Thread: Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
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 usenet@hub.org to get added on as a direct peer ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@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 usenet@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
> > 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
Attachment
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy@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 usenet@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 | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| 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
===========================================================================
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.
Sorry, forgot to crosspost to news.groups
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:59:02 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
<gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy@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 usenet@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 | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| 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
===========================================================================
On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy@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 usenet@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 |
> ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
> |
> 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
>
>
Patrick B. Kelly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
v: 484.557.0646 http://patrickbkelly.org
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:23:19 -0500, pbk@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), scrappy@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 usenet@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 | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| 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
===========================================================================
On 23 Nov 2004 21:41:16 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>pbk@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
>BD24-000A958A3956@patrickbkelly.org:
>
>> On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy@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 usenet@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 | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| 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
===========================================================================
"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 <bwr607@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
On 23 Nov 2004 21:57:22 GMT, Woodchuck Bill <bwr607@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in
>news:co0b1q$5n5$2@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.
Posting to the group and cc'ing the list? :)
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| 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
===========================================================================
> [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. All I meant was, has core talked about it? Personally I think the fact that Marc has been as patient as he has with the whole process says a lot. I personally gave up on USENET years ago but if the community deems usenet a good idea, then so be it :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > Jim > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command > (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) -- 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
Attachment
Patrick B Kelly <pbk@patrickbkelly.org> wrote: > [snip] > > Marc appears to be the only one NOT making this situation worse. Appearances can be deceiving--particularly when you're unfamiliar with the territory. > 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, This is Mike's fault, is it? This is the fault of somebody stepping up and *trying* to DTRT? What a... fascinating POV. > and the lists have been dropped from google. And other news servers. Do you know *why* that happened? Perhaps if you followed the RFD thread in news.groups, you would. Yes, it is likely that the RFD has brought to the attention of those webmasters who weren't aware that comp.databases.postgresql.* were bogus, and so they dropped them. Any one person could have single-handedly accomplished the same thing by raising hell in the proper venues. Do you know that some major Usenet news systems never carried comp.databases.postgresql.*, in the first place, because the hierarchy was bogus? Here's another factoid for you. When a new big-8 newsgroup is approved, an "official" newsgroup creation control message is sent. Well, somebody *forged* just such a control message for one-or-more comp.databases.postgresql.* newsgroups. > 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. Hate to say it, but from where I sit it looks you have every single point you made above wrong. But I'm not going to beat up Marc about it. I'm going to assume it's unfamiliarity with the way Usenet works. > That does > not include jumping through every hoop that anyone holds up for him. I hope your attitude does not reflect that of the general pgsql community, much-less that of the core development team. It sounds very un-pgsql-like to me. > [snip] > > 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. PostgreSQL is not an island unto itself. Just as the project is bound to abide by committee decisions wrt the SQL language, *if* it wants to be (relatively?) "standard," it's obliged to do the same in being part of the greater Usenet community. That is: *If* the pgsql community wishes to be part of the larger Usenet community. (Those of you who've been on Usenet for a while can stop laughing about the "Usenet community" thing, too ;).) Jim
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 04:49:24PM -0500, Jim Seymour wrote: > > 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. Let's get this straight, what is happening here is the based on the actions and decisions of a handful of people. The "pgsql community" as a whole is not involved and I bet most of the "pgsql community" doesn't care enough about the issue to do anything one way or the other. To claim that any actions on this issue are representative of any group is silly. Some individuals are providing a service and some people are using it. End of story. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment
"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > [snip] > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. Was that absolutely necessary? Jim
Jim Seymour wrote: > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. > > > Was that absolutely necessary? Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;) > > Jim > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- 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
Attachment
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> All I meant was, has core talked about it?
There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part
of our charter IMHO.
Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether
the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just
my own $0.02. He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere.
The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not
given one cause to think it will :-(
regards, tom lane
At 05:28 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >Jim Seymour wrote: >>"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: >>[snip] >> >>>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. >> >>Was that absolutely necessary? Of course not. >Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;) My credibility isn't the issue. That yet another news server is dropping comp.databases.postgresql.* SHOULD. But you really don't care so that's fine.
At 05:43 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote: >"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: > > All I meant was, has core talked about it? > >There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part >of our charter IMHO. > >Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether >the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just >my own $0.02. He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. Which really still isn't his decision to make. He's stuffing posts to USENet without consideration for USENet. >The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not >given one cause to think it will :-( That's because the setup is broken. That's the point of all of this.
