 |
|
 |
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:57:13 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
Unlike the Big 8, alt.* has no self-delusions about the importance of
control messages.
One very important thing to note is that alt.* is an unmanaged heirarchy
and you send your own control message and then work on getting the group
to propagate. Unlike the Big 8, where you have to bow and scrape to get
someone else to send a control message on your behalf and you have to
work on getting the group to propogate.
You're limited to 80 columns, including the tab character between the
group name and the brief description. You want to describe the topics
and don't repeat words used in the group name.
There is no "rationale" in an alt.* proposal.
There is a "justification" which is a traffic count of articles over a
3-month period. This is a tool for you to decide whether it's worth
your time and energy trying to get a group to propogate.
I'll let someone else critique your Charter here.
What you want to do is go to http://www.alt-config.net and read the
documents there. The nylon.net FAQ is the current favorite of the
alt.config regulars. Pay close attention to How Alt.* Groups Work; this
is a primer in alt.* group creation.
B/
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:36:06 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:08:16 GMT, Mark Hobley
<...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Everything up to here is either superfluous or wrong. In particular,
an alt.* newgroup control message should be sent by you, or an
individual nominated by you, and *not* by anybody else.
This line needs (a) to be immediately preceded by a line consisting of
"For your newsgroups file:", and (b) to have two tabs where you have a
string of spaces. Without these changes, your control message will be
invalid.
"Topics relating to" is useless verbiage, and the Description
conventionally ends with a full stop (period).
Putting this together, you get:
For your newsgroups file:
alt.comp.cygwin The cygwin operating environment.
But a Description something like this (based on what it says at
http://www.cygwin.com) would be better:
A Linux-like environment for Windows.
It seems unnatural to have nothing in the name between "comp" and
"cygwin", but I can't think of anything to put there that wouldn't be
misleading (e.g. "os" or "linux") or silly (e.g. the Big-8's
"soft-sys").
There are no Rationales in alt.*. What you have here is a "Reason for
newsgroup", which in this case does little but duplicat the Charter.
OK, but it seems to be conventional to use a capital C for Cygwin.
my gut feeling is that Cygwin is used enough to make a Usenet group
successful if it's well-promoted, but my gut feeling isn't a safe
substitute for evidence of a good amount of existing discussion. "A
good amount" would be something like ten Cygwin-related articles per
day for the past three months.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:47:12 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
Considering the state of Usenet these days, I'd be willing to say 5
articles per day, IF the five articles are from different posters
(something like what happens in soc.support.stroke with one fella
posting 7-8 articles at a time obvious won't do to build a userbase in
order to get the group propogated).
But considering the proponent's seeming inability to answer a simple
question or two from Adam, I would have concerns about his organizing
ability.
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 23:17:37 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Tue, 28 Apr 2009 12:47:12 -0700, Brian Mailman
<...@sfo.invalid
Yes. Also, "traffic analysis" should be based on an interest in the
topic. If searching for articles about foo is boring, then one isn't
interested enough in foo to be a good alt.* proponent.
I can answer at least one question for him: a newsgroup where he
currently discusses Cygwin is comp.os.linux.misc. However, he has few
opportunities to discuss Cygwin because Cygwin isn't discussed much on
Usenet, and Cygwin posters tend to be flamed as off-topic posters
everywhere.
It's possible, IMO, that Cygwin isn't discussed much because discussion
of Cygwin doesn't fit well into any existing Usenet newsgroup.
If the technical defects of this proposal are fixed, I'll have no
objection to it. Numerical justification is a good thing, but an
enthusiastic, hard-working proponent may be able to do without it.
(I know this is heresy. Burn me now.)
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:38:37 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
You're saying that Cygwin users are the pizza-bois of the *.comp.* set.
Got it.
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:54:44 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Peter J Ross <...@gmail.com
Did you read my comments about the gmane newsgroups, which appear to be
the main place that Cygwin is discussed on News? I realize these aren't
Usenet groups, but so what? It's a public News server.
We've run into this situation before, in which institutional newsgroups
are used specific to a computer topic, and not Usenet newsgroups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 20:18:18 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:54:44 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
<...@chinet.com
I read your comments. I think the existence of a non-Usenet newsgroup
is no more significant than the existence of a Web forum or mailing
list. Gmane serves a useful purpose, but it isn't Usenet.
