Tim Slattery wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> The microsoft.public.* newsgroups continue to exist. Usenet
>> continues to exist. It is Microsoft that is abandoning their 4-year
>> experiment in trying to usurp Usenet.
>
> Four years? The microsoft.public.* groups have been on Microsoft's
> NNTP server for something like 12 years. I know, because that's how
> long I've been reading them.
The *newsgroups* (in Usenet) were established in 1996 see
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1996/apr96/nwsgrppr.mspx.
Microsoft is dropping their "Communities" webnews-for-dummies interface
to Usenet and hence their forum-to-Usenet gateway. When did they start
the forum-to-Usenet gateway access method to give users a WEB-BASED
version of the newsgroups? Microsoft setup their newsgroups about 14
years ago. Just how long has it been since they setup a web frontend
with a gateway to Usenet? I thought the Usenet gateway showed up
sometime during 2006.
Microsoft could have just killed off their webnews gateway to eliminate
their Communities interface to the newsgroups. Instead they are
dropping the newsgroups themselves (from their NNTP server). Well, if
they kill off their newsgroups through attrition, why would they keep
their NNTP server running? They aren't yanking away just the Community
"forum" that gateways to Usenet. They're discarding the actual
newsgroups themselves from their NNTP server. The foundation that was
laid 14 years ago with the newsgroups is getting tossed while discarding
the web frontend that gateways to Usenet.
If Microsoft had stuck to just providing an NNTP server and let
customers use NNTP clients to peer with each other, I doubt Microsoft
would be making the claims that it does about the obsolescence
newsgroups and as to why they are abandoning them. It is because
Microsoft engaged in providing a *web-based* interface to Usenet that
requires more resources than they are now willing to spend on that peer
help resource. So, yes, *newsgroups* for Microsoft have been around for
over a decade and a half but that's not what they're using as an excuse
now for dropping them.
Operating an NNTP server is cheap and even trivial to a company the size
of Microsoft. Hell, even individuals can afford to fork out their own
personal funds to setup and maintain an NNTP server and why albasani,
eternal-september, aioe, and others exist. It is the cost of of
developing, modifying, and maintaining the web app that provides the web
interface to noobs and gateways to Usenet that they are eliminating.
They're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It was more expensive
then just operating an NNTP server. Since they are already expending
the resources for a web forums, it probably seems logical to them to
eliminate web frontend to newsgroups and just focus on their web forums.
Does Microsoft have to toss the newsgroups because they no longer want
to expend the money and resources for their Communities web frontend and
gateway to Usenet? Of course not. They could just go back to operating
only their NNTP server and dump the webnews-for-boobs interface (aka
Communities). Do they find it a convenient excuse to do so? Sure,
right along with all the ISPs that want to find an excuse to drop their
newsgroups service, too. They have resources working on their web
forums. They probably feel they don't need to waste or duplicate more
resources on a another web frontend.
Perhaps the biggest factor in dumping NNTP is that this service was last
included in Windows Server 2003. Since that product is no longer
supported, they also used that as an excuse to get rid of their
Communities and its gateway to Usenet. They don't have an NNTP server
in their later server versions of Windows. They don't want to maintain
a host running an unsupported OS version. You and I know that software
doesn't become obsolete or unusable just because it isn't supported
anymore. Microsoft has another excuse.
> As for usurping Usenet, that's ridiculous. Microsoft, like *many*
> other companies, hosted their own newsgroups to provide a place for
> peer-to-peer support. Of course, they were picked up by many other
> Usenet providers, where they continue to exist.
"Picking up" would only happen if Microsoft chose to peer their overview
and articles database with other NNTP servers. They could've kept them
a private list. Anyone can operate an NNTP server with a list of
private newsgroups that only their NNTP server will carry. They don't
have to peer unless they so choose. Lots of companies operate their own
NNTP server for internal-only discussions. The outside world will never
see them. Many companies operate NNTP server that don't peer to
anywhere and you must connect to them to see their newsgroups. Being a
private (non-peered) NNTP server could mean access is restricted or you
have to go there and only there for those newsgroups.
If Microsoft had started their own NNTP service but kept it private
although publicly accessible (i.e., it didn't peer) then, yep, Microsoft
deleting its newsgroups would mean they would really disappear - except,
of course, for all the Usenet leeching web site that operate other
pretend web-based forums via a gateway that have already archived those
articles. Because Microsoft did choose to peer with the rest of Usenet
to provide load balancing and reliability through redundancy is why
those newsgroups will outlive Microsoft's choice to scamper away from
Usenet.