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > [snip] > > Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether > the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just > my own $0.02. That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again: *I* was looking forward to the pgsql discussions widely propagated in Usenet. Others may not care. > He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. > The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not > given one cause to think it will :-( Au contraire. It looked to me like the general attitude was "Well, some wrong stuff happened, but now that they've been around as long as they have, where they have, maybe best to just let 'em become real." Jim
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes: >> All I meant was, has core talked about it? > > There has been no private discussion among core about it; it's not part > of our charter IMHO. > > Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether > the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just > my own $0.02. He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. > The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not > given one cause to think it will :-( If the news.groups stuff does go through, there is no reason why the setup can't gate to both hierarchhies ... but, the RFD is based on only officially doing 4 of the 21 groups ... by setting up the pgsql.* hierarchy, the "bogus groups" stay off of comp.*, and the official ones can still stay ... What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.* hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible by those that wish to ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jim Seymour wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > [snip] >> >> Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether >> the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just >> my own $0.02. > > That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again: > *I* was looking forward to the pgsql discussions widely propagated in > Usenet. Others may not care. > >> He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. >> The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not >> given one cause to think it will :-( > > Au contraire. It looked to me like the general attitude was "Well, > some wrong stuff happened, but now that they've been around as long as > they have, where they have, maybe best to just let 'em become real." And I see things about half way between the two of you ... "let's make official just a few of the more active groups, and lance the rest" ... by doing th pgsql.*, it gets them all out of the Big8 and keeps them accessibl under one hierarchy for those that are reading them via news.postgresql.org, and if the 4 (or was it 5) that were deemed active enough for comp.* base the CFV, its not difficult to setup gating for those few so that posts aren't lose there either ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.*
> hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end
> up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible
> by those that wish to ...
BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that
Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they
given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just
out of luck on that service?
regards, tom lane
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 ... What exactly is this meant to achieve? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
At 05:57 PM 11/23/2004, Jim Seymour wrote: >Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >[snip] > > > > Personally I think Marc should have waited awhile longer to see whether > > the news.groups process would produce a positive vote, but that's just > > my own $0.02. > >That's the way *I* would've preferred to see it handled. Then again: >*I* was looking forward to the pgsql discussions widely propagated in >Usenet. Others may not care. > > > He may well have decided that that wasn't going anywhere. > > The part of the discussion that has reached this list certainly has not > > given one cause to think it will :-( > >Au contraire. It looked to me like the general attitude was "Well, >some wrong stuff happened, but now that they've been around as long as >they have, where they have, maybe best to just let 'em become real." That's how DataBasix was looking at it once it was discovered the groups were bogus. But it appears the best thing to do is drop them.
At 06:16 PM 11/23/2004, Tom Lane wrote: >"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > > What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.* > > hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end > > up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible > > by those that wish to ... > >BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that >Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they >given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just >out of luck on that service? You'll be _WAY_ out of luck. But that's what Marc wants. So why complain?
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: >> What I've done doesn't eliminate (or shouldn't) the desire for a comp.* >> hierarchy of groups for postgresql, it just means that the what will end >> up still being considered bogus groups will be able to still be accessible >> by those that wish to ... > > BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that > Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they > given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just > out of luck on that service? Right now, from what I've seen/read, even if the RFD/CFV goes through, google will only pick up those 4 or 5 that were approved ... from checking on Google itself, it looks like other then the Big8, they pretty much archive all the non-Big8 hierarchies ... But, if those 4-5 do end up passing, we can gate those on top of the "private hierarchy" from a propogation perspective ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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 ... > > What exactly is this meant to achieve? To clean up the comp.* hierarchy ... evcen if the 4/5 that are being RFDd right now pass, ppl are going to continue screaming that the other 15-16 should be removed as well ... this way, thos using news.postgresql.org can still get access to the whole hierarchy, while the comp.* would only carry those that are deemed "official" ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim Seymour > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ... > > > > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. > > Was that absolutely necessary? Was what necessary? (The cheap shot or the fact that he is ill informed? :) For the record, I have both mysql and postgresql installations, and postgresql, even without pgadmin iii, is far superior in MANY ways to mysql. Terry Fielder Manager Software Development and Deployment Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes terry@greatgulfhomes.com Fax: (416) 441-9085 > > Jim > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, terry@ashtonwoodshomes.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim Seymour > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ... > > > > > > > > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. > > > > Was that absolutely necessary? > >Was what necessary? (The cheap shot or the fact that he is ill informed? :) > >For the record, I have both mysql and postgresql installations, and >postgresql, even without pgadmin >iii, is far superior in MANY ways to mysql. Many, maybe. Not all and certainly not more. Of course, ihat's my OPINION and I am quite well informed about databases, thankyouverymuch. I'm also well informed about running an NSP and what kind of mess Marc is now making and that's still the subject of the thread.
>BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that >Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they >given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just >out of luck on that service? > > Just FYI, it seems that the comp.* groups are fine on Google. Just not the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
At 08:12 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>BTW, you indicated that one of the reasons pressing you to move was that >>Google had dropped indexing services for the comp.* groups. Have they >>given you an indication that they would index pgsql.*, or are we just >>out of luck on that service? >> >Just FYI, it seems that the comp.* groups are fine on Google. >Just not the comp.databases.postgresql.* groups. Because, instead of rmgrouping all of the comp groups, they did this: ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.hackers ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.questions ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.admin ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.general ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.hackers ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.cygwin ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.advocacy ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.announce ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.bugs ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.committers ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.docs ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.jdbc ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.odbc ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.novice ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.performance ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.tr.genel ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.general ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.support ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.patches ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.sql Kinda like we just did.
gburnore@databasix.com ("Gary L. Burnore") wrote in
news:6.1.1.1.2.20041123160436.03a25748@popd.databasix.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
pbk@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9- BD24-000A958A3956@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
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, terry@ashtonwoodshomes.com wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim Seymour > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM > > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. > > > > > > Was that absolutely necessary? > > > >Was what necessary? (The cheap shot or the fact that he is ill informed? :) > > > >For the record, I have both mysql and postgresql installations, and > >postgresql, even without pgadmin > >iii, is far superior in MANY ways to mysql. > > > Many, maybe. Not all and certainly not more. Of course, ihat's my OPINION > and I am quite well informed about databases, thankyouverymuch. > > I'm also well informed about running an NSP and what kind of mess Marc is > now making and that's still the subject of the thread. I really wish you would give those of us that don't run an NSP more information on this, because mostly you've said it's a mess or broken or wrong without any additional information. Maybe this seems obvious to you, but it isn't to most of the rest of us. I'm also trying to figure out which portions of what Marc is doing are at what level of badness in your opinion. I think they're broken into the following, but I may be misreading his message. Not sending mailing list posts to comp.databases.postgresql.*. Leaving the groups on his server for incoming messages only. Doing another hierarchy in order to provide groups on his own server. Asking if others wish to get that hierarchy. Possibly confusing the issue if some (but not all) of the groups were to be voted on and accepted.
scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") wrote in
news:20041123153243.W41705@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 usenet@hub.org to get added on as a
> direct peer ...
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@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.
Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in news:co0b1q$5n5$2@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
> ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.general > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.support > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.patches > ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.sql > > Kinda like we just did. Can we kill this thread now. What will happen will happen. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) wrote in news:20041123214924.341FD430E@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
pbk@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9-
BD24-000A958A3956@patrickbkelly.org:
> On Nov 23, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:37:56 -0400 (AST), scrappy@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 usenet@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
jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes: >Here's another factoid for you. When a new big-8 newsgroup is >approved, an "official" newsgroup creation control message is sent. >Well, somebody *forged* just such a control message for one-or-more >comp.databases.postgresql.* newsgroups. That was *not* done by myself, at any time ... several years back, I created the groups, opened news.postgresql.org to the public, and lt the groups go out through my feeds, but at *no point* did I send out a cmsg newgroup on the groups themselves ...
gburnore@databasix.com ("Gary L. Burnore") writes:
>At 05:28 PM 11/23/2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>Jim Seymour wrote:
>>>"Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
>>>
>>>Was that absolutely necessary?
>Of course not.
>>Yes. It shows his lack of credibility ;)
>My credibility isn't the issue. That yet another news server is dropping
>comp.databases.postgresql.* SHOULD. But you really don't care so that's fine.
That's the point ... we *NEVER* cared about other news servers carrying
them ... its never been a priority or concern ...
