Where do you want to go tomorrow?

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...

This is, as Hector correctly told us, "Microsoft's Usenet"

Usenet technically, but is not set up to be the part of the public Usenet.

Well, there are comp.xxx public Usenet newsgroups, which duplicate most microsoft.xxx ones.

Probably those of us who hate the web interfaces should move there.

Anyway for my area of interest - Windows kernel - we have excellent OSROnline forums, where the traffic is around 4 times more then on microsoft.xxx

 

[Hector Santos]

Gee, I wonder why Microsoft themselves refer to them as Usenet groups...

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/guide/newsgroupfaq.mspx

Unfortunately, another case of Microsoft creating user confusion in
this regard.

Microsoft.public.* are *not* part of the usenet backbone newsgroup
listing nor backbone stream.

Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you
have a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that
the usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*

If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly
or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the
usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.

People post to the groups from all kinds of different servers, when the
Microsoft servers are down these other servers still synchronize between
themselves without any problem and these folks who post on other servers
can still post and read without the intermediary of Microsoft servers.
We have often seen this in the past when outages of a few hours or more
at the Microsoft servers have happened and some of us use other servers
to keep on posting, when the Microsoft servers come back only line they
then "catch-up" and then all the posts show up many hours latter on
these servers. This is obvious enough when you use non Microsoft
servers to read the posts in Microsoft groups, all kinds of posts which
have not made it to the MS servers, or posts which have been removed
from the MS servers are on the other servers for all to see and read.

All that will change one MS pulls the plug from the wall.

While you might find another site that keeps the newsgroups and they
still remain relatively active, that is only because the site itself
have become the MAIN source for others to feed into - a large part of
the chain. But those chains that feed off Microsoft only are lost
unless they feed into someone else.

 

[Hector Santos]

Most probably you won't be able to move to anywhere else; not even
on forums because Microsoft hasn't got any plans to open forums
for Windows XP and earlier technology. Somebody suggested that
you can go to other P2P newsgroups like Google or aioe.org. This
again won't be possible because microsoft may force them to close
their newsgroups bearing Micro$hit name.

The only alternative I can think of is for somebody to organize a
group of about 10 individuals to come together and start their own
newsgroups to be financed by advertising and volunteers. I am
willing to put my name forward for this project provided there are
individuals who have some basic knowledge of hosting NNTPs which
can be expanded further as time goes by. I am good at programming
and developing websites using Java, Javascript and ASP and perhaps
some networking skills and SQL servers. that is all I know at
present.

Yes, I agree.

This would be a good idea but it starts with a new "main source" or
feed coordination. There will be a lot of nodes lost once the MS NNTP
servers are shut off and they need to be told who they can link up to.

How successful that all be, might be another thing.

You need a "ground zero" whether its one site or a group of sites as a
whole - they all need to know they can feed off each other. Once that
is established, then the rest of the world can feed of them.

That or someone at Microsoft "donates" the name sake
"microsoft.public.*" to the backbone usenet feed to it becomes part of
it the usenet listing.

The point?

When a NNTP client issues the command at any of the "New Feeds":

NEWSGROUP

the NNTP SERVER will show:

microsoft.public.*

as part of the result.

 

[Lem]

Hector Santos wrote:

Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you have
a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that the
usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*

If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly
or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the
usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.

<snip>

I have no expertise at all in newsgroup management, but just to inject a
fact into all of this speculation, Earthlink (which I would characterize
as a "major ISP") includes the microsoft.public.* groups on its news
servers. Whether it will continue to do so after Microsoft discontinues
its support for the newsgroups is, of course, is another story.

 

[Hector Santos]

Hector Santos wrote:

<snip>

I have no expertise at all in newsgroup management, but just to inject a
fact into all of this speculation, Earthlink (which I would characterize
as a "major ISP") includes the microsoft.public.* groups on its news
servers. Whether it will continue to do so after Microsoft discontinues
its support for the newsgroups is, of course, is another story.

If you see microsoft.* feeds in your Earthlink ISP NNTP news service,
then you they are directly or indirectly getting it from somewhere
that provides microsoft.public.* but theses groups are not part of the
usenet backbone.

There are merged from your view point, as a user of earthlink.

For example:

If you go to a news server XYZ.COM, and telnet it it on port 119.

