Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #161415 > unrolled thread

Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?!

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?! Skybuck Flying <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2021-06-13 16:13 +0200
    Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?! (news.eternal-september.org) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-06-13 09:17 -0500
    Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?! DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2021-06-16 13:30 -0400
      Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 18:00 +0000
        Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 12:59 -0700
          comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google) Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-16 20:27 +0000
            Re: comp.std.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-16 21:48 +0100
              Re: comp.std.c Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-06-16 23:51 +0000
                Re: comp.std.c Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2021-06-17 00:10 +0000
                Re: comp.std.c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-16 20:48 -0400
                Re: comp.std.c Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-06-17 02:00 +0100
                Re: comp.std.c James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-16 23:15 -0400
                  Re: comp.std.c David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-06-17 09:38 +0200
            Re: comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google) Kaz Kylheku <563-365-8930@kylheku.com> - 2021-06-16 21:22 +0000
            use Free news.eternal-september.org and Free Thunderbird instead of Google groups olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-06-16 17:59 -0500
            Re: comp.std.c Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-06-16 16:23 -0700
              Re: comp.std.c Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2021-06-17 02:12 +0200
            Re: comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-06-16 20:43 -0400
      Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?! Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2021-06-17 14:12 +0000

#161415 — Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?!

HAHA Too Funny !

Maybe ban google ?! =D

Bye,
  Skybuck ! ;) =D

P.S.: No more C software for google might actually be doing them a
favor ! LOL sorry ! =D

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161418 — Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google newsgroups ?! (news.eternal-september.org)

On 6/13/2021 9:13 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> HAHA Too Funny !
> 
> Maybe ban google ?! =D
> 
> Bye,
>    Skybuck ! ;) =D
> 
> P.S.: No more C software for google might actually be doing them a
> favor ! LOL sorry ! =D
> 

Quit using Google news and switch to
news.eternal-september.org  / Thunderbird new client
Both are free of charge.


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161437

On 6/13/2021 10:13 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> HAHA Too Funny !
> 
> Maybe ban google ?! =D
> 
> Bye,
>    Skybuck ! ;) =D
> 
> P.S.: No more C software for google might actually be doing them a
> favor ! LOL sorry ! =D



Just a few minutes ago I clicked a link to a clc post in Google Groups, 
and it says:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You don't have permission to access this content

For access, try joining the group or contacting the group's owners and 
managers

If you are subscribed to this group and have noticed abuse, report 
abusive group."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Logging to https://groups.google.com/g/comp.lang.c says:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Banned content warning

comp.lang.c has been identified as containing spam, malware, or other 
malicious content.

For more information about content policies on Google Groups see our 
Help Center article on abuse and our Terms of Service."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


I access clc via a newsclient app, but it's ridiculous for GoogleGroups 
to block clc on account of spam posts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161438 — Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google

On 16/06/2021 18:30, DFS wrote:
>
>
>
> I access clc via a newsclient app, but it's ridiculous for 
> GoogleGroups to block clc on account of spam posts.

Try this link:

<https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161439 — Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google

sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
> On 16/06/2021 18:30, DFS wrote:

>> I access clc via a newsclient app, but it's ridiculous for
>> GoogleGroups to block clc on account of spam posts.
>
> Try this link:
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>

That's a different newsgroup.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161440 — comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google)

In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>> Try this link:
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
> That's a different newsgroup.

Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about? My year or so
here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
wants to answer. So what's in that one?

Elijah
------
sees only a single post in that group on the local news server

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161441 — Re: comp.std.c

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Try this link:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>> That's a different newsgroup.
>
> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about?

"Officially" (if there is any such thing in Usenet)

  comp.lang.c: Discussion about C.
  comp.std.c:  Discussion about C language standards.

> My year or so
> here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
> wants to answer.

That's an odd thing to say.  How do you determine the desire of a
Usenet group?  Anyway, there have not been many on-topic posts lately,
so maybe your sample is rather skewed.