At 08:58 PM 11/23/2004, you wrote: >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.php >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports.general >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.ports >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.general >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.interfaces.pgadmin.support >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.patches >>ctlinnd rmgroup comp.databases.postgresql.sql >> >>Kinda like we just did. > > >Can we kill this thread now. You can do anything want. Well, no you can't. You can do anything Marc wants. > What will happen will happen. It already has. I'll tell you one thing I WON'T miss, the annoying idea of replying to the poster and the list instead of just to the list.
"\"Marc G. Fournier From\"@svr1.postgresql.org"@linxnet.com: <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > > jseymour@linxnet.com (Jim Seymour) writes: > > >Here's another factoid for you. When a new big-8 newsgroup is > >approved, an "official" newsgroup creation control message is sent. > >Well, somebody *forged* just such a control message for one-or-more > >comp.databases.postgresql.* newsgroups. > > That was *not* done by myself, at any time ... several years back, I created > the groups, opened news.postgresql.org to the public, and lt the groups go > out through my feeds, but at *no point* did I send out a cmsg newgroup on > the groups themselves ... Didn't say you did, Marc. Didn't mean to so much as imply it was you. If that's the way it came across: Please accept my apologies. Hadn't even occurred to me it might have been you. Had they been signed by you: Sure. But, tho I don't know you, somehow I can't imagine you forging approvals for bogus newsgroups. If I were a gambling man, my bet would be on somebody that wanted to see the bogus newsgroups on whatever they had for news service. I wonder if it worked? Anyway, I was just pointing-out that one-or-more forged cmsg's were sent, that the person to whom I replied might better understand just how messed-up things were. Jim
At 11:56 PM 11/23/2004, Stephan Szabo wrote: >On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > > > At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, terry@ashtonwoodshomes.com wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > > > > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim Seymour > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM > > > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. > > > > > > > > Was that absolutely necessary? > > > > > >Was what necessary? (The cheap shot or the fact that he is ill > informed? :) > > > > > >For the record, I have both mysql and postgresql installations, and > > >postgresql, even without pgadmin > > >iii, is far superior in MANY ways to mysql. > > > > > > Many, maybe. Not all and certainly not more. Of course, ihat's my OPINION > > and I am quite well informed about databases, thankyouverymuch. > > > > I'm also well informed about running an NSP and what kind of mess Marc is > > now making and that's still the subject of the thread. > >I really wish you would give those of us that don't run an NSP more >information on this, because mostly you've said it's a mess or broken or >wrong without any additional information. Maybe this seems obvious to >you, but it isn't to most of the rest of us. > >I'm also trying to figure out which portions of what Marc is doing are at >what level of badness in your opinion. I think they're broken into the >following, but I may be misreading his message. > > Not sending mailing list posts to comp.databases.postgresql.*. > Leaving the groups on his server for incoming messages only. > Doing another hierarchy in order to provide groups on his own > server. > Asking if others wish to get that hierarchy. > Possibly confusing the issue if some (but not all) of the groups were > to be voted on and accepted. It appears that his aliiasing hasn't actually taken effect yet. Once it does, apparently things will be slightly better because he's then sending posts to pgsql.* not comp.databases.postgres.* . As of a short while ago, we were still receiving articles from the list. Now they show up in our unwanted.log file as groups we refuse to carry. (The same thing google did). We've removed all of the comp.databases.postgres.* groups from our server and our feeds anyway. Do did google. So will anyone else who's still holding the bogus groups. Basically, the thing that Marc is doing that's 'bad', is unilaterally making changes that effect your list without any discussion with those who it effects either ON the list or in USENet. USENet people tried to help and got a "we don't see it as broken from our side so who cares?" attitude. So now you'll have less places passing your posts along to the next NSP. Less propigation. I know of at least two, DataBasix and Google. I'm sure there are more. Marc's choice. Maybe not yours. But as he's already shown me, who cares?
gburnore@databasix.com ("Gary L. Burnore") writes:
>At 07:47 PM 11/23/2004, terry@ashtonwoodshomes.com wrote:
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
>> > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Jim Seymour
>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:18 PM
>> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Upcoming Changes to News Server ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Gary L. Burnore" <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway.
>> >
>> > Was that absolutely necessary?
>>
>>Was what necessary? (The cheap shot or the fact that he is ill informed? :)
>>
>>For the record, I have both mysql and postgresql installations, and
>>postgresql, even without pgadmin
>>iii, is far superior in MANY ways to mysql.
>Many, maybe. Not all and certainly not more. Of course, ihat's my OPINION
>and I am quite well informed about databases, thankyouverymuch.
