Release the source code!

[Cooper]

I think you should make certain aspects of Windows open-source such as
non-critical parts and let people submit improved source for incorporating
into Windows. You should also release the kernel, enough for improving but
not enough for using.

 

[Bob I]

This is a public user group that resides on a microsoft server. You
aren't communicating with anybody from Microsoft.

 

[Greg Russell]

People from Microsoft read these messages.

I sincerely doubt that. Just because a few vain individuals have "letters"
after their names doesn't mean squat They're just desparately trying to gain
some credibilty. M$ is too busy trying to foist their "latest and greatest"
piece of crap down the public's ignorant throat so that they, M$, can keep
that ol' revenue stream flowing.

If nothing else, a moderator reads them and if someone says something
that the moderators don't like, the message gets deleted.

Bzzzzzzzt ... wrong again. m.p.w.g. is an un-moderated Usenet newsgroup.

 

[Greg Russell]

I think you should make certain aspects of Windows open-source such as
non-critical parts and let people submit improved source for incorporating
into Windows. You should also release the kernel, enough for improving but
not enough for using.

"You"? or "They"?

Open-source is what inspires confidence and utility. Closed-source is what
idiots buy who can't do their own thinking and want to pay Billy-Boy to do
it for them.

M$ is the McDonald's of the computing world. Sure, there are "billions and
billions" served (and raked in), but that doesn't mean that it's good
computing food, or good for you.

 

[Greg Russell]

This is a public user group that resides on a microsoft server.

Don't know anything about Usenet, do ya?

 

[Greg Russell]

I've used the msnews servers for years, and I, as well as anyone else that
has been around here for a while, can attest to how these are indeed
moderated.

This isn't "msnews", it's Usenet. m.p.w.g. is not a moderated Usenet
newsgroup.

 

[Greg Russell]

In a way he is right. It is a public newsgroup hosted on
msnews.microsoft.com.

You obviously don't know squat about Usenet either ... spend some time at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet and educate yourself .

I've been posting to several Usenet newsgroups since 1988.

 

[Sid Elbow]

Just because a few vain individuals have "letters"
after their names doesn't mean squat They're just desparately trying to gain
some credibilty.

Those "vain individuals" actually contribute (a lot) around here and are
very much appreciated by most of us here. Unlike some who've popped up
lately to sit on the sidelines and heckle.

 

[Bob I]

You obviously don't know squat about Usenet either ... spend some time at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet and educate yourself .

I've been posting to several Usenet newsgroups since 1988.

Ever heard of Fidonet?

 

[Zootal]

This isn't "msnews", it's Usenet. m.p.w.g. is not a moderated Usenet
newsgroup.

This is the newsgroup microsoft.public.win2000.general, and this message was
posted via msnews.microsoft.com. I could have used other servers if I wanted
to, but I went to msnews to post this particular message. When I posted this
message, it was physically stored on the MS servers as well as propagated to
other usnet servers where it was likewise physically stored. From that point
on if someone wants to read the message, they connect to the server of their
choice and the message is retrieved from that server. Eventually, the server
will delete this message, usually because they have retention limits and
this message will fall below that limit.

I claim that Microsoft polices the messages on their servers. The best proof
of that is how spam and other offensive messages are quickly removed *and*
is why if you use msnews.microsoft.com you don't see these messages, but if
you use giganews or other servers you *will* see them. Moderation may not be
the technically correct term that describes this process since the messages
are removed after the fact, but the end result is that Microsoft will remove
offensive messages from their own servers. I eagerly wait for someone to
prove me wrong, at which point I will be the first to admit that I was
wrong.

 

[Dave Onex]

"Greg Russell"

Open-source is what inspires confidence and utility. Closed-source is what
idiots buy who can't do their own thinking and want to pay Billy-Boy to do
it for them.

M$ is the McDonald's of the computing world. Sure, there are "billions and
billions" served (and raked in), but that doesn't mean that it's good
computing food, or good for you.

Hahaha - that was a pretty apt comparison Well said.

 

[Greg Russell]

I claim that Microsoft polices the messages on their servers. The best proof
of that is how spam and other offensive messages are quickly removed *and*
is why if you use msnews.microsoft.com you don't see these messages, but if
you use giganews or other servers you *will* see them. Moderation may not be
the technically correct term that describes this process since the messages
are removed after the fact, but the end result is that Microsoft will remove
offensive messages from their own servers. I eagerly wait for someone to
prove me wrong, at which point I will be the first to admit that I was
wrong.

Just get a decent Usenet server that doesn't censor posts.

Spam is one thing; removing posts because they don't approve of the hosting
entity is suppresion of free speech.