand terms like users as POINTS HOST-JOHN <---> USER-A The key point is that the USER is not hosting anyone else. But maybe you are going to like to host other sites, free or fee or whatever: HOST-JOHN <---> USER-A | HOST-BIZ-CUSTOMER Relative to USER-A and the BIZ customer, YOUR are their HUB and its an the form of a STAR. In the old days, it was more of a locality, distance issue simply because of the networking. But the internet allows you to go to other HUBs now who offer the same feeds that you wanted. There are MANY reasons, seriously, why users and nodes go to different sources or multiple different sources. Assuming you have access to anyone you are working with, its possible to download form one host and upload to another. Its akin to reading on this server and for some reason, you decide to post a reply via google or some other site. But keep in mind that USER and a HOST are different when it comes to redundancy and duplicity. If a HOST is going to go different multiple HOST for the same feeds, the NNTP protocol has logic to check for dupes. The point is today, you don't even think about it anymore. The hardware, the bandwidth and software are that good to completely automated it. It is still overhead, but its not something that was a BIG BIG concern in the past where FEEDS are large and expensive. The dupes where still there but if there was a real big issue, someone traced it down to the problem node. Lets put it this way, if you became an ISP - you will think STAR network relative to yourself; you will sell services to NODES off your hub - users and other hosting sites. You normally will not have any control what this nodes will do themselves, but if one of your nodes where getting duplicate feeds from someone else, and you UPLOADED it to the hub, do you think they will accept it? -- HLS
From: John John - MVP on 8 May 2010 09:04
Hector Santos wrote: > John John - MVP wrote: > >> Hector Santos wrote: > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet >>> >>> Looks like a star topology >> >> How can you look at a portion of the network, a partial sketch of 3 >> servers amongst thousands, and declare this to be a star network? >> Maybe you should have read instead of just looking at pictures: > > > As I stated in the beginning of your onslaught: > > A mesh is just a form of a star network. Sheesh, now you are trying to backpeddle! Read here: http://www.myreader.co.uk/msg/12534.aspx "Although the UK Network may once have been a star network, this is no longer the case. There are many news servers each of which has multiple connections to others forming a mesh-like network. There are no central sites in a position to control what comes in and out of the network as a whole." It's the same thing worldwide, trying to imply that the Usenet is a star network in an effort to bolster your claim that the MS servers are a mandatory and necessary "hub" in the distribution of the microsoft.* hierarchy is lame to say the least! I'm done with this thread, good bye! John |