By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,192 Members | 1,248 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,192 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Upcoming Changes to News Server ...

P: n/a

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 ...

In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to
carry these groups to email us****@hub.org to get added on as a direct
peer ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
18 Replies


P: n/a
"Marc G. Fournier" <sc*****@postgresql.org> 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 ...

In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to
carry these groups to email us****@hub.org to get added on as a direct
peer ...


Mark,

No offense intended, but you already made one mistake by gating these
mailing lists into the big-8 hierarchy, then allowing them to be
propagated off whatever newserver to which that was done, into the
general newsfeed, w/o going through the big-8 newsgroup creation
process.

Now somebody's trying to fix that by going through the process to
legitimize comp.databases.postgresql.*, there is an RFD posted, and
you're going to up and create pgsql.*?

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?

Jim

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Nov 23 '05 #2

P: n/a

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? These news server
changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined. Perhaps this should
be taken up as a whole?

Did core at least vote on this?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


Jim

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of PostgreSQL Replication, and plPHP.
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to ma*******@postgresql.org)

Nov 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), sc*****@postgresql.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.

In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing to
carry these groups to email us****@hub.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?
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
DataBasix | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ۳
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

Nov 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
At 03:44 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
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? These news server
changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined. Perhaps this should
be taken up as a whole?


Setting this up outside of the comp. groups tells everyone you want to be
more like microsoft.* and less like major databases. Moreover, it means
less propagation since not all servers will carry them.

So much for working out the problems.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postgresql.org

Nov 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
sc*****@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20*******************@ganymede.hub.org:

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 ...

In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing
to carry these groups to email us****@hub.org to get added on as a
direct peer ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
(http://www.hub.org) Email: sc*****@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy
ICQ: 7615664


You can't have it both ways, Marc. If you are starting your own hierarchy,
fine, but you still insist on keeping them in comp.* too? You obviously
have zero respect for all of the people that have been involved in this
RFD. Drop the comp.* names entirely unless each individual group passes a
CFV. If not, your new pgsql.* hierarchy will be just as bogus as the
current groups, and don't expect Google to pick them up either.
Nov 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
gb******@databasix.com ("Gary L. Burnore") wrote in
news:6.*******************************@popd.databa six.com:
At 03:44 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
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? These news
server changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined. Perhaps this
should be taken up as a whole?


Setting this up outside of the comp. groups tells everyone you want to
be more like microsoft.* and less like major databases. Moreover, it
means less propagation since not all servers will carry them.


And if he plans on having *2* newsgroups for each list (one in comp.* and
one in pgsql.*) then the credibility of his hierarchy will go further down
the drain.
So much for working out the problems.


No further comment.

--
Bill
Nov 23 '05 #7

P: n/a

On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), sc*****@postgresql.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 us****@hub.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.



--
gburnore@databasix dot com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
How you look depends on where you go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Gary L. Burnore |
۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
|
۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
DataBasix |
۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9
۳
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

Patrick B. Kelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
v: 484.557.0646 http://patrickbkelly.org

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Nov 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
pb*@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
BD***************@patrickbkelly.org:
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.


The lists were dropped from Google because the newsgroups are using
unauthorized (*stolen*) comp.* namespace. The groups were created by
identity theft and criminal e-mail forgery of the comp.* hierarchy manager
at the time. Did you know that?

Marc can use this as an opportunity to start fresh, but now he wants to
have 2 newsgroups for each list? And you say that he is making things
better?

--

Bill
Nov 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
pb*@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
BD***************@patrickbkelly.org:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), sc*****@postgresql.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 us****@hub.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.

--

Bill
Nov 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:23:19 -0500, pb*@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B
Kelly) wrote:

On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), sc*****@postgresql.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.


Yes, let's do.
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.
The latter is because NSPs are cleaning up bogus groups, not because
of attempts to correct the problem.

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.
No, it wasn't and no, he hasn't. Not in the least. In fact, just the
opposite.
That does not include jumping through every hoop that anyone holds up for him.


Every hoop? Making the groups valid in USENet may be a hoop, but it's
only one. He hasn't even attempted to walk NEAR the hoop, let alone
jump through it.

It's becomming clear that the best thing to do is simply drop the
groups, just as google has done. You'll be relegated to only a few
servers. If that's what you want, why not just drop the newsfeed all
together? Save everyone the trouble.

In order to improve propogation, as always, we welcome anyone wishing
to
carry these groups to email us****@hub.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.


So ensuring that postgres shows up on LESS NSP servers than it does
now is a good thing? Making sure that people CAN'T discuss postgres
in the same way they discuss Oracle, Informix, Sybase and others is
advocating the best interests of the postgres community? Alienating
the very server operators who would carry said groups is fine with
you?

Amazing. Simply amazing.
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
DataBasix | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ۳
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
================================================== =========================

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Nov 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
On 23 Nov 2004 21:41:16 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bw****@hotmail.com>
wrote:
pb*@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
BD***************@patrickbkelly.org:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), sc*****@postgresql.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 us****@hub.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.


And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and
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 | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
DataBasix | ۳ݳ޳ݳۺݳ޳ݳݳ޳ݳ۳
| ۳ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ۳
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

Nov 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
[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?


The current RFD thread is still active. (In news.groups, anyway.)
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.
These news server
changes seem to be fairly arbitrary and one lined.
I'm going to *guess* the idea came from this comment:

| 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 <bw****@hotmail.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.

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.)
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 ma*******@postgresql.org)

Nov 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Gary L. Burnore <gb******@databasix.com> wrote in
news:co**********@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
And not helping postgres since less NSP's will carry the groups and
the postgres message.

It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.


Gary, why do your posts show up twice in postgresql.general? Different
message IDs for each of the dupes.

--
Bill
Nov 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
js******@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote in
news:20**********************@jimsun.linxnet.com:
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.)


It might take a long time for a new hierarchy to become universally
accepted and well propagated, but it is marginally better than having rogue
groups in unauthorized namespace the way it is now.

--

Bill
Nov 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
Woodchuck Bill <bw****@hotmail.com> wrote:
The lists were dropped from Google because the newsgroups are using
unauthorized (*stolen*) comp.* namespace. The groups were created by
identity theft and criminal e-mail forgery of the comp.* hierarchy manager
at the time. Did you know that?


Stolen from whom? What does it mean to "own" the big8 namespace?

-Mike
Nov 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.


So, after all your posturing, you weren't really sympathetic to PostgreSQL
anyway? With friends like you who needs enemies?
--
--
GreyGeek
Nov 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
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 us****@hub.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
Nov 23 '05 #18

P: n/a
I concur with geekboy. Mailing lists are a contrivance. The
*proper* way to have group discussions is via usenet. This
software is languishing because folks do not have a centralized,
well-staffed source of information.

--RY

geekboy <ge*****@futureconsortium.com> writes:
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 us****@hub.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 %
%%%% <ya***@ieee.org> % 'Eldorado Overture', *Eldorado*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Nov 23 '05 #19

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.