A good example of this kind of thing was the linux.debian.*
newsgroups, which are a set of groups that are gated to the official
(moderated) Debian mailing lists. The existence of linux.debian.* was
presented as an objection to the newgrouping of alt.os.linux.debian,
but in fact AOLD has been quite successful.
The presence or absence of non-Usenet discussion is of no importance.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:11:43 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Peter J Ross <...@gmail.com
If Gmane serves as the institutional News server on behalf of the Cygwin
project, and Cygwin users except to use it (and gated mailing lists) as
their method of communication, and not Usenet groups, then it's
significant to note. They aren't going to change their posting habits.
'Cuz discussion on the linux.debian groups isn't necessarily in English
but German?
The absense of Usenet discussion is critical. Anyway, I was attempting
to help the proponent find the discussion he was looking for today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 01 May 2009 00:18:18 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:11:43 +0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
<...@chinet.com
Their posting habits are *not* significant. Only existing Usenet
traffic is significant - or did I miss a memo?
Er, what? I read some of the Debian mailing lists, and their default
language is English.
Yes, of course it is.
Yeah yeah. Whatever.
I'm tiring of the way people who give the proponents good advice also
like to roast the proponents as a sideline. ISTM that figgies and
Bambies aren't much different from each other.
Dear Mark: Adam is giving you good advice, and his advice is probably
better than mine when he and I disagree. I just wish he could learn
some manners, because his hostility to alt.* proponents doesn't help
anybody.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 03:05:01 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Peter J Ross <...@gmail.com
Their posting habits ARE significant if that's the server the audience
for Cygwin on News uses.
Well, the mailing lists were down for, what, a year, if I remember
correctly. The linux.debian.* groups as they exist today were revived.
I've got a vague recollection about this.
Anyway, it's not an analogous situation.
Oh, so you do read my memos after all!
I am always helpful. I have a certificate!
Huh? Who got roasted? I seem to have missed that.
What hostility? WTF are you talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 02 May 2009 12:33:18 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
I don't think your new playmates are going to trust you any more than
they do already, just because you're willing to flame your fellows
and/or distance yourself. You're talking about Adam and Adam isn't "the
figgies."
This is an unmanaged hierarchy--Adam is Adam, and while his style is
arguably abrasive and annoying, it's his and he may succeed with it
where others fail. If you feel Adam's manners need correcting, then
lead by example and don't emulate them.
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 2 May 2009 16:39:10 -0400, "dvus" <...@dvenator.com
"Brian Mailman" <...@supernews.com...
So, you feel Peter shouldn't be correcting Adam, but have no compunctions
about correcting Peter?
Peter, you're wasting your time trying to smooth Adam's rough edges, I've
been berating him for years with no luck at all. Personally, I almost always
agree with what he says, just not the way he says it.
--
dvus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:21:27 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Mark Hobley <...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Dude, in alt, it's DYOFD.
Do not follow the Big 8 format, unless you want a Big 8 group. Typically
operating system groups should be named in comp.os.*, possibly
alt.comp.os.*, never alt.comp.*
Bad syntax: For your newsgroups file:
No blank line
It's a tab character, not a series of spaces. Bad description. Use
keywords, not trite words that aren't search terms like "topic" or
"relating". Don't repeat "cygwin", already in the group name.
Rationale is crap for Big 8, not alt. Perform a justification and report
the result, counting how many messages in the last 90 days have cygwin
as a main topic, not an incidental or related topic, in comp.* and
alt.comp.* and no other hierarchy.
This is crap, 'cuz that's where cygwin discussion on Usenet tends to be
held. Are you discussing this topic yourself, or are you trying to force
discussion out of a particular Linux group?
Could you make that several sentences, please? Thank you for not using
boilerplate. Anyone who suggests adding any will be shot.
And where are you discussing this topic?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ok, I tried this, and I get an error as follows, as soon as I create the
article:
Posting failed (Post rejected, formatting error: Whitespace in header tag is no
My newsreader is tin, and I am connected to the virginmedia newsfeed via a
leafnode.
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 02 May 2009 19:36:42 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Sat, 02 May 2009 17:08:02 GMT, Mark Hobley
<...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
You need a blank line between header and body, otherwise "For your
newsgroups file:" will be parsed as a header line, not a body line,
which seems to be what's happening here.
