 | |
Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
comp.databases.postgresql.general comp.databases.postgresql.general
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Upcoming Changes to News Server ... -
11-23-2004
, 03:41 PM
|
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy (AT) postgresql (DOT) org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote: Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to* comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... So you're basically going to make it worse than it already was and to hell with everyone who was working to correct it, right? We'll surely block propigation with that setup. Marc appears to be the only one NOT making this situation worse. Let's review. Since Mike Cox's unsolicited attempt to "fix" a problems that he perceived, what has happened? The list has been deluged with countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we have been bombarded with profanity, and the lists have been dropped from google. This seems like it was a fool's errand from the beginning and Marc has done nothing but try to cooperate to the extent reasonable. That does not include jumping through every hoop that anyone holds up for him. In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email usenet (AT) hub (DOT) org to get added on as a direct peer ... You're still trying to shove your list up USENet's ass instead of doing it the proper way. Why is that? I will not speak for Marc but say that as a member of the mailing list, I think he does an excellent job of advocating the best interests of the postgres community and I support his decisions. You can make any accusations you like but we know what a good job Marc does and appreciate Marc's efforts on our behalf. |
over the Usenet community.
--
Bill
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
pbk (AT) patrickbkelly (DOT) org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9- BD24-000A958A3956 (AT) patrickbkelly (DOT) org: On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy (AT) postgresql (DOT) org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote: Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to* comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... So you're basically going to make it worse than it already was and to hell with everyone who was working to correct it, right? We'll surely block propigation with that setup. Marc appears to be the only one NOT making this situation worse. Let's review. Since Mike Cox's unsolicited attempt to "fix" a problems that he perceived, what has happened? The list has been deluged with countless angry process oriented messages filled with vitriol and devoid of any content regarding the purpose of this forum, we have been bombarded with profanity, and the lists have been dropped from google. This seems like it was a fool's errand from the beginning and Marc has done nothing but try to cooperate to the extent reasonable. That does not include jumping through every hoop that anyone holds up for him. In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email usenet (AT) hub (DOT) org to get added on as a direct peer ... You're still trying to shove your list up USENet's ass instead of doing it the proper way. Why is that? I will not speak for Marc but say that as a member of the mailing list, I think he does an excellent job of advocating the best interests of the postgres community and I support his decisions. You can make any accusations you like but we know what a good job Marc does and appreciate Marc's efforts on our behalf. By helping the postgres community in the way you describe, he is screwing over the Usenet community. |
the postgres message.
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Quote:
|
ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase |
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
================================================== =========================
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
#13
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
[I had written] Did you warn the proponent of comp.databases.postgresql.* that you were going to do this? Did you read any of the arguments for and against a completely separate hierarchy that were posted to the RFD thread in news.groups? Interesting point. What did come of all the arguments? |
This is how the big-8 newsgroup creation process usually works. New
RFDs are posted, and discussion ensues, until it's decided it's time
for a vote or the proponent(s) drop the idea. This can take some
time.
Quote:
|
These news server changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined. |
Quote:
|
Subject: Re: RFD: comp.databases.postgresql.* Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.databases.postgresql.general Date: 23 Nov 2004 11:50:42 GMT Organization: Beaver Dam From: Woodchuck Bill <bwr607 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com [snip] If they were to start their own hierarchy postgresql.*, they could keep all 21 of the groups, all of the groups would be available upon request to news servers around the world, Google would pick them up again in a heartbeat, they would not need to pass a vote, and PostgreSQL would have even more prestige by having a dedicated net news hierarchy. [snip] Something to think about, Marc. |
about "would have even more prestige." Really? My news server at work
doesn't carry such newsgroups at all. Which is pretty much the point
somebody else made to a similar suggestion. (I.e.: Propagation might
be poor.)
Quote:
|
Perhaps this should be taken up as a whole? [snip] |
I'm not clear on what exactly "as a whole" means, but I would suggest
that arbitrary and peremptory behaviour, perceived or real, is not
likely to endear the pgsql community to Usenet newsmasters.
Jim
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo (AT) postgresql (DOT) org)
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and the postgres message. It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. |
message IDs for each of the dupes.
--
Bill
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
The key words there being "think about," IMO. For example, the part about "would have even more prestige." Really? My news server at work doesn't carry such newsgroups at all. Which is pretty much the point somebody else made to a similar suggestion. (I.e.: Propagation might be poor.) |
accepted and well propagated, but it is marginally better than having rogue
groups in unauthorized namespace the way it is now.
--
Bill
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. |
anyway? With friends like you who needs enemies?
--
--
GreyGeek
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... |
everyone?' i guess i'm not everyone. i begged my news
provider to carry the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups,
they complied, and now i find out that they are rogue?
this is just one more reason for people to avoid what
is otherwise a wonderful database. without a legitimate
newsgroup that is widely propagated, those that prefer
the efficiency of newsgroups to mailing lists are out
in the cold.
Quote:
|
over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to* comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email usenet (AT) hub (DOT) org to get added on as a direct peer ... if you want to 'improve propagation', you will go through, |
process. apparently this should have been done a long time
ago. i'm new on the scene, and had no idea.
however, a healthy, legitimate newsgroup should be considered
a necessary part of establishing the legitimacy of postgresql
as a database. come on: *filemaker* has a newsgroup in the
comp.databases heirarchy. how pathetic.
i love postgres, but this is extremely frustrating. is this
going to be the last word on this subject?
geekboy
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Marc G. Fournier wrote: Due to recent action by Google concerning the comp.databases.postgresql.* hierarchy, we are going to make some changes that should satisfy just about everyone ... how the @#$% is this supposed to satisfy 'just about everyone?' i guess i'm not everyone. i begged my news provider to carry the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups, they complied, and now i find out that they are rogue? this is just one more reason for people to avoid what is otherwise a wonderful database. without a legitimate newsgroup that is widely propagated, those that prefer the efficiency of newsgroups to mailing lists are out in the cold. over the next 24hrs or so, traffic *to* comp.databases.postgresql.* from the mailing lists will cease and be re-routed to pgsql.* instead ... on our server (and we encourage others to do the same), the comp.* groups will be aliased to the new pgsql.* hierarchy, so that posts to the old groups will still get through ... In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to carry these groups to email usenet (AT) hub (DOT) org to get added on as a direct peer ... if you want to 'improve propagation', you will go through, or assist others in going through, the big-8 group creation process. apparently this should have been done a long time ago. i'm new on the scene, and had no idea. however, a healthy, legitimate newsgroup should be considered a necessary part of establishing the legitimacy of postgresql as a database. come on: *filemaker* has a newsgroup in the comp.databases heirarchy. how pathetic. i love postgres, but this is extremely frustrating. is this going to be the last word on this subject? geekboy |
% Randy Yates % "The dreamer, the unwoken fool -
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % in dreams, no pain will kiss the brow..."
%%% 919-577-9882 %
%%%% <yates (AT) ieee (DOT) org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.