Historically, this group has discussed many topics related to C.  Some
of the best threads have been prompted by "how would you write this?"
questions.

> So what's in that one?

Go look?

> Elijah
> ------
> sees only a single post in that group on the local news server

This might be an actual use-case for Google Groups!  (The news server I
use claims 7728 posts in that group, but a server with very long
retention will show even more.)

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161445 — Re: comp.std.c

In comp.lang.c, Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about?
> "Officially" (if there is any such thing in Usenet)
> 
>   comp.lang.c: Discussion about C.
>   comp.std.c:  Discussion about C language standards.

Unofficial de-facto rules about "what a group is about" seem more
important these days than charters. I've noticed almost no electronics
design discussion in sci.electronics.design for example.

>> My year or so here seems to show that C Standard related questions
>> are what this group wants to answer.
> That's an odd thing to say.  How do you determine the desire of a
> Usenet group?  Anyway, there have not been many on-topic posts lately,
> so maybe your sample is rather skewed.

The "desire" of a Usenet group is the sorts of posts that the active
members seem to prefer discussing.

> Historically, this group has discussed many topics related to C.  Some
> of the best threads have been prompted by "how would you write this?"
> questions.

I probably exaggerate a bit, but say the "#include <stdint.h>" thread
gets into standard related questions and answers:


    Keith Thompson in <87wnqxxoe3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>:
    SIMON [ in <sa5vrs$7d3$1@dont-email.me> ]:
    > I was in the opinion that stdint.h is cross-compiler/cross-
    > platform compliant.

    It is -- but none of the exact-width types are guaranteed to exist
    (though the 8, 16, 32, and 64 bit ones almost certainly will on
    typical systems).

    <inttypes.h> provides macros that expand to appropriate format strings.
    <inttypes.h> includes <stdint.h>, so you don't need to include both,
    though you can.

>> sees only a single post in that group on the local news server
> This might be an actual use-case for Google Groups!

Once comp.windows.news was about Sun's Network extensible Window System
but for some reason got swamped with Microsoft posts. The deep past is
not necessarily a reflection of de facto Usenet, but point taken.

Elijah
------
remembers the rmgroup for comp.windows.news

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161446 — Re: comp.std.c

On 17/06/2021 00:51, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> The "desire" of a Usenet group is the sorts of posts that the active
> members seem to prefer discussing.

This leads to people discussing all sorts of things other than what the group was created for. For example in Windows 10 they are discussing how to drive a truck!!. Surely, this sort of things should not be allowed.

For this C group <comp.lang.c>, Anything to do with compiler design or C standard should be moved somewhere else. This group should be all about how to use the C libraries effectively especially for newbies and students. We don't get new students here because they are all bored of people discussing how to create a new C compiler. For god's sake we have enough compilers already so let's discuss how to use them to create good working programs that can solve some real life problems!!


> I probably exaggerate a bit, but say the "#include <stdint.h>" thread
> gets into standard related questions and answers:

Actually the OP wanted to use stdint and he was getting some erroneous errors so he came here. I am sure Bart and others helped him because it required a very simple formatting string in the code.

There are other C newsgroups but they are all dormant:
free.c
alt.comp.lang.c
alt.comp.lang.c++.misc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161449 — Re: comp.std.c

On 6/16/21 7:51 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.lang.c, Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
...
>> Historically, this group has discussed many topics related to C.  Some
>> of the best threads have been prompted by "how would you write this?"
>> questions.
> 
> I probably exaggerate a bit, but say the "#include <stdint.h>" thread
> gets into standard related questions and answers:
> 
> 
>     Keith Thompson in <87wnqxxoe3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>:
>     SIMON [ in <sa5vrs$7d3$1@dont-email.me> ]:
>     > I was in the opinion that stdint.h is cross-compiler/cross-
>     > platform compliant.
> 
>     It is -- but none of the exact-width types are guaranteed to exist
>     (though the 8, 16, 32, and 64 bit ones almost certainly will on
>     typical systems).
> 
>     <inttypes.h> provides macros that expand to appropriate format strings.
>     <inttypes.h> includes <stdint.h>, so you don't need to include both,
>     though you can.

