Where do you want to go tomorrow?
in [Wireless]
|
Prev: Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Online Communities
Next: Wifi not automatically connecting after sleep/hibernate.
From: Hector Santos on 7 May 2010 22:19 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > >> >> There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server. >> > Ahem! "This NNTP server" is a phrase that means different things to > different people. This is Usenet, remember. There /isn't/ just one > node. There are thousands of them. Microsoft has no plans to shut down > /my/ Usenet node, which carries this and several other newsgroups in the > |microsoft.*| hierarchy. It couldn't do so even if it wanted to. It's > my node, not Microsoft's. > But no one is going to connect to a Troll's node. -- HLS
From: Hector Santos on 7 May 2010 22:33 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: >> If we can continue to use newsreaders rather than web interface (with >> all due respect to AJAX....) and still conect to the central MS >> server, then this bridge indeed looks like a good solution for me. >> > You're still making the fundamental mistake of thinking that there's a > "central server". Ignore the Sanotosisms. Xyr description of what > happens is wrong on about six or seven different counts. Listen to > Jochen Kalmbach. Xe has far more clue, here. Here's some irony for > you: If you did what M. Santos said to do and went to your ISP and > looked, you'll probably find that (presuming that it actually runs a > Usenet node at all, of course) your ISP does, indeed, carry the entire > |microsoft.*| newsgroup hierarchy, and you could have obtained it from > your ISP's Usenet node all along. Ahh, hence the erroneous presumption that every node carries the entire usenet feed. WRONG! Again the TROLL is missing the point. Once the MS NNTP Server goes down, its chain of nodes including end-users will no longer get its exchange of microsoft.* only mail. They have to go else where and thats a MAJOR lost of information and users and active user support people. PS: There is one good thing about the MS Forums! No more trolls such as the Jonathans - which I am sure you won't mind as you won't be able to handle anything you can't cross post all over the place. -- HLS
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 |