Also, your editor seems to be converting tabs to spaces. This is
sometimes useful, but not when composing Usenet control messages!
If you're using vim, try ":set noexpandtab".
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
Right ok. I thought that For your newsgroups file: was a header line. I will
try again with this in the message body.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Do you have access to the control groups on the news server you use?
If you do, look in control.newgroup and your control posts should be
there.
Here's what came in the control channel here:
From: mark...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com (Mark Hobley)
Subject: cmsg alt.comp.cygwin
Newsgroups: alt.config
Control: newgroup alt.comp.cygwin
Approved: mark...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 20:08:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 21:08:03 BST
For your newsgroups file: alt.comp.cygwin Topics
relating to the cygwin operating environment
<snip
You don't need the tab in the "Control" header; only use the tab
between the newsgroup name and the description in the *body* of the
post.
Also, "For your newsgroups file:" needs to be on a line by itself
with no leading white space. The name and description should be the
very next line. The bot only looks for those 2 lines in the body of
the post... and the 2 header entries; Control and Approved.
Sorry, you are not a winner. Please try again. ;)
If it works, about an hour later, you will see it in the list at:
wget ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups
BTW, That file is 2.5MB and a glance at that list will let you know
why some people are not all that eager to see newsgroups being made
without a little research on whether they will be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
My editor does not convert tabs to spaces. Maybe the conversion is taking place
upstream.
A B
^
|
This is a tab (I hope).
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 03:18:49 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Mark Hobley <...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Yes.
Make sure you DO NOT perform automatic paragraph formatting of the
newsgroups file line. It MUST BE an unformatted line under 80
characters. If your lines break at 72 characters, it'll screw up your
newsgroups file line. In a newgroup message, you are better off putting
in newlines manually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <...@chinet.com
It is not an operating system. It is just an environment so should not
be under the subcategory of alt.comp.os I believe that it really should just
be alt.comp.cygwin
Only through lack of a newsgroup. I have seen flames for discussing cygwin in
a Linux group. Cygwin is not Linux!
This would be an alt group. I would expect people to use it as they please.
I would expect to discuss the topic within the group itself.
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Yeah, I agree; alt.comp.cygwin would be a good name. There are so
many dead groups now on usenet and, if the name wasn't that
important, you could just move your conversations into one of them.
Looking at the groups that start with (alt.comp) I see one that
might work; alt.comp.sys.emulator but if you made
alt.comp.sys.emulator.cygwin I think the name would be too long,
even if it would seem a more appropriate name for your group.
Put something like this at the top of your post:
For your newsgroups file:
alt.comp.cygwin The cygwin operating environment
Note the 2 tabs between name and description.
Add these headers to your post and yous in business:
Control: newgroup alt.comp.cygwin
Approved: your addy here
Might help if the email was valid but I don't think that's a
requirement. The most important thing is to get those 2 lines in the
body of your post in the correct format, ie; the tabs.
Here, read this: http://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/README
Or: wget ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/README
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 03:08:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Yes, it's a requirement.
Actually, the most important thing is finding and identifying the audience
ALREADY ON USENET, determining if they might use the proposed group,
then promoting use and creation of the group to the potential audience.
This is the bit that's actual hard work, to prevent the group from
failing. Anyone, but anyone, can send a newgroup message. Newgroup
messages accomplish absolutely nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Is this in the Koran?
I was talking about the technical side of this. Most servers don't
have the alt groups on autopilot. It does make it easier to add the
group if you see a properly formatted control message come in and
the group gets added to the list at isc.org... which I like to use
with docheckgroups to manually add the group and description.
You are certainly correct about a group needing an audience; without
relevant posts in a newsgroup there's not much point in having it in
the list. If I see a control message for alt.comp.cygwin I won't
hesitate to create this one. Seems like a good topic to me and it
really isn't that big of a deal to zap it if it doesn't get used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 08:51:09 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
As hard as it is to believe, even Usenet has its standards.
I know, but formatting the newgroup message in a standard manner is sort
of an intelligence test. Even if you get it right the first time, it's
just the start of the process.