>I'm also well informed about running an NSP and what kind of mess Marc is
>now making and that's still the subject of the thread.
As Russ has help'd show on news.groups this evening, you have very littl
understaning of the changes that I've just made ... for someone that runs
a news server, not knowing what "newsgroup aliasing" means seems to be a
relativly key deficiency in knowledge :(
I'm not sure, (RFC2822 grammar parsing is touchy stuff) but I think this email address you posted from is messed up: "\"\\"Marc G. Fournier From\\"@svr1.postgresql.org\":" <scrappy@hub.org> That is, I think the display-name part of the address after unquoting is: "\Marc G. Fournier From \@svr1.postgresql.org": Which seems like a strange display-name and maybe not what you would have hoped for. In particular it seems to have confused Gnus enough so that it displays your messages as having come from "\". That is, just the backslash. -- greg
On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 09:07:04PM -0500, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > We've removed all of the comp.databases.postgres.* groups from our server > and our feeds anyway. Do did google. So will anyone else who's still > holding the bogus groups. > > Basically, the thing that Marc is doing that's 'bad', is unilaterally > making changes that effect your list without any discussion with those who > it effects either ON the list or in USENet. USENet people tried to help > and got a "we don't see it as broken from our side so who cares?" attitude. I thought initially too that the discussion was "we have some bogus groups here, lets just formalise them and all will be well". However, the groups are being given no repreive, they're being dropped all over the place, now. So from a purly practical point of view the right way to go is to remove all the bogus groups and create them elsewhere. After all, people still want to read them on usenet. Even after the CFV goes through, the remaining dozen groups will still be bogus and still need a place to live. Hence pgsql.* This all perfectly logical reasoning, I honestly can't understand why this is "bad". It's the only way by my understanding. As someone who left usenet five years ago, all I can see are social problems not technical ones. As for the list, it's been around for more than six years and will keep going, with or without usenet. Good day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment
On 2004-11-23, "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> 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 ... >> >> What exactly is this meant to achieve? > > To clean up the comp.* hierarchy ... evcen if the 4/5 that are being RFDd > right now pass, ppl are going to continue screaming that the other 15-16 > should be removed as well ... this way, thos using news.postgresql.org can > still get access to the whole hierarchy, while the comp.* would only carry > those that are deemed "official" Any chance of there being regular (or even only occasional) signed checkgroups messages for the new hierarchy? -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
On 2004-11-24, Marc G Fournier From : <scrappy@hub.org> wrote: > andrew+nonews@supernews.com (Andrew - Supernews) writes: >>Any chance of there being regular (or even only occasional) signed >>checkgroups messages for the new hierarchy? > > Sure, but I've never done it before, so if you can help ... ? Sure. You can reach me by email or on the irc chan. You should already have a copy of the signcontrol script itself (it's in the INN distribution). The format of a checkgroups message is simple: one line in the message body per newsgroup in this format: group.name(tabs)Description of group The description must end with " (Moderated)" (without the quotes) if it is a moderated group in the Usenet sense, and not otherwise. Conventionally the separator is enough tabs so that the description starts in column 24, but the only real requirement is that there be one or more tabs (and not any other sort of whitespace, and no tabs in the description). This is the same format as the newsgroups file in INN. For the headers, you want "Control: checkgroups", an Approved header, and a Newsgroups: header with an appropriate announcement group in (pgsql.announce should do; the message won't show up to normal readers). Checkgroups should be posted preferably after any change to the group list, and once per month or two even if there are no changes. Obviously you need an appropriate PGP or GPG key (RSA seems to be best as far as compatibility goes), which has to be published somewhere (but doesn't need to be on keyservers). Let me know if you have any questions or if you want me to verify any messages. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com - individual and corporate NNTP services
gburnore@databasix.com ("Gary L. Burnore") writes:
>It appears that his aliiasing hasn't actually taken effect yet. Once it
>does, apparently things will be slightly better because he's then sending
>posts to pgsql.* not comp.databases.postgres.* . As of a short while
>ago, we were still receiving articles from the list. Now they show up in
>our unwanted.log file as groups we refuse to carry. (The same thing google
>did).
of course, as those that know how to run a news server have already pointed
out to you on news.groups, the reason why you are receiving posts to the
comp.* groups still is most likely a result of propogation issues from other
news server, or other news servers that have users posting to those groups ...
... but, like with all your other postings, you like to avoid the facts and
deal with your own personal version of reality instead ...