Discussions about what the standard actually says are on-topic in both
groups. Discussions about changes to what it says go on comp.std.c,
while questions about the best way to right your code, based upon what
it says in the standard, go on comp.lang.c.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161450 — Re: comp.std.c

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> In comp.lang.c, Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
<cut>
>>> My year or so here seems to show that C Standard related questions
>>> are what this group wants to answer.
>>
>> That's an odd thing to say.  How do you determine the desire of a
>> Usenet group?  Anyway, there have not been many on-topic posts lately,
>> so maybe your sample is rather skewed.
>
> The "desire" of a Usenet group is the sorts of posts that the active
> members seem to prefer discussing.

Using that definition I'd come to quite another conclusion.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161452 — Re: comp.std.c

On 6/16/21 7:51 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.lang.c, Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
...
>>> My year or so here seems to show that C Standard related questions
>>> are what this group wants to answer.
>> That's an odd thing to say.  How do you determine the desire of a
>> Usenet group?  Anyway, there have not been many on-topic posts lately,
>> so maybe your sample is rather skewed.
> 
> The "desire" of a Usenet group is the sorts of posts that the active
> members seem to prefer discussing.
Let me expand upon Ben's response. If you look only at the active
members, and weight them according to how active they are, this group is
dominated by a small number of people who share certain traits: they
dislike C so much that they have created their own C-like language that
is free of the problems that C has. They post here to complain about C
and to promote their own languages. Most of them share another
peculiarity: they're favorite version of the language is C90. They tend
to be uninterested in the C standard, except in the negative sense that
they would like to see it modified to support/mandate/allow the changes
that they want made to the language.

That's why Ben (and I) found it so peculiar that you would invoke what
"active members seem to prefer discussing" to support the idea that this
group "wants to answer" "C standard related questions".

I want that, but people who share that opinion are currently a minority
in this group, at least if you weight the count according to how
actively they participate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161453 — Re: comp.std.c

On 17/06/2021 05:15, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 6/16/21 7:51 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c, Ben Bacarisse  <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
> ...
>>>> My year or so here seems to show that C Standard related questions
>>>> are what this group wants to answer.
>>> That's an odd thing to say.  How do you determine the desire of a
>>> Usenet group?  Anyway, there have not been many on-topic posts lately,
>>> so maybe your sample is rather skewed.
>>
>> The "desire" of a Usenet group is the sorts of posts that the active
>> members seem to prefer discussing.
> Let me expand upon Ben's response. If you look only at the active
> members, and weight them according to how active they are, this group is
> dominated by a small number of people who share certain traits: they
> dislike C so much that they have created their own C-like language that
> is free of the problems that C has. They post here to complain about C
> and to promote their own languages. Most of them share another
> peculiarity: they're favorite version of the language is C90. They tend
> to be uninterested in the C standard, except in the negative sense that
> they would like to see it modified to support/mandate/allow the changes
> that they want made to the language.
> 
> That's why Ben (and I) found it so peculiar that you would invoke what
> "active members seem to prefer discussing" to support the idea that this
> group "wants to answer" "C standard related questions".
> 
> I want that, but people who share that opinion are currently a minority
> in this group, at least if you weight the count according to how
> actively they participate.
> 

This would all depend on how you make your counts.  Do you count people
regardless of their posts?  Do you count the number of posts?  Do you
count the interest posts generate and their readership (assuming you
have some way of measuring or estimating that)?

I would say that people who read a newsgroup regularly have their own
weighting system.  It might be helped by killfiles, or just how they
choose to read the posts.  For example, when I read the group, a post
from you will count vastly more than a post by Olcott - and I'd count
you as a regular member and major contributor, while I would not count
Olcott as more than a passing nuisance.  That valuation may be entirely
at odds with the numerical count of recent posts - I haven't checked.

