Re: (OT) And, In Conclusion -- Why here?

SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Rob Kelk wrote:
This is not a "board". This is a "group". There are underlying
technical differences. (For example, a board can only be accessed
from one particular server, while a group is distributed and
mirrored amongst dozens of publicly-accessable servers.)

We run a forum for one of our clients that is very (very) public,
mirrored over 20 servers and 10 countries.

Can anyone mirror one of those servers to get all postings from
there, and are postings sent to that additional mirror distributed
back to the other servers? No? Then why do you think you have a
point?

*shrug* the point is, don't get caught up on definitions. All of these
lines are blurred these day.

They become blurred because people insist on using improper terms.

When they reply, they reply to the forum. It doesn't get mirrored back
to usenet.

I wasn't talking about mirroring something back to Usenet. I was talking
how a forum on a clustered web-server compares to Usenet. And clearly it
doesn't. At all.

There's that hot button again... This isn't a "forum", either.

Yes it is. Look up forum in the dictionary.

This is the electronic world. Sometimes things have a more specific
meaning here than they do elsewhere. Get used to it.

I am hon. I've been working on the WWW since it started.

I haven't. Yet I seem to know more about it than people who have been
working with it a lot longer than me. Kinda sad, actually.

this group is visible via Google Groups... which is on the WWW.

So? The existence of gateways (and archives) on the web does not
cancel out the fundamental differences between (web-)forums and
newsgroups.

True (from a technical point of view), but most people aren't actually
that technical. While we can argue over the differences between the
technical terms, in regards of people actually using it they get to
call it whatever they think it is. Even if that is technically
incorrect.

Which in turn leads to the blurred lines you were talking about above.
Which is less than desirable.

So why not encourage people to use correct terms instead of wrong ones?

I'm going to watch a nice MPEG4 stream in the living room tonight. (Oh
you mean TV?).

The term "TV" has a broader meaning than the term "video stream",
because you usually have more than one stream to choose from, there's a
program (i.e. the streams are scheduled), etc.

I'm going to surf the Internet tonight (meaning World Wide Web).

Which is a misuse of the term "Internet". The Internet is not limited to
the www. That was one of the things that irked me to no end when I was
reading Dan Brown's "Illuminati".

Hot-button push again... <sigh> "Usenet group" is the only correct
name. Not "board", not "forum", not "channel", not "BBS", not
"chat"...

Board and forum are valid. Some sites that take usenet feeds and
turn them into channels and BBS too. Chat is the only invalid one.

Again, the existence of gateways does not cancel out the differences
between the media.

Yes it does.

Say I read a newspaper. But I'm reading it online. Actually I'm
reading an article from that newspaper as a feed on someones blog.
Does it even matter any more that it was once a newspaper? It's just
information. I may not even know that the article was originally
printed and published. As a user, all I see is that it's on a WWW
page. Yeah so the medium is different, but if I say "did you read that
blog post?" d'you think the reply should be "don't be stupid, that's a
newspaper article".

If the blog post consisted of nothing but the mirrored newspaper
article, then yes, you would have read a newspaper article. I really
fail to see why so many people are so reluctant to use the proper terms
for what they are trying to say. Using incorrect terms rarely helps with
communicating.

cu
59cobalt
--
"My surname is Li and my personal name is Kao, and there is a slight
flaw in my character."
--Li Kao (Barry Hughart: Bridge of Birds)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT) And, In Conclusion -- Why here?
    ... mirrored over 20 servers and 10 countries. ... and are postings sent to that additional mirror distributed back to the ... they reply to the forum. ... Actually I'm reading an article from that newspaper as a feed on someones blog. ...
    (rec.arts.anime.misc)
  • Re: Final Reminder - Microsoft Responds to the Evolution of Community
    ... Other servers don't MIRROR anything in Usenet - they pass or pull data ... Trust yourself. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support)
  • Re: Both sides of Mirrored Drives showing as separate drives
    ... As to your last comment regarding the hardware RAID, ... data if you break/recreate the RAID array..... ... > Basically, these servers have the OS on Mirrored/RAID1 disks, and BOTH ... Looking at the Disk Management MMC, it correctly shows the mirror, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: Realistic drive arrays
    ... a triple mirror set was one of my considerations ... that two of the servers only have 5 36Gb drives. ... copy of the database on the disk. ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: FYI: Workaround for todays FC5 baseurl/mirrorlist problems
    ... caching proxies there would be a lot less reason for the ... servers to be overloaded. ... If you are talking about the mirror list ... every other operation like yum does. ...
    (Fedora)