This group's name should be changed to vb.dotnet.rants

So that people don't mix it for a place where to ask code questions.

What about vb.dotnet.getting.started?
Or vb.dotnet.general?

Greetings
Roberto Nisthal

Hi Roberto,

Four comments...

....Yes, I agree that there is far too much whining in this newsgroup, especially
by people who don't even use VB.NET.

....There's a vb.dotnet.technical newsgroup that's supposed to be for code
questions. You're better off going there than here.

....This newsgroup's name is a bit misleading. With a name like vb.dotnet.discussion
you would think that it would to discuss real issues (SqlClient vs OleDb,
Web Services vs. .NET Remoting, MMIT vs. .NETcf) but many of the discussions
here focus more on VB6 vs. misperceptions about VB.NET.

....I think that a vb.dotnet.getting.started makes a lot of sense. How about
it DevX? I think vb.dotnet.getting.started is a great idea.

/Pat

"Ing. Roberto Nisthal" <nisthal@c.net.gt.HA.HA.EAT.SPAM> wrote:
>So that people don't mix it for a place where to ask code questions.
>
>What about vb.dotnet.getting.started?
>Or vb.dotnet.general?
>
>Greetings
>Roberto Nisthal
>
>

Why not use vbnet.*, instead of vb.dotnet.*?

--
http://www.standards.com/; Programming and support for Word macros,
including converting from WordBasic to VBA; Technical reviewing; Standards;
Product functional/design/specifications
------------------------------------------------
"Patrick Troughton" <Patrick@Troughton.com> wrote in message
news:3d739e15$1@10.1.10.29...
>
> Hi Roberto,
>
> Four comments...
>
> ...Yes, I agree that there is far too much whining in this newsgroup,
especially
> by people who don't even use VB.NET.
>
> ...There's a vb.dotnet.technical newsgroup that's supposed to be for code
> questions. You're better off going there than here.
>
> ...This newsgroup's name is a bit misleading. With a name like
vb.dotnet.discussion
> you would think that it would to discuss real issues (SqlClient vs OleDb,
> Web Services vs. .NET Remoting, MMIT vs. .NETcf) but many of the
discussions
> here focus more on VB6 vs. misperceptions about VB.NET.
>
> ...I think that a vb.dotnet.getting.started makes a lot of sense. How
about
> it DevX? I think vb.dotnet.getting.started is a great idea.
>
> /Pat
>
> "Ing. Roberto Nisthal" <nisthal@c.net.gt.HA.HA.EAT.SPAM> wrote:
> >So that people don't mix it for a place where to ask code questions.
> >
> >What about vb.dotnet.getting.started?
> >Or vb.dotnet.general?
> >
> >Greetings
> >Roberto Nisthal
> >
> >
>

Roberto:

We'll definitely consider starting a vb.dotnet.gettingstarted group, now
that VB.NET programming is picking up steam, and we're beginning to see a
larger number of repeat and beginner questions in the vb.dotnet.technical
group.

Thanks,
Russell Jones
Executive Editor,
DevX.com

"Ing. Roberto Nisthal" <nisthal@c.net.gt.HA.HA.EAT.SPAM> wrote in message
news:3d7395b7@10.1.10.29...
> So that people don't mix it for a place where to ask code questions.
>
> What about vb.dotnet.getting.started?
> Or vb.dotnet.general?
>
> Greetings
> Roberto Nisthal
>
>

Roberto,

> So that people don't mix it for a place where to ask code questions.

Discussion = Rant so this is the place for it - or do you want them to
spill over into the technical newgroups?

> What about vb.dotnet.getting.started?
> Or vb.dotnet.general?

Spot on.

Eddie