I think most people here /are/ interested in discussing C.  There is a
core of posters who are very knowledgeable and experienced, and are
happy to share that knowledge and help people.  There are plenty who get
involved in various discussions at various levels - whether it be the
details of the standards, discussions of the history or reasoning behind
language design decisions, fantasy discussions about what could improve
the language, or threads about actual code in C.  (We could do with more
of that last type.)  Yes, there are people here who loudly, regularly
and repetitively express their dislike for the language - but even there
we can be generous and say that can inspire discussion or alternative
viewpoints.  And like any active group, there are people who regularly
post things that have nothing at all to do with the group topic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161442 — Re: comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google)

On 2021-06-16, Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:
> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Try this link:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>> That's a different newsgroup.
>
> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about?

It's about the kinds of topics BartC likes do raise here instead.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161443 — use Free news.eternal-september.org and Free Thunderbird instead of Google groups

On 6/16/2021 3:27 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Try this link:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>> That's a different newsgroup.
> 
> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about? My year or so
> here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
> wants to answer. So what's in that one?
> 
> Elijah
> ------
> sees only a single post in that group on the local news server
> 


-- 
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre 
minds." Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161444 — Re: comp.std.c

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Try this link:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>> That's a different newsgroup.
>
> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about? My year or so
> here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
> wants to answer. So what's in that one?

comp.std.c is about the C standard (in its various past, present, and
future editions).

comp.lang.c is about the language defined by that standard.

Admittedly the dividing line is not entirely clear, and if the
newsgroups were being set up today I'm not sure that they'd be
separated.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161447 — Re: comp.std.c

On 17.06.21 1:23, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Try this link:
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>>> That's a different newsgroup.
>>
>> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about? My year or so
>> here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
>> wants to answer. So what's in that one?
>
> comp.std.c is about the C standard (in its various past, present, and
> future editions).
>
> comp.lang.c is about the language defined by that standard.
>
> Admittedly the dividing line is not entirely clear, and if the
> newsgroups were being set up today I'm not sure that they'd be
> separated.
>  comp.std.c
The group  comp.std.c is suspiciuosly silent.........

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161448 — Re: comp.std.c (was: Re: Why the fuck is this newsgroup banned AGAIN on google)

On 6/16/21 4:27 PM, Eli the Bearded wrote:
> In comp.lang.c, Keith Thompson  <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> sandy sharma <sandysandy7899@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Try this link:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/comp.std.c>
>> That's a different newsgroup.
> 
> Agreed. But, serious question, what is that group about? My year or so
> here seems to show that C Standard related questions are what this group
> wants to answer. So what's in that one?
Basic answer: comp.std.c is for discussions about the C standard.
comp.lang.c is for discussions about the language defined by that standard.
To put that in more concrete terms: if you want to discuss how
designated initializers are used, go to comp.lang.c. If you want to
discuss changing the standard's specification for designated
initializers, go to comp.std.c

If you want to discuss a compiler that implements a language that looks
similar to C, but implements designated initializers in a way that
doesn't conform to the requirements of the C standard, and you don't
care whether the standard is ever changed to make that implementation
conforming, you should post in a forum specific to that implementation,
and not in either comp.lang.c or comp.std.c. However, as things
currently standard, a very large fraction of the messages posted here
discuss precisely such issues. Since it's an unmoderated newsgroup that
was created before there were such things as newsgroup charters, there's
not much that can be done about that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161461

On 2021-06-16, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

[Schnipp]

> Just a few minutes ago I clicked a link to a clc post in Google Groups, 
> and it says:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> "You don't have permission to access this content
>
> For access, try joining the group or contacting the group's owners and 
> managers

So, have you tried contacting the owners and managers of c.l.c?

Google can't be wrong.
-- 
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web