Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IRC v3

ircv3.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 225 posts

Re: IRC v3

#41

Post by grubles »

op00to wrote: post #35
rwmj wrote: post #4

IRC (current version) works fine for me. The trick is to front it with ZNC or similar software. Anyway, why isn't this being done through the IETF?

For you. What about the millions of nontechnical people that need an open communication platform? We use IRC at my employer, and the complexity of getting a bouncer set up means that for cross time zone teams, most people miss any conversations that don't happen in their business hours. This has huge effects on collaboration.

"most people miss any conversations that don't happen in their business hours. This has huge effects on collaboration."

Why don't you send them logs of the conversations?

Re: IRC v3

#42

Post by xPaw »

paradite wrote: post #29

Looking at homepages of various IRC clients, I feel like I am back to 5 years ago when jQuery UI is still a thing: http://ircv3.net/software/clients.html Equally out-of-date are the screenshots of the clients on the homepages. I don't think I will ever see an IRC desktop or web client that has decent UI according to today's standard. Then again probably I am too young to be their target audience. Edit: Okay there are…

Try taking a look at The Lounge, it aims to be rather modern. https://thelounge.github.io

Re: IRC v3

#43

Post by SonOfLilit »

prawnsalad wrote: post #20

There's a lot of neat stuff in IRCv3 to bring IRC up to date, but most importantly it is standardising a lot of the existing protocol and patching up some of the existing warts that make pushing IRC difficult - all while being backwards compatible. Developing kiwiirc.com over the past few years to cover many different IRC servers in all different languages and using many different services/auth services has been a re…

I rarely need IRC, so when I do I browse to http://kiwiirc.com. Thank you.

Re: IRC v3

#44

Post by bcook »

jbk wrote: post #21
nycatelos wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How on earth do you expert messaging editing to work. Are irc clients supposed to magically redraw the buffer and edit logs??! You can already tell if a link is an image, because they're posted a link to an image..... Some irc clients already inline images posted....

> Are irc clients supposed to magically redraw the buffer and edit logs??! Who speaks about magic? Just send a message with the original ID and make the difference. Mark it in the UI, and redisplay it.

So logs are no longer append-only? This seems like a uselessly complex thing for all servers and client logs to support. Seems like it would break many things. What situation needs an edit feature? I can think of none, since a quick follow-up correction is simple.

Also, edits would ruin many of the funny situations encountered on bash.org. :)

Re: IRC v3

#46

Post by perlgeek »

tarancato wrote: post #23

I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented. If you complain about those ide…

Sending patches to implement proposed protocol enhancements sounds like a pretty nice thing to do.

Re: IRC v3

#47

Post by c3RlcGhlbnI_ »

My favourite bit is how they skipped adding length negotiation and it is causing them problems already. See the brief discussion of size limit on http://ircv3.net/specs/core/message-tags-3.2.html

Adding tags forced them to increase message length because of how IRC messages are hilariously limited to 512 bytes in all directions. In the existing protocol you already have to guess how long your messages are allowed to be because the server tacks on a prefix to your message before relaying it, which can require it to truncate characters to fit the modified message into the length limit. Having some amount of tags tacked on as well would have made it impossible to guess how much room you had.

Now if they had started with fixing the actual protocol they wouldn't have had to deal with that. Honestly this feels more like a standard "let's add cool stuff" push than intelligent stewardship of the protocol. I guess that is kind of cool too though.

Re: IRC v3

#48

Post by slgeorge »

hueving wrote: post #28
JshWright wrote: post #2

I am a long time IRC user (irssi is my 'daily driver'), but I'm pretty sure IRCv3 is called "Slack".

It's sad to me that open source projects so quickly reach for proprietary workflow tools like github and slack. There was a time when you would be laughed out of the room for suggesting that open source developers hinge a project on proprietary stuff. Even though open source is "cool" now, I can't help but feel it's mostly people working for companies that just want to export their technical debt for free and use ope…

> Even though open source is "cool" now, I can't help but feel it's mostly people working for companies > that just want to export their technical debt for free and use open source as a marketing tool.

I think it's more that originally FOSS developers/users were hard-core's who were into the tech and the ideology of 'Free Software'. The user-base now has many people who are into 'open source' for the collaborative (group motivation) and perceived technical benefits at an infrastructure level. It's a benefit because there's more 'free' code flowing around, but the downside is that as soon as a proprietary thing is better the user-base moves to it - they have no link with ideology, they're linked to utility.

Re: IRC v3

#49

Post by kuschku »

tarancato wrote: post #23

I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented. If you complain about those ide…

A closed group of friends?

That’s completely different from the experience I had with them.

Re: IRC v3

#50

Post by ChoHag »

daenney wrote: post #12
rwmj wrote: post #4

IRC (current version) works fine for me. The trick is to front it with ZNC or similar software. Anyway, why isn't this being done through the IETF?

What's the advantages by doing it through the IETF? > IRC (current version) works fine for me. The trick is to front it with ZNC or similar software. But ZNC actually uses a bunch of IRCv3 features.

You see that computer in front of you with its internet connection?

All the things you don't think about, and most of the ones you do, work together the way they do because of the IETF.

You see those other things that don't work together? Those are the ones the IETF didn't do.

Post reply on HN