Telnet xyz.com 119

You might see this:

200 Server Site Name version, posting allowed

Type HELP

and among the listing, you see the LIST command

100 Legal commands are :
article [MessageID|Number]
authinfo [user|pass|generic|transact] <data>
body [MessageID|Number]
check <message-id>
date
group newsgroup
head [MessageID|Number]
help
ihave <message-id>
last
list
[active|newsgroups[wildmat]|srchfields|searchable|prettynames[wildmat]]
listgroup [newsgroup]
mode stream|reader
newgroups yymmdd hhmmss ["GMT"] [<distributions>]
newnews wildmat yymmdd hhmmss ["GMT"] [<distributions>]
next
post
quit
search
stat [MessageID|number]
xhdr header [range|MessageID]
xover [range]
xpat header range|MessageID pat [morepat ...]
xreplic newsgroup/message-number[,newsgroup/message-number...]
takethis <message-id>
..

If you type LIST NEWSGROUPS

you will get the listing of the news groups that is available on that
server.

Among the list, you will see a MERGE of usenet plus private newsgroups

alt.* << - USENET, thousands of these
comp.* << - USENET, thousands of these
Earthlink.* << - a few of these for EarthLink techncal support
microsoft.* << - plus the private Microsoft groups.

The listing might stay after MS pulls the plug, but you won't see any
new mail unless EarthLink goes to another source (assuming they go
directly to microsoft for the news). But that new source might be
dependent on getting mail from msnews.microsoft.com. So its like an
old telephone listing - call it and no one is there.

So the listing might remain, but it will remain quite.

EARTHLINK connects to where they get the usenet BACKBONE feeds. They
are a big "major" ISP, but there are bigger ones - they pay backbone
companies, the Telcos. They are not AT&T, Verizon (formerly, MCI/
UUNET), the guys who own the "wires" - the infrastructure.

 

[John John - MVP]

Unfortunately, another case of Microsoft creating user confusion in this
regard.

Microsoft.public.* are *not* part of the usenet backbone newsgroup
listing nor backbone stream.

Check it out yourself. If you have access to a major ISP where you have
a high trunk line backwidth such as a T1 or T3, you will see that the
usenet feed newsgroup listing does not include microsoft.public.*

If a smaller ISP is showing microsoft.public.*, then they are directly
or indirectly going to Microsoft servers and are MERGING it with the
usenet listing. But they are two different sources of feeds.


All that will change one MS pulls the plug from the wall.

While you might find another site that keeps the newsgroups and they
still remain relatively active, that is only because the site itself
have become the MAIN source for others to feed into - a large part of
the chain. But those chains that feed off Microsoft only are lost
unless they feed into someone else.

The groups are on *many* usenet servers, majors like Giganews as well as
small guys like aioe carry them. If these guys refuse to honor the
remove group notices the groups will continue to exist on these servers
and peerage will continue between any and all who decide to keep on
carrying the groups. There is no denying that a majority of the posts
originates from the Microsoft servers and that without these servers the
groups may or will probably wither and die but the death will not be
because Microsoft servers are not there to act as a peerage "hub".

John

 

[Hector Santos]

The groups are on *many* usenet servers, majors like Giganews as well as
small guys like aioe carry them. If these guys refuse to honor the
remove group notices the groups will continue to exist on these servers
and peerage will continue between any and all who decide to keep on
carrying the groups. There is no denying that a majority of the posts
originates from the Microsoft servers and that without these servers the
groups may or will probably wither and die but the death will not be
because Microsoft servers are not there to act as a peerage "hub".

Right, the death will be relative to the users of where they decide to
reconnect.

The fact is that many sites and end users use msnews.microsoft.com as
their site feed and now they will need to go to other sites. The
issue is that those other sites might also had been using Microsoft.

So sure, they will need to change to new site so that a link won't be
broken. As long as there remain a common list of newsgroups
available, and it includes microsoft.*, its all good as far as getting
it going.

 

[Hector Santos]

Just wish to note the actually Live ID authentication process is
internally done over SSL.

 

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server.



Ahem!&nbsp; "This NNTP server" is a phrase that means different things to different people.&nbsp; This is Usenet, remember.&nbsp; There isn't just one node.&nbsp; There are thousands of them.&nbsp; Microsoft has no plans to shut down my Usenet node, which carries this and several other newsgroups in the microsoft.* hierarchy.&nbsp; It couldn't do so even if it wanted to.&nbsp; It's my node, not Microsoft's.