Quite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:26:05 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Mark Hobley <...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Yes, you're right. Windows would still be the operating system. But it's
also a set of applications and tools to provide a Linux look-and-feel.
No, it's not a big enough topic. It should probably be in a Windows name
space.
I cannot emphasize enough how much this is crap. Cygwin is a related
topic, so it's not off topic. If a related topic gets discussion in
a newsgroup, that makes it on topic anyway. Posters themselves decide
what's on topic through their discussion and participation, not what
they bitch about.
You're wrong that newsgroups don't exist. There aren't Usenet groups,
but there are news.gmane.org groups/gated mailing lists. Here's the list:
http://gmane.org/find.php?list=cygwin
news.gmane.org is a public server.
If gmane is where Cygwin users generally expect to find discussion, then
these are the groups YOU should be using. Have you been reading them? Do
they meet your needs?
I always ask proponents if they themselves discuss the topic. Please
answer the question. It's also critical to know if the proponent is
trying to re-direct discussion out of one of his newsgroups because he
doesn't want to see it there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <...@chinet.com
I am not connected to the gmame feed. My leafnode obtains its feed from
virginmedia and I wish to remain on the virginmedia usenet feed. I do not
wish to reconfigure for gmame.
The do not meet my need because the articles do not propagate onto usenet.
Not often. I am not a massive cygwin user, but it would be useful to have a
cygwin group that could be used to discuss cygwin related issues.
There is a German language newgroup de.alt.comp.cygwin which is ideal, if you
speak German. I would like to see an English language equivalent.
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 08:42:11 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Mark:
You have sent two more newgroup messages, each one making serious new
errors. Knock it the fuck off. Stop sending newgroup messages. Start
promoting the damn group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
They looked good to me; what errors are you talking about?
The group was added to: ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/newsgroups
That tells me that the control message worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:31:37 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
You didn't notice that he left off the charter on each of the two
subsequent messages? A proponent cannot make a bigger error than that.
On his third newgroup message, he put control.newgroup on the Newsgroups
header, yet another error.
Not that it matters, but he didn't fix the command on Subject. Hah! In a
newsgroup I was reading the other day, someone posted that he was
running the last B News server on Usenet, so his group won't be created
there. Perhaps it does matter.
If he sends a fourth message, he'll probably get the group name wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 02 May 2009 20:03:15 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
In alt.config on Fri, 1 May 2009 02:41:25 +0000 (UTC), Kelb tal-Fenek
wrote:
I don't know where these descriptions come from, but I don't see them
in the archives of control messages.
E.g., alt.brain was newgrouped (without a description) by Shawn
Spotanski on 22 Jan 1994, and rmgrouped within two hours by David
Barr. End of story.
Does anybody know how such descriptions came into existence? They
certainly existed before the Bambies existed as a group.
--
PJR :-)
slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:42:35 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Peter J Ross <...@gmail.com
I'm sure it's one of the things tale did in his more heavy handed
handling of Usenet. He really liked to force reorganization of
discussion, but tended to be wrong that discussion would improve if
forced from an established alt group to a new Big 7/8 group. Barb proved
that theory was generally invalid in a famous message a number of years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 11:58:40 -0400, William Bagwell <...@s.this.one.invalid
On Sat, 02 May 2009 20:03:15 +0100, Peter J Ross <...@example.invalid
They are from the 2.4 MB newsgroups file, not the 2.1 MB active file.
No idea, guess someone once edited that file manually. It does not appear to
update when boosters are sent as a very *few* ISP's lists will.
--
William
http://www.alt-config.net/Link_to_the_FAQs.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 15:10:58 -0400, "dvus" <...@dvenator.com
"William Bagwell" <...@4ax.com...
Wm., do you know who has the ability/authority to change that file?
--
dvus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:43:24 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
dvus <...@dvenator.com
Russ. He's not tale and won't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 18:54:37 -0400, William Bagwell <...@s.this.one.invalid
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:43:24 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.comwrote:
Yes, yes and I hope so:) He is apparently still around as I just noticed he
updated this less than a year ago.
ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/usenet/CONFIG/README
--
William
http://www.alt-config.net/Link_to_the_FAQs.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 03:14:58 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Mark Hobley <...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com
Leafnode supports multiple upstream servers.
