Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
General Vista Help and Support The general Windows Vista discussion forum, for topics not covered elsewhere. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general) |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
ReactOS Alternative to Microsoft Windows Under Development
From: "Tecknomage"
Gee.... Nice to know you dictate standards for News Groups. When were you elected to your post? I have been on Usenet for twenty years and I have read numerous News Group FAQs and Charters. I have read "FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines" and do my best to ab ide by FAQs, Charters and Usenet Etiquette set in RFCs. Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq Posting-Frequency: weekly Last-modified: 1998/11/10 Which states... Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam" usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means, essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical article." "Substantively identical" means that the material in each article is sufficiently similar to construe the same message. The signature is included in the determination. These are examples of substantively identical articles: - byte-for-byte identical messages - otherwise identical postings minimally customized for each group it appears in. - advertising the same service. - articles that consist solely of the same signature - articles which consist of inclusions of other user's postings, but are otherwise identical. So don't attack me for telling you long established and published Usenet standards. Heed the message, not attack it ! While I am at it... RFCs on Usenet etiquette and standards dictate thatr A Usenet signature start with a signature delimeter "-- " and should not exceed four lines after the delimter. Yours exceeds that by one line. -- Dave Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp |
|
|||
ReactOS Alternative to Microsoft Windows Under Development
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 09:33:36 -0700, "Tecknomage"
wrote in article ... On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 13:40:24 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 08:08:35 -0700, "Tecknomage" wrote in article ... On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 16:34:18 -0400, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 13:58:41 -0500, "VanguardLH" wrote in article ... Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: On Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:07:20 -0700, "Tecknomage" wrote in article ... Spam, multi-posted to 5+ groups. ReactOS is a Windows 2000 clone but he posts in a Vista newsgroup instead of the microsoft.public.win2000.general newsgroup. Indeed - and multi-posted (instead of cross-posted) to 4 other newsgroups where it is only peripherally relevant, and onlycontains a teaser line and a couple of links. That equals spam, in mybook. Not if you bothered to use the links. My original message was a heads-up to all Windows groups to let everyone know ReactOS existed. Still multi-posted instead of crossposted, still not directly relevant to the groups (*especially* since it is still in "alpha stage") Still spam. My eMail client does not easily allow corssposting, which is why I posted the way I did. So, your client *is* capable, you are just too lazy to do it the right way. Right, sorted. If you are too lazy to use your current client properly, then get a new client that makes it easier on you - especially since it seems to have a really bad idea of how to properly quote from previous articles. A possible MS Windows alternative "not directly relevant" to Windows groups? Really? Especially as a heads-up to Windows users who may be interested that ReactOS exists and want to keep an eye on development. A half-baked clone of an old version of Windows is not relevant to later versions of Windows. Just like it would not be relevant for me to post about Windows 2000 in a Vista group, it is inappropriate to post about ReactOS in a Vista group. There ARE people who like to know about developments in Operator Systems. I'm a retired Computer Specialist and IT Technician (30+yrs) and keep an eye out on such things. Then do so in the correct group. alt.comp.os.windows-2000 is likely the only remotely related Windows group. Off the top of my head, comp.os.misc would be another related group, there may be others. It is up to you to find them, not me. snip junk even further OT If you had gone to the ReactOS link.... I don't go to spammed links. Your loss. Nope, no loss here - I'm completely uninterested in an OS that is thus far failing in its attempt to mimic a more than decade old OS. I *might* be interested in an OS that is attempting to mimic a more modern version of Windows - but probably not if it is failing. -- Zaphod "Yeah. Listen, I'm Zaphod Beeblebrox, my father was Zaphod Beeblebrox the Second, my grandfather Zaphod Beeblebrox the Third..." "What?" "There was an accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Now concentrate!" |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|