101–110 of 397 posts
For talking about a race, Wired seems to have neglected a crucial technology: ircv3[1]. I'm not very fond of IRCv2, and have moved away from it where I previously used IRC. But IRC is popular, has a lot of clients, and v3 has a lot of promise. Why didn't the author bother to mention it? [1]: http://ircv3.net/
It's a submarine for Mattermost which released a new version today
Important conversations already took place on our internal jabber server. People with nothing to say never connected, but now with animated gifs and embedded youtube they use slack for entertainment.
Never thought I'd see Eternal September in a professional environment.
A hundred different chat systems mentioned here. None of them compatible with one another. Well, I guess a couple of them have IRC gateways, but you have to actually set those up. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if you could pick and choose your UI? Pick and choose your "integrations", your "plugins", your client, etc without having to lose your entire userbase, history, contacts? Some sort of open protocol. Urgh, I've been…
We are actually trying to make open protocol in https://actor.im with federation with https://matrix.org . It seems that only Actor and Matrix understand importance of federation.
Even federated networks eventually gravitate towards a large degree of centralization once the tech becomes mainstream (see email). If any servers are used at all in a privacy-minded app, they need to be zero-knowledge as far as I'm concerned, for actual user data at the very least, if not metadata as well (I realize the latter is an unsolved problem).
How does Actor handle user data and message storage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh, the number of downvotes I'm seeing for a contrary opinion to article about something not really controversial is also pretty weird. Seems like evidence of a concerted promotional push on HN to be honest, if only anecdotally.
The first few times these discussions were interesting. But for every submission mentioning Slack, somebody has to come and claim that IRC is all anybody ever needed, and all the arguments have been rehashed over and over. The alternatives mentioned in the article on the other hand are barely discussed at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you fucking kidding me? I've been using IRC since I was 10. If a 10-year-old can figure it out, I think a professional engineer can figure it out. Using your typical IRC client to join a channel is just 4 steps: 1. Download IRC client. 2. Pick a nickname. 3. Pick a server. 4. Join a channel. With something like kiwiirc, you can even omit steps 1, 3, and 4: you can give someone a URL to a particular channel on a p…
> Follow the directions to set it up so changes on this Trello board are posted to #channel
A hundred different chat systems mentioned here. None of them compatible with one another. Well, I guess a couple of them have IRC gateways, but you have to actually set those up. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if you could pick and choose your UI? Pick and choose your "integrations", your "plugins", your client, etc without having to lose your entire userbase, history, contacts? Some sort of open protocol. Urgh, I've been…
Our service Sameroom (https://sameroom.io) is a commercial solution to the chat incompatibility disaster, not too different from an AC adapter thingy with a bunch of different plugs, one or two per continent.
After implementing the protocols of quite a number of these systems (~20), we're seeing a scary acceleration toward further incompatibility. It's good for our business, but really pretty bad for the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Follow the directions to set it up so changes on this Trello board are posted to #channel
Yeah, nobody's ever written things that can respond to events by posting messages in an IRC channel. Shame, really.
We need open protocols. Then let a thousand clients with different paradigms bloom
You have that - SIP and XMPP.
Please don't complain that they are complex and consist of a lot of documents, and have hard feature standartization path. It is the only possible way to openly evolve such systems - to publish serious writeups as documents on their own and have them discussed with criticism and then gradually adopted. And then you may end up with competing alternative implementations of same feature in different standards - that's also inevitable if the system is open. Because, would you be happy to have the same video codec everywhere, or you admire the fact that existing systems are flexible enough to interoperate with _different_ codecs?