>So now you'll have less places passing your posts along to the next NSP.
>Less propigation. I know of at least two, DataBasix and Google. I'm sure
>there are more.
Of course, that avoids the fact that the groups were *always* bogus but
you created them anyway, without twisting your arm, I might add ... but,
that's okay, again, that goes back to your view of reality vs the rest
of the worlds ...
See, the way I see it, you created the groups because there was traffic in
them, the same as every other site out there did that is carrying them, since
there never was a cmsg sent out to create them ...
On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > > It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm. I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly because of people with this attitude. And I don't consider it much of a loss if we lose the "message" to these people. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On 11/23/2004 4:37 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: > pbk@patrickbkelly.org (Patrick B Kelly) wrote in news:E55E257B-3D95-11D9- > BD24-000A958A3956@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? Isn't what Marc just proposed, to stop forwarding traffic into that stolen namespace, exactly the right thing? I agree with Marc. It was time to stop this nonsense debate and make decisions. However unpopular these decisions might be to the fistfull of contributors that use newsgroups, the way major members of the PostgreSQL community are treated here does IMHO more harm to the project than any single NSP carrying any of there groups is worth. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > Stay out of my email. This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing lists and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team member? Rethink your attitude. Jan > > At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote: >>On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> >>>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. >> >>This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I >>don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm. >> >>I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly >>because of people with this attitude. And I don't consider it much of a >>loss if we lose the "message" to these people. >> >> >>Jan >> >>-- >>#======================================================================# >># It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # >># Let's break this rule - forgive me. # >>#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you > once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to > both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment. > > I'm not on your list. > _I_ am posting to a USENet discussion group. Your list is broken. > > Do NOT email me again. Oh my, after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ... It seems to me that the whole RFD/CFV thing has attracted a bunch of net kooks and individuals who have nothing better to do than wasting other peoples time. Marc, can you add a kill line on the mail/news gateway so that messages from this guy (and as they pop up more of his kind) don't pollute our mailing lists and stay on the news side of it only? If not I will just add a /dev/null line for this idiot to my procmail config. Jan > > > At 10:31 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote: >>On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>>Stay out of my email. >> >>This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing lists >>and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team member? >>Rethink your attitude. >> >> >>Jan >> >>>At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote: >>>>On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>>> >>>>>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. >>>> >>>>This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. If I >>>>don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do harm. >>>> >>>>I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly >>>>because of people with this attitude. And I don't consider it much of a >>>>loss if we lose the "message" to these people. >>>> >>>> >>>>Jan >>>> >>>>-- >>>>#======================================================================# >>>># It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # >>>># Let's break this rule - forgive me. # >>>>#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # >> >> >>-- >>#======================================================================# >># It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # >># Let's break this rule - forgive me. # >>#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com # -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jan Wieck wrote: > On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > >> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you >> once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to >> both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment. >> >> I'm not on your list. >> _I_ am posting to a USENet discussion group. Your list is broken. >> >> Do NOT email me again. > > Oh my, > > after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for > "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ... > > It seems to me that the whole RFD/CFV thing has attracted a bunch of net > kooks and individuals who have nothing better to do than wasting other > peoples time. Marc, can you add a kill line on the mail/news gateway so that > messages from this guy (and as they pop up more of his kind) don't pollute > our mailing lists and stay on the news side of it only? If not I will just > add a /dev/null line for this idiot to my procmail config. Done :) And he's pretty much considered a net.kook on news.groups itself too ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
> Oh my,
> after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for
> "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ...