Then you can't know. You should start reading these newsgroups and
becoming familiar with them, even if you must reconfigure Leafnode, or
point another News client at news.gmane.org. Don't skip your homework.
Starting a newsgroup is a lot of work. A large part of preparation is
determining if there's a Usenet audience. You should be reasonably
familiar with the other forums in which the topic is discussed. Cygwin
itself refers users to the gmane groups. It's critical to learn if
Cygwin users use these groups to the exclusion of discussing the topic
on Usenet. Because of the gmane groups, there may not be as much
discussion on Usenet as there'd be otherwise.
Have you started justification yet? Search comp.* and alt.comp.* (and
possibly a few other computer-related alt second-level hierarchies) for
recently posted articles in the last 90 days. Look for articles in which
Cygwin is the main topic, ignoring articles in which Cygwin is
incidentally mentioned. Note well if threads develop. Look especially
for the type of discussion you are looking for in the group.
Note that if Cygwin isn't the main topic or Cygwin is discussed in
relation to the main topic of that group, those aren't examples of
articles that would have been posted in the group you propose, had it
existed already.
A minimum average of 10 articles a day is considered necessary for there
to be sustainable discussion.
The purpose of justification is for you to learn if the proposed group
might work. It tells you where on Usenet the audience is, 'cuz these are
the folks you'll be promoting the group to.
Promotion means: 1) Encouraging people to request that the group be
created locally, for your newgroup message DOES NOT create newsgroups
locally. 2) Encouraging people to post in the group.
Promotion is something you should expected to do for several months,
until discussion in the group is sustainable. You keep looking for
Cygwin discussion and promote use of the, such as in a .sig in messages
you post in followup to Cygwin discussion. You might make
straightforward promotional postings, but don't do it more than two or
three times a month in related groups, else you'll irritate people.
Newsgroup creation is an indirect process that a good proponent should
be willing to stick with for sufficient time till traffic develops.
Don't start the process unless you are willing to see it through till
the end. Even if you'd continued with your Big 8 RFD, you still
would have had to promote the group, 'cuz hardly any servers take their
newgroup messages these days either. They never explain that bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 03:26:25 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Sigh.
I see that I wasted my time writing up a whole lot of advice to a
proponent who had already sent a newgroup message (in bad syntax).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
It didn't get added to the isc list and even if there is a site out
there somewhere that automatically accepts newgroup control
messages, it would get dropped. If the proponent doesn't give up on
the process we might see a good newgroup control message eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 05:20:16 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
This is unimportant. News administrators who check ftp.isc.org (don't
call it isc as ISC itself has nothing to do with the archives) generally
look for archived newgroup messages, not changes in the sample active
and newsgroups files. There used to be a major News server that checked
for changes in the sample files but they removed alt groups.
Not so. He screwed up the deprecated "B" News command on Subject, but
who cares. The Control and Approved headers were in standard syntax that
I saw.
The first archived newgroup message written by the proponent is the only
one that counts. Errors cannot be corrected.
But newgroup messages are unimportant. If he doesn't drop the ball on
promoting it, there might be a decent group eventually. We'll see what
he does. Success or failure is entirely in his control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 01 May 2009 10:18:45 +1000, Lionel <...@gmail.com
While Googling for the word 'Cygwin' on Usenet (221,000 hits) I
discovered that Google says there's an existing Cygwin group:
'comp.windows.cygwin'. Currently, it's empty, other than some spam.
OTOH, none of my news providers carry it, so perhaps it might be worth
fixing that one, rather than creating a new group?
As for the topic, I use Cygwin every day, so I would welcome an active
group for it.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 03:12:18 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
Lionel <...@gmail.com
In my opinion, computer groups are properly named into comp.*. However,
there are numerous well-used computer groups in alt.comp.* and several
other alt second-level hierarchies.
comp.windows.cygwin has no archived newgroup message. The hierarchy
administrators had nothing to do with it, and at no time recognized the
group.
Ever use the groups at gmane?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Did ya notice which newsgroup you were in? alt.config?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 1 May 2009 08:53:15 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
It's still my opinion.
There was a comp proposal a while ago. Perhaps it should be revived,
even though the hierarchy administrators are, well, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Lionel <...@gmail.com
This is not on the Big 8 List of Canonical Newsgroups, so presumably is a dead
newsgroup.
