Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to do for Usenet what it did for Email & The Web?
tjones2 writes "Seems like Microsoft isn't content with sad state of email these days. They now want to "make engaging with communities easier and friendlier". This means extending their reach into Usenet." Fortunately most of Usenet is such a cespool that really they can only make it better. And after cornering the market on email worms, imagine the benefits they can bring to NNTP!
If you know where to look, and what you are looking for, usenet is ok. It kind of has that wild west, last frontier kind of charm.
btw, if you hate having to decode stuff by hand with the various newsreaders, www.easynews.com is great for various binaries
... I see you are browsing alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.hornyteens
Would you like:
* tissues
* baby oil
* a life
* or me to fuck off
?
Now, as a time-saving measure, right next to the "post reply" button, there will be a "Me Too" button, and a "Send me the link username@hotmail.com" button.
Ryan Fenton
if usenet was supposed to be friendly it would have been designed that way :-)
Seriously, usenet is supposed to be distributed and resiliant to poor communications and have no choke points that would slow operation. All of the MS ideas would seem to introduce complication, choke points and remove much of the resiliance.
Hey Microsoft, what did you innovate today?
Well, as a long time internet participant, I recall quite good what
.DOC rich text attached to an otherwise empty posting.
AOL did to usenet: Aquire a hord of "Me too" follow-up posters.
Actually, a quick google-groups research shows that of the 32,000
postings that contain "me too", a whopping 30,600 also contain the
word "AOL".
So I question - what can Microsoft do to usenet? I suspect, nothing
nice. Probably their efforts result in even more MIME/HTML postings,
with binaries attached in non-binary groups (probably something like
"My Signature.exe"). And certainly a lot of proprietarily encapsulated
text, such as
On one hand, usenet is for everyone, including Microsoft users. On
the other hand, I really hope that google-groups will filter them off
so that usenet can stay the valuable source of accurate tech information
that it is today.
Marc
This is very bad news for Usenet. In the beginning, USEnet was a haven for people with the persistence and intelligence necessary to figure out how to use it, and it was good. Flamewars were minimal, people were respectful, and knowledge flowed freely. Then AOL, WebTV, and their ilk came along and lowered the barriers to entry. The quality of discussion went down, the quantity went up, and USEnet became a lot less USEful than it had been. I feel like that situation has improved slightly, at least in the text-only discussion groups. But if MS makes it possible for every dingbat melonhead with a modem to get on it, it's going to get much worse.
I'm probably being elitist, but I like it when it takes a little effort and intelligence to be able to participate in a discussion. I know that the people on a newsgroup are at least slightly more advanced (usually) than their ICQ-going friends, and that better discussions will result.
The other thing is that USEnet has (so far) been flying below the **AA's radar as far as file sharing and software IP ifringement go. If they all of a sudden turn their attention towards it, USEnet is easy prey for a takedown: the servers are centralized machines that are easily traceable to a company or individual, and most ISPs would probably just take theirs down rather than fight it out with the RIAA. Of course, the user uproar would be like nothing we've ever seen before, because USEnet's main use is not only non-infringing, it's incredibly valuable to a lot of technical types out there.
true, but I'm sure the boys at Redmond are up to the challenge
What would happen is you load all the posts into a database and perform analysis on that data. From there you draw conclusions on the pretext that, if there were a lot of replies and a lot of repeats last week on newsgroup X, then that should continue this week, so that might be a good one to go for info.
Once they get the ball rolling on this though, I'd be willing to bet they try to "update" USENET as they become a major player there. Maybe that's just pessimism on my part though.
Linux: The world's best text-adventure game.
The pictures are overrated, and don't contain nearly as much pr0n as you'd think. Once, over the space of a week, I downloaded all pictures sent to alt.binaries.pictures.eroica .
I got nothing but pictures of bloody Beethoven.
Well isn't this just wonderful! It's not enough that usenet is plauged with spam, now we can have pop-up ads there, too!
:)
Someone let me know when the Mozilla team gets them blocked -- God bless them, every one.
Everything they're talking about there can be done locally at an NNTP server, at least as I read it, and won't affect the wider usenet. So it's more user-interface work and work on a server with a different set of design goals to the current NNTP servers.
I'm all for it. You'll need a proxy server to protect the Exchange box running the MS-NNTP server from direct access by scary things like non-Lookout news readers of course. It sounds like an interesting idea though, and perhaps some of the better / more useful ideas might propagate to other NNTP software.
search for newsgroups containing "e":
/Static/default.asp, line 213
Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a0006'
Overflow: 'CInt'
Anyone using CInt for something like that is so utterly clueless that we'll have nothing to worry about.
Something tells me that Joe Averagecomputeruser will be fairly disappointed when he gets a taste of Usenet, but that's beside the point. As CmdrTaco noted in the original news post, Usenet is to a point that it can't really get much worse. Who knows? This might be one of those rare occasions when Microsoft is actually on to something.
Then again, it will probably just end up being Usenet with pretty Outlook stationery.
DecafJedi
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
In August 1996, Microsoft made their internal microsoft.* hierarchy available to the world at large. Around that same time, they switched from INN v1.4 to a proprietary MS NNTP server.
For the next few weeks, every post made to microsoft.* and select other groups was duplicated by msnews.microsoft.com and spewed back to the world because the proprietary MS server changed the Message-ID for every post. Message-IDs are supposed to be unique, so an altered ID was seen as a new post by servers peering with MS and thus were not treated as duplicates and dropped.
Thousands and thousands of posts were duped and spewed by Microsoft's "innovative" server, both inside microsoft.* and out. The reaction among news admins ranged from mild chuckles at Microsoft's expense to blind rage and the use of cancelbots.
So yeah, I'm looking forward to this. I could use a good laugh.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Who the hell visits usenet for news anymore?
Actually I've found that as the signal/noise ratio on sites such as Slashdot have decreased with all of the AC posting and such, usenet groups such as comp.lang. have become much more useful because the signal to noise ratio has increased significantly. On usenet, questions are answered by folks who typically know the answer rather than the pure drivel and conjecture that we are seeing more on Slashdot.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Exactly: it's great, but only if you know where to look. Sounds as though Microsoft's ideas on this one are steps in the right direction. I'm a Usenet veteran, but still find it difficult to identify a group that's relevant to me when I first want to explore a new subject.
For bonus marks, if they could just get people to understand that it's polite to read the FAQ before posting (and make the FAQ an obvious link somewhere) and that following local customs and keeping on-topic also go a long way, they'd be ahead of everyone else who currently offers Usenet access. A group with influence of Microsoft could do a lot to improve the signal/noise ratio on some newsgroups. Extending their reach into Usenet isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Ill-informed editorial comments like Taco's don't help much, BTW. Most newsgroups actually are pretty good these days, as long as there's one where your interest is on-topic and you have decent filtering in your client to cut out the noise. I've found worthwhile groups on various technical subjects, all of my major hobbies, my local area and more. We can do without putting off people who might be genuinely interested in reading and/or contributing to such groups with juvenile statements like Taco's.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.