gburnore was known far and wide as a net.asshole when I dropped out of
Usenet, lo these many years ago. Doesn't look like he's acquired any
social skills since then :-(
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: > >>Oh my, > > >>after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for >>"Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ... > > > gburnore was known far and wide as a net.asshole when I dropped out of > Usenet, lo these many years ago. Doesn't look like he's acquired any > social skills since then :-( Just the kind of person who ruined news groups. I've not been back to them in years. Such a waste of a great resource. -- Until later, Geoffrey
On 11/30/2004 11:46 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Jan Wieck wrote: > >> On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> >>> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked you >>> once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be reported to >>> both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment. >>> >>> I'm not on your list. >>> _I_ am posting to a USENet discussion group. Your list is broken. >>> >>> Do NOT email me again. >> >> Oh my, >> >> after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google for >> "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ... >> >> It seems to me that the whole RFD/CFV thing has attracted a bunch of net >> kooks and individuals who have nothing better to do than wasting other >> peoples time. Marc, can you add a kill line on the mail/news gateway so that >> messages from this guy (and as they pop up more of his kind) don't pollute >> our mailing lists and stay on the news side of it only? If not I will just >> add a /dev/null line for this idiot to my procmail config. > > Done :) Thanks! > > And he's pretty much considered a net.kook on news.groups itself too ... That, etc. and so on ... ranges from spamming to criminal charges for molesting. The only good thing I found about him is that he can serve as a bad example. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
JanWieck@Yahoo.com (Jan Wieck) wrote in news:41AD4538.5080205@Yahoo.com: > On 11/30/2004 2:37 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: > >> Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't care WHO you are. I've already asked >> you once to stay out of my email. Further emails from you will be >> reported to both Yahoo and Comcast as harassment. >> >> I'm not on your list. >> _I_ am posting to a USENet discussion group. Your list is broken. >> >> Do NOT email me again. > > Oh my, > > after reading this he really caught my attention. You have to google > for "Gary Burnore" a little. This guy has a record ... > > It seems to me that the whole RFD/CFV thing has attracted a bunch of > net kooks and individuals who have nothing better to do than wasting > other peoples time. Marc, can you add a kill line on the mail/news > gateway so that messages from this guy (and as they pop up more of his > kind) don't pollute our mailing lists and stay on the news side of it > only? If not I will just add a /dev/null line for this idiot to my > procmail config. > > > Jan > Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He is accustomed to his way. Perhaps a bit overstated, his point is that if one or more comp.databases.postgresql.* Big Eight newsgroups are created, and they are gated to these mailing lists, it would open the doors for potentially many more participants from the Usenet side. Some of these participants will be just as confused and annoyed about why they are receiving so many e-mails after they post to Usenet. New posters will probably not even know that the groups were gated to the lists, so they expect unmoderated responses to Usenet, not messages from people they don't know, or messages from a moderator's auto-robot. This is a difficult situation, and it does not look like a balance to satisfy both sides is anywhere in sight. That is probably why the proponent (Mike Cox) decided that it was best to create a new comp.* group with a new, simpler name, with no gating to any of the lists. There has been a great deal of emotional "spirit" involved in this proposal. I apologize if I personally offended anyone, but there were some things that needed to be said. Now that the smoke is clearing, look at the benefits of what has happened so far. PostgreSQL has its own dedicated, ISC-recognized hierarchy. Some of the biggest NSPs in the world are carrying (or soon-to-be carrying) all the groups in the hierarchy..Supernews, Altopia, Newsreader.com, Newsfeeds, Usenetserver.com are currently carrying all 29 groups. Individual.net and Google Groups have confirmed that they will be adding them within several weeks (I put in both requests myself, and they replied). Even Gary Burnore has agreed to add the groups to his spool, at the request of one of his customers. There is already enough peering and propagation for the groups so that anyone could make a simple request from their news provider to carry the groups, and those requests are usually honored if the hierarchy is recognized and the groups are well-propagated. The ungated comp.* group is icing on the cake. It will not hurt Pgsql if it passes, it will compliment it..another resource for a top-notch work of software. If you are worried about brain-drain (good people leaving the lists for the comp.* group), then you have nothing to worry about. Everything seems to be working out for the best, even as ugly as the situation has appeared at times. >> >> At 10:31 AM 11/30/2004, you wrote: >>>On 11/29/2004 11:53 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>>>Stay out of my email. >>> >>>This ia a PostgreSQL related topic discussed on PostgreSQL mailing >>>lists and you react like this to a mail from a PostgreSQL CORE team >>>member? Rethink your attitude. >>> >>> >>>Jan >>> >>>>At 11:50 PM 11/29/2004, you wrote: >>>>>On 11/23/2004 4:46 PM, Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>It's ok. Mysql's better anyway. >>>>> >>>>>This is the attitude I've seen from many of the pro-usenet people. >>>>>If I don't get it my way I will bash your project and try to do >>>>>harm. >>>>> >>>>>I am too one of those who have left usenet many years ago. Partly >>>>>because of people with this attitude. And I don't consider it much >>>>>of a loss if we lose the "message" to these people. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Jan >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>#=================================================================== >>>>>===# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for >>>>>being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. >>>>> # >>>>>#================================================== >>>>>JanWieck@Yahoo.com # >>> >>> >>>-- >>>#===================================================================== >>>=# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being >>>right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. >>> # #================================================== >>>JanWieck@Yahoo.com # > >