Maybe, but that is under the control of Big 8, and I have proposed a group
there also, and their procedures for implementation are way too complicated.
You have to post in one group, receive replies in another, etc, etc. And when
I tried it, I didn't even have the required groups on my newsfeed.
I'll try emitting some control messages again, this time putting tab
characters in place of spaces.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Cygwin is nice. I ran it for awhile but then just installed linux on
an old computer I was getting ready to kick to the curb, so I'm not
sure if there's any use for it for me.
That comp.windows.cygwin group is/was in Big 8 land and it probably
got removed... don't see it here either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:22:52 +1000, Lionel <...@gmail.com
In my case, my biggest machine needs Windows to run my photography apps,
such as Photoshop, so Cygwin allows me to use most of my favourite
Linux tools on it. It's also really useful for SSHing into my linux
machines.
Does anyone know how we could verify that? Is it worth asking in
news.groups?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
I guess one good reason to use Cygwin is so you only need to have
one computer powered up. It's so embarrassing to be typing away and
then realize you're on the wrong keyboard. I think the computer
knows.
The way it works now is, you create an alt.group and then if the
Bambies like it they send out a drone and it changes the description
of the alt.group to read "Use [this bambi group] instead."
A couple examples from today's isc.org list:
alt.anything Use misc.misc instead.
alt.agriculture.misc Use sci.agriculture instead.
alt.archaeology Use sci.archaeology instead.
alt.brain Use sci.cognitive instead.
alt.comp.compression Use comp.compression instead
alt.consciousness Use sci.psychology.consciousness instead.
alt.cookies.yum.yum.yum Use rec.food.baking instead.
alt.cooking-chat Use rec.food.cooking instead.
alt.culture.egyptian Use soc.culture.egyptian instead.
alt.disney Use rec.arts.disney.misc instead.
alt.drugs Use rec.drugs.misc instead.
alt.drumcorps Use rec.arts.marching.drumcorps instead.
alt.fishing Use rec.outdoors.fishing instead.
alt.genealogy Use soc.genealogy.* instead.
alt.graphics Use comp.graphics.* instead.
alt.invest.real-estate Use misc.invest.real-estate instead.
alt.os.linux Use comp.os.linux.* instead.
alt.psychology Use sci.psychology.misc instead.
alt.stories.erotic Use rec.arts.erotica instead.
alt.windows95 Use comp.os.ms-windows.* instead.
So... ya wanna talk about anything or misc misc? These are just a
few from the long list of similar newsgroup description vandalism.
OK, well maybe I'm making too big of a deal out of this. It's not
really a conspiracy; they're just trying to make usenet a better
place for you and me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 02 May 2009 12:34:18 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
It doesn't work like that *at all.*
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Just a little sarcasm after noticing all those newsgroup description
changes. And now Peter is saying that there are no control messages
for those changes. There is only one other way to make those changes
and I don't even want to think about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 08:27:24 -0400, "dvus" <...@dvenator.com
"Kelb tal-Fenek" wrote in message news...@tioat.net...
Then perhaps it behooves someone in a position to do so to find out. I'm
assuming not everyone can edit the files at isc.org so that would narrow the
search. If someone can edit descriptions what's to say they might not feel
obligated to correct the, oh, let's say "grammar", of the charter?
If ever there was a slippery slope... (or am I misreading your implication?)
--
dvus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 13:19:11 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
Ah. OK. Even with the overused smileys, sarcasm doesn't come across
well, especially when one is a stranger and one's posting style isn't
well-known.
I trust Peter's word on that one.
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Well, to say the list is a mess would be an understatement. I guess
it could be cleaned up a little by running it through a filter but,
in the end, most of the work would need to be done manually. Anyone
who decides to do that better have plenty of time on their hands.
Personally, I think those files could use a little cleaning and I
assume this has been discussed before and dropped in fear of the
controversy it would create. The timing might be right now. I'm
looking at this like the day after some crazy party and now it's
time to scrape all the puke off the carpet and get things back to
normal. That "Eternal September" actually did have an ending.
Everything eventually does.
