Release the source code!

I think you should make certain aspects of Windows open-source such as
non-critical parts and let people submit improved source for incorporating
into Windows. You should also release the kernel, enough for improving but
not enough for using.

This is a public user group that resides on a microsoft server.

This is a public user group that resides on a microsoft server. You
are not communicating with anybody from Microsoft.

People from read these messages.

People from Microsoft read these messages. If nothing else, a moderator
reads them and if someone says something that the moderators do not like, the
message gets deleted. But I'd be surprised if anything here made it up the
food chain to anything remotely resembling mangement.

And Microsoft will never release source code for any old version of Windows,
at least not something still being widely used. There was a lot of pressure
to release Win98 source code, as a lot of people were interested in taking
it and working with and maybe even making it into something usefull and
stable. Microsoft most definitely does not want that happening, and they
ignored all such requests. Likewise Win2000. They do not want hacked versions
of Win2000 circulating in the wild.

I sincerely doubt that.

I sincerely doubt that. Just because a few vain individuals have "letters"
after their names does not mean squat They're just desparately trying to gain
some credibilty. M$ is too busy trying to foist their "latest and greatest"
piece of crap down the public's ignorant throat so that they, M$, can keep
that ol' revenue stream flowing.


Bzzzzzzzt ... wrong again. m.p.w.g. is an un-moderated Usenet newsgroup.

"You"? or "They"?

Open-source is what inspires confidence and utility. Closed-source is what
idiots buy who cannot do their own thinking and want to pay Billy-Boy to do
it for them.

M$ is the McDonald's of the computing world. Sure, there are "billions and
billions" served (and raked in), but that does not mean that it is good
computing food, or good for you.

Don't know anything about Usenet, do ya?

Don't know anything about Usenet, do ya?

I have used the msnews servers for years, and I, as well as anyone else

I have used the msnews servers for years, and I, as well as anyone else that
has been around here for a while, can attest to how these are indeed
moderated. Try posting something extreme anti Microsoft, and see how long it
stays on the server. If you use some other news server that carries these
newsgroups, you will not see the moderation as MS can only remove the messages
from their own news server. For example, if you read this group via
giganews, you see all the messages including the ones that MS removed. If
you view the same newsgroup using msnews, you will not see the removed
messages. I ticked off the moderator myself a months or so ago, and they
removed several of my messages. Load the ng from giganews, there are my
messages. Load it via msnews, they were gone.

Try it and see...

In a way he is right. It is a public newsgroup hosted onmsnews.microsoft.com.

In a way he is right. It is a public newsgroup hosted on
msnews.microsoft.com. Other usenet servers, such as giganews also echo the
messages and in fact as I mentioned in another post, when MS censors
messages from msnews.microsoft.com, you still see them if you use different
servers (such as giganews) to read the group. I have noticed that spam and a
few of my own ms-critical
messages vanish from msnews pretty quickly, hence my belief that MS does
indeed police their own servers.

This is not "msnews", it is Usenet. m.p.w.g. is not a moderated Usenetnewsgroup.

This is not "msnews", it is Usenet. m.p.w.g. is not a moderated Usenet
newsgroup.

You obviously do not know squat about Usenet either ...

You obviously do not know squat about Usenet either ... spend some time at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet and educate yourself .

I have been posting to several Usenet newsgroups since 1988.

Greg Russell wrote:Ever heard of Fidonet?

Ever heard of Fidonet?

Greg Russell wrote:Those "vain individuals" actually contribute (a lot) around

Those "vain individuals" actually contribute (a lot) around here and are
very much appreciated by most of us here. Unlike some who've popped up
lately to sit on the sidelines and heckle.

This newsgroup is hosted on several servers, including msnews.microsoft.com.

This newsgroup is hosted on several servers, including msnews.microsoft.com.
Usenet servers choose the groups they will host, which is why, for example,
msnews does not have tens of thousands of newsgroups to choose from. People
seem to think that usenet messages exist in some ethereal cyber space, when
in fact they get propagated to various servers where they remain until
deleted for whatever reason (retention, etc.). The messages you can see are
only the ones on the particular server you are using. If the server you are
using does not have the message, you do not see it, even if other servers do
have it. Maybe you also need to spend some time educating yourself...

This is the newsgroup microsoft.public.win2000.

This is the newsgroup microsoft.public.win2000.general, and this message was
posted via msnews.microsoft.com. I could have used other servers if I wanted
to, but I went to msnews to post this particular message. When I posted this
message, it was physically stored on the MS servers as well as propagated to
other usnet servers where it was likewise physically stored. From that point
on if someone wants to read the message, they connect to the server of their
choice and the message is retrieved from that server. Eventually, the server
will delete this message, usually because they have retention limits and
this message will fall below that limit.

I claim that Microsoft polices the messages on their servers. The best proof
of that is how spam and other offensive messages are quickly removed *and*
is why if you use msnews.microsoft.com you do not see these messages, but if
you use giganews or other servers you *will* see them. Moderation may not be
the technically correct term that describes this process since the messages
are removed after the fact, but the end result is that Microsoft will remove
offensive messages from their own servers. I eagerly wait for someone to
prove me wrong, at which point I will be the first to admit that I was
wrong.

"Greg Russell"Hahaha - that was a pretty apt comparison :-) Well said.

Hahaha - that was a pretty apt comparison :-) Well said.

proofifbemessagesremoveJust get a decent Usenet server that does not censor

proof
if
be
messages
remove

Just get a decent Usenet server that does not censor posts.

Spam is one thing; removing posts because they do not approve of the hosting
entity is suppresion of free speech.