On 12/1/2004 1:25 PM, Woodchuck Bill wrote: > Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his > perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on > Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He > is accustomed to his way. Perhaps a bit overstated, his point is that if > [...] Do I really have to try to understand things from his perspective? Please realize that nearly all of the long standing developers, key community members and active supporters of the PostgreSQL project have usenet experience. People like Gary are one of the reasons why we prefer using mailing lists to do our communication today, and it has served us well over several years. The short survey among these people (who are the ones answering the vast majority of questions on our lists) showed that basically none of us would consider using news instead of these mailing lists. We have also developed the habit to use group-reply to all header addresses since many of us (due to the high email volume) use some kind of email sorting and filtering programs (like procmail) to not find all list email in our inbox, but to find emails that are in reply to our own messages there, or in special folders. And there you have the real problem and incompatibility. The PostgreSQL developers and experts are all on the mailing lists, and they will stay there and most probably continue to use group reply most of the time. That means that as long as postings to the newsgroups are gated to the lists, the people asking questions on the newsgroups will find email answers in their inbox, and if we stop gating from news to lists they will get very few answers from the experts because we don't even see the questions. I don't know if some "I guess ..." from another newbie is as helpfull as an answer from Tom Lane backed by code knowledge, but that is what most answers on the news side without gating would probably look like. Gary threatened to report any further email from me as harassment to abuse@yahoo and abuse@comcast. The IMHO correct measurement to that was to add a kill line to the news->list gateway that just stops his postings to get into my (or anybody elses) way. The kill line got added and nobody on the mailing lists will see his postings any more. Fortunately most people involved in PostgreSQL are very level headed, have a high level of tolerance and usually real world problems. The newsgroup stirrup that dragged all the net.kook attention will calm down and Gary will find another "field of work" pretty soon. The people posting questions via news will learn that and why they get the real answers via email to their inbox. And they will care as little about it as they did so far, because the DBA who has a production database at halt in the middle of the night really doesn't care how the answer that gets his server going again arrived, he is stressed, overworked and has way bigger fish to fry than "an email response to a news posting isn't correct, your lists are broken, yadda, yadda". He does the happydance for getting an answer in 2 hours without dialing through 3 hotline levels. So to answer my own question: No, I don't have to try to understand things from his perspective. Gary Burnore is irrelevant, will disappear very soon and we will just continue to go about our business, help real people with real database related problems. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Hi All!
How could I select another database without new connection?
For example, in PHP+MySQL we have mysql_select_db('database_name');
Thanx
On 12/2/2004 4:39 AM, ON.KG wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> How could I select another database without new connection?
>
> For example, in PHP+MySQL we have mysql_select_db('database_name');
You can't. An existing session cannot change the database connected to.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:25:53PM +0000, Woodchuck Bill wrote:
>
> Jan, Gary may be blunt at times, but try to understand things from his
> perspective. He is posting to Usenet. He expects his replies to appear on
> Usenet. You are accustomed to your way of writing and reading messages. He
> is accustomed to his way. Perhaps a bit overstated, his point is that if
> one or more comp.databases.postgresql.* Big Eight newsgroups are created,
> and they are gated to these mailing lists, it would open the doors for
> potentially many more participants from the Usenet side. Some of these
> participants will be just as confused and annoyed about why they are
> receiving so many e-mails after they post to Usenet. New posters will
> probably not even know that the groups were gated to the lists, so they
> expect unmoderated responses to Usenet, not messages from people they don't
> know, or messages from a moderator's auto-robot.
>
FWIW mutt (the MUA) has both a mailing list and a newsgroup, there is
no passing of messages from one to the other at all. There are quite
a few people (me included) who frequent both the newsgroup and the
mailing list. It all seems to work quite well.
In the case of mutt the mailing list tends to get the more specialised
mutt related discussion whereas the newsgroup gets more beginners and
general questions.
--
Chris Green (chris@areti.co.uk)
"Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."
Thanx
JW> On 12/2/2004 4:39 AM, ON.KG wrote:
>> Hi All!
>>
>> How could I select another database without new connection?
>>
>> For example, in PHP+MySQL we have mysql_select_db('database_name');
JW> You can't. An existing session cannot change the database connected to.
JW> Jan