--
CONTROVERSY, n. A battle in which spittle or ink replaces
the injurious cannon-ball and the inconsiderate bayonet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Yes, it made its way into control.newgroup and it is archived.
wget ftp.isc.org/usenet/control/alt/alt.comp.cygwin.gz
I guess it didn't get added to the motherload list because there was
no line break after "For your newsgroups file:"
Well, you most certainly can update the newsgroup description and
moderated status. What else would need to be updated? The way I
understand it, the newsgroup charter is more or less defined by the
regulars in a particular newsgroup... unless it's bambi moderated.
It's kind of a Catch-22 deal with getting a newsgroup going; if it's
not on enough news servers in the beginning then how are you going
to get anyone to post to it. The only chance I see for this to work
is if the proponent can get enough requests going to several
different news providers and of course these requests need to be
coming from customers at the various sites to get any results. If
success or failure of a newsgroup is dependent on only one person
then my prediction is it will fail; there needs to be more than a
few interested in a topic in order for a news group to persist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 08:32:44 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
That is correct.
Certainly not. There is a very good reason for that: No responsible News
administrator would wish to encourage a flame war that turns into
retrocharter trolling. That would truly make Usenet suck if it became
common for News servers to change moderation status in response to such
abuse. We have enough trouble with servers that misset the moderation
status when the proponent didn't fuck up the initial newgroup message.
It is extremely unlikely that a News administrator would take the time
to review the entire archive. Even if he did, it's not always possible
to tell what's going on if unfamiliar with the group and the assholes
involved.
Changing the description is like a retrocharter. Every so often, some
troll thinks it's amusing to send a rmgroup message for alt.config, then
someone else sends a newgroup message. A few years back, several trolls
used to amuse themselves by changing the moderation status of this
group. I'm posting from a server that was affected by it. The News
administrator changed it back to unmoderated but left the troll-written
description in the newsgroups file (which includes a moderation flag).
It's not a Catch-22 at all. The proponent finds the Usenet audience
discussing the topic in other groups. He tries to encourage them to
change their posting habits in favor of the new group. He especially
tries to encourage users to request creation of the group if it's not
yet been created locally.
No well run News server would create an alt group automatically upon
receipt of the newgroup message. All of the good ones await user requests
before creating the group, often in managed hierarchies too.
The requests should come from users who want to post to or read the
group. Yeah, sometimes proponents convince friends with no interest in
the topic to request creation of the group, but that's not the way alt
was supposed to work. Ideally, a newsgroup is created only on servers
with users that want it.
You are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, the proponents of hundreds of
thousands of newsgroups fail to understand this most basic concept of
Usenet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 08:52:02 -0400, "dvus" <...@dvenator.com
"Adam H. Kerman" <...@news.albasani.net...
You don't think propagation to small servers that might have customers
desiring some new group would be better if their peers carried it (even if
none of their users wanted it)?
--
dvus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 19:34:18 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
dvus <...@dvenator.com
Then creation of the group on the upstream server would have to be requested,
obviously, because somebody wants it. That's the way it's supposed to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 3 May 2009 20:51:14 -0400, "dvus" <...@dvenator.com
"Adam H. Kerman" <...@news.albasani.net...
Ah, so the provider requests it from his upstream as needed. I guess that
would work.
--
dvus
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 03 May 2009 13:27:14 -0700, Brian Mailman <...@sfo.invalid
Then our work here is done. Tome to promote the group.
[...]
As Adam points out, you don't want to live in a world where that could
happen.
B/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Yes, abuse is a problem. I was thinking about the files at
[isc.org/pub/usenet] that can be changed with control messages.
Let me know if this is correct; all valid control messages will
update those files. I'm getting this from the README file there
and was trying not to say anything that would steer the proponent
wrong. The managed hierarchies are checked for pgp sigs etc., but
the alt.* hierarchy is more or less a free-for-all where the only
thing that matters is that the control message is technically valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 4 May 2009 06:38:47 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman" <...@chinet.com
In unmanaged hierarchies, the sample active and newsgroups files reflect
the commands in the most recently received newgroup message.
Rmgroup messages for groups in unmanaged hierarchies have no affect on
the sample active and newsgroups files. As you noted earlier, for a
newgroup message for a group in an unmanaged hierarchy to have an
effect, it must be in correct syntax for a newgroup message AND have a
newsgroups file line in correct syntax.
Russ's README is the syntax for the newsgroups file line.
Plus the syntax for the newsgroups file line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|