Where will be all of us moving to?
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
From: John John - MVP on 20 May 2010 14:47 Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > I'm not sure what the answer is. I know I'm not happy about it. Few of us are happy about it, Charlie. John
From: John John - MVP on 20 May 2010 15:00 Dave Warren wrote: > In message <xn0gud72glti3fw004(a)msnews.microsoft.com> "Jeff Gaines" > <jgaines_newsid(a)yahoo.co.uk> was claimed to have wrote: > >> I have subscribes to alt.config - is anybody interested in getting >> involved in a discussion there? > > Personally, I have to think alt. is the wrong place. It will take > longer, but comp. would be a much better longterm home. I agree. A new .microsoft hierarchy under the comp. would be a much better place than the wild .alt hierarchy, it would be more "professional" and give the hierarchy a bit more credence. John
From: Dave Warren on 20 May 2010 18:06 In message <OZPki6E#KHA.3580(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnet.nb.ca> was claimed to have wrote: >Dave Warren wrote: >> In message <xn0gud72glti3fw004(a)msnews.microsoft.com> "Jeff Gaines" >> <jgaines_newsid(a)yahoo.co.uk> was claimed to have wrote: >> >>> I have subscribes to alt.config - is anybody interested in getting >>> involved in a discussion there? >> >> Personally, I have to think alt. is the wrong place. It will take >> longer, but comp. would be a much better longterm home. > >I agree. A new .microsoft hierarchy under the comp. would be a much >better place than the wild .alt hierarchy, it would be more >"professional" and give the hierarchy a bit more credence. All of that being said, using the existing microsoft.public hierarchy would seem to make sense at least to a point, although creating new groups would be difficult since there's no formal process to create new groups in a formally almost-managed hierarchy. comp. would definitely make a lot more sense to me than alt. though, especially since there is a formal process to create groups, so getting the groups created across a reasonable percentage of usenet servers is actually feasible. comp. gets a lot more attention just by virtue of it being comp. too.
From: Charlie Russel - MVP on 20 May 2010 18:16 Well, I've proposed they create a 64bit NG. The response was not an immediate "no", but rather -- would this be better in Answers or in TechNet? I allowed as how either would work, since we cross over pretty generally, but that the Answers heirarchy was probably better, since it will be more discoverable for consumers. We'll see. I did at least get recognition that this is not a "typical" NG or community, and there is value in keeping it focused as it is. -- Charlie. http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel "John John - MVP" <audetweld(a)nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:%23M5SQzE%23KHA.4816(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > >> I'm not sure what the answer is. I know I'm not happy about it. > > Few of us are happy about it, Charlie. > > John
From: Carlos on 20 May 2010 19:39
Charlie, My e-mail response was also a "not no". I have noticed that women tend to use a negative logic as opposed to positive logic. In my case it was not a robot but a woman who responded my e-mail ("Janice"). :) Carlos "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote: > Well, I've proposed they create a 64bit NG. The response was not an > immediate "no", but rather -- would this be better in Answers or in TechNet? > I allowed as how either would work, since we cross over pretty generally, > but that the Answers heirarchy was probably better, since it will be more > discoverable for consumers. We'll see. I did at least get recognition that > this is not a "typical" NG or community, and there is value in keeping it > focused as it is. > > -- > Charlie. > http://msmvps.com/blogs/russel > > > > > "John John - MVP" <audetweld(a)nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message > news:%23M5SQzE%23KHA.4816(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > Charlie Russel - MVP wrote: > > > >> I'm not sure what the answer is. I know I'm not happy about it. > > > > Few of us are happy about it, Charlie. > > > > John > > . > |