Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

#3. For quite a few years now, Microsoft has been running a number of news
servers with the address msnews.microsoft.com. On those servers, there are a
number of NNTP newsgroups with a high level of microsoft.public.*.

Microsoft also has a web interface to interact with those newsgroups. In
actual fact, the web interface is a relatively new thing: for years,
Microsoft simply had the news servers and you had to use a news reader to
interact with the forums.

They're turning off the servers, and shutting down their web interface.

However, since they're NNTP newsgroups, they're propagated to hundreds of
other servers, and it's extremely doubtful that those other servers are
going away.

So as long as you have a newsgroup reader and the ability to log onto one of
the many other servers that carry the groups, they're not really going away.

The issue is that since Microsoft is making it so much harder, we expect the
volume of posts to decrease significantly.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://www.AccessMVP.com/DJSteele
Co-author: Access 2010 Solutions, published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)

"Fred" wrote in message
...
I think that I am confused on what "newsgroup" means with regard to the
termination notices. Could somebody enlighten me? As far as I
understand
it, there are two definitions of "newsgroups" at work he

1. The Microsoft name for the question and answer area which is nicely
organized with a section for Access, and functionally defined subsections.

2. A technical way of accessing #1 (which I don't understand) which
involves a method other than the Microsoft web interface.

Are they shutting down #1, #2 or both?

So I can continue using http://groups.google.com to correct your
misinformation?





On Jun 2, 6:22*am, "Douglas J. Steele"
wrote:
#3. For quite a few years now, Microsoft has been running a number of news
servers with the address msnews.microsoft.com. On those servers, there are a
number of NNTP newsgroups with a high level of microsoft.public.*.

Microsoft also has a web interface to interact with those newsgroups. In
actual fact, the web interface is a relatively new thing: for years,
Microsoft simply had the news servers and you had to use a news reader to
interact with the forums.

They're turning off the servers, and shutting down their web interface.

However, since they're NNTP newsgroups, they're propagated to hundreds of
other servers, and it's extremely doubtful that those other servers are
going away.

So as long as you have a newsgroup reader and the ability to log onto one of
the many other servers that carry the groups, they're not really going away.

The issue is that since Microsoft is making it so much harder, we expect the
volume of posts to decrease significantly.

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVPhttp://www.AccessMVP.com/DJSteele
Co-author: Access 2010 Solutions, published by Wiley
(no e-mails, please!)

"Fred" wrote in message

...

I think that I am confused on what "newsgroup" means with regard to the
termination notices. *Could somebody enlighten me? * As far as I
understand
it, there are two definitions of "newsgroups" at work he

1. *The Microsoft *name for the question and answer area which is nicely
organized with a section for Access, and functionally defined subsections.

2. *A *technical way of accessing #1 (which I don't understand) which
involves a method other than the Microsoft web interface.

Are they shutting down #1, #2 or both?

No, Aaron. You really are not able to correct misinformation, other than
your own, of course.

But even that would assume you know the difference, the probability of which
seems to run less than 50% .

George

"a a r o n _ k e m p f" wrote in message
...
So I can continue using http://groups.google.com to correct your
misinformation?

Doug,

Thanks for the information.

"Bill" wrote in
m:


"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
36.100...
=?Utf-8?B?RnJlZA==?= wrote in
:

The experts have been focusing on the technical aspects (news
group vs web interface) but I think that what's more key is an
Access-focused forum/newsgroup, with some subdivisions, and
knowing that most people that are asking a question will need a
web site / web interface.

I vote for a single newsgroup with no subdivisions at all.

No,

No to what? No I didn't vote? Or you disagree? If so, say that you
have a different opinion, rather than implying that mine is wrong.

"Access", "Forms", "Formscoding" and "Reports" are the four
sub-divisions that have served us well. And, as Bob posted, there
are many NNTP servers out there, that as far as I've been able to
determine, have no intention of dropping the Microsoft.Public.*
newsgroups.

I disagree that the subdivision has "served us well."

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

=?Utf-8?B?RnJlZA==?= wrote in
:

I think that I am confused on what "newsgroup" means with regard
to the termination notices.

Microsoft has been using an open technology, NNTP, over which it has
no control, to distribute its content beyond its own news server.
Read the Wikipedia articles on Usenet and NNTP to understand just
how foolish it is of MS to think they can close down the
microsoft.public newsgroups just by closing their own news server.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

"GP George" wrote

No, Aaron. You really are not able to correct
misinformation, other than your own, of course.

But even that would assume you know the
difference, the probability of which
seems to run less than 50% .

George

By George, George, I believe you have him pegged! It is getting wearisome
that some one of us has to correct Mr. Kempf's claims and misinformation
every time he posts.

What I meant by "No" was simply that I didn't agree with
having a single NG that covered all aspects Access
development. I have found it meaningful to categorize the
NG threads with some specific focus.
Bill




"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
36.92...
"Bill" wrote in
m:


"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
36.100...
=?Utf-8?B?RnJlZA==?= wrote in
:

The experts have been focusing on the technical aspects (news
group vs web interface) but I think that what's more key is an
Access-focused forum/newsgroup, with some subdivisions, and
knowing that most people that are asking a question will need a
web site / web interface.

I vote for a single newsgroup with no subdivisions at all.

No,

No to what? No I didn't vote? Or you disagree? If so, say that you
have a different opinion, rather than implying that mine is wrong.

"Access", "Forms", "Formscoding" and "Reports" are the four
sub-divisions that have served us well. And, as Bob posted, there
are many NNTP servers out there, that as far as I've been able to
determine, have no intention of dropping the Microsoft.Public.*
newsgroups.

I disagree that the subdivision has "served us well."

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

I'm afraid that my initial proposal/question was confusing, particularly due
to my lack of understanding of the technology side of newsgroups.

By "single" I didn't mean eliminate categories. I meant a single "place"
for people to go. I consider the current structure here to be idea.

Given that 90% of mere mortals (myself included) don't use or know how to
use newsgroup technology, I think that any viable replacement will need to
be a web site or accessible via a web site, Any ideas before we "go dark?"

Have a look at the general characteristics of NNTP servers as
described within Usenet, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet).

Those of us that DO NOT use web-based forums rely on
the availability of Microsoft.Public.Access.* NG's being peered
across the many NNTP servers around the globe.

Bill


"Fred" wrote in message
news
I'm afraid that my initial proposal/question was confusing, particularly
due
to my lack of understanding of the technology side of newsgroups.

By "single" I didn't mean eliminate categories. I meant a single "place"
for people to go. I consider the current structure here to be idea.

Given that 90% of mere mortals (myself included) don't use or know how to
use newsgroup technology, I think that any viable replacement will need
to
be a web site or accessible via a web site, Any ideas before we "go
dark?"