 

[Jonathan de Boyne Pollard]

I share concerns expressed by Hector Santos, [...]



You shouldn't.&nbsp; Hector Santos is talking rubbish.&nbsp; Again.




The distributed and free Usenet has its merits, [...]



... and is how many people have been accessing these newsgroups for many years, including anyone posting from Google Groups.&nbsp; This is Usenet, and these are Usenet newsgroups.




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".&nbsp; Ignore the Sanotosisms.&nbsp; Xyr description of what happens is wrong on about six or seven different counts.&nbsp; Listen to Jochen Kalmbach.&nbsp; Xe has far more clue, here.&nbsp; Here's some irony for you:&nbsp; 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.&nbsp;




Most commercial Usenet nodes run by ISPs have, historically, carried many of these big non-Big8 newsgroup hierarchies.&nbsp; Usenet isn't just, and never has been, the Big 8.&nbsp; The question is whether ISPs will continue to carry the microsoft.* hierarchy in the future.&nbsp; It's more likely, nowadays, given the trend of recent years, that they'll just discontinue Usenet service outright than fiddle with adjusting a few lines in active files for one hierarchy, to be blunt.

 

[Hector Santos]

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.

 

[Hector Santos]

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.

 

[Hector Santos]

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.

 

[John John - MVP]

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.



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

 

[Hector Santos]

Hector Santos wrote:

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.

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.

 

[Hector Santos]

Hector Santos wrote:


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?

 

[John John - MVP]

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

 

[Hector Santos]

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!

You're right, you should because you twisted words to suit whatever
purpose you had here.

To indicate that me referencing a picture of "three" nodes in a usenet
network is not representative of the "thousands" of nodes in the
network is ludicrous and a lame attempt of trolling for an nonsense
argument.

The above does not change the fact that a node relative to itself
operates like a star and as I stated in my last post, you have no
control of what your nodes and points off your server will do. In
other words, you don't need to go to a main hub to get your feeds.
That still doesn't eliminate the idea each node itself operates as a star.

What? You think you can just post in UK node and it will magically
appear in some far distance USA node without some form of organized
uplink/downlink transport system? Are you broadcasting by posting the
article at different servers crossing your fingers that at least ONE
will make and the others will by rejected as DUPES?

And again, unless you UNDERSTAND the intricacies of developing hosting
software especially for all hosting operationally needs when it comes
to distribution, then yes, you should say good bye and shut up.

 

[Paul Attryde]

Dear users of msnews.microsoft.com,

There are rumors that Microsoft plans to shut down this nntp server.

See this for example:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-20004109-56.html

Any thoughts on where we can migrate from here - besides of the
web-based MSDN forums?.
To Google groups, maybe?

Personally I signed up for an account at OSROnline. They
have an NNTP version of their mailing lists at lists.osr.com

hth somebody,
Paul

 

[Marianne]

You're right, you should because you twisted words to suit whatever
purpose you had here.

To indicate that me referencing a picture of "three" nodes in a usenet
network is not representative of the "thousands" of nodes in the network
is ludicrous and a lame attempt of trolling for an nonsense argument.

The above does not change the fact that a node relative to itself operates
like a star and as I stated in my last post, you have no control of what
your nodes and points off your server will do. In other words, you don't
need to go to a main hub to get your feeds.
That still doesn't eliminate the idea each node itself operates as a star.

What? You think you can just post in UK node and it will magically appear
in some far distance USA node without some form of organized
uplink/downlink transport system? Are you broadcasting by posting the
article at different servers crossing your fingers that at least ONE will
make and the others will by rejected as DUPES?

And again, unless you UNDERSTAND the intricacies of developing hosting
software especially for all hosting operationally needs when it comes to
distribution, then yes, you should say good bye and shut up.

And you sell nntp software? For the sake of your customers I hope that your
tech support knows more about newsgroups than you do because you don't know
wtf you are talking about! Anyone reading this thread will see that you
haven't got a clue and they will surely pass on your software offering!
You've indentified yourself as working for a certain company any you have
posted links to your company in this thread, by doing so you have attached
your company to the discussion. After reading this thread and seeing how
you completely misunderstand Usenet I can say without any hesitation that I
would never purchase your software! Nice job you clueless moron!

M