I second a comment made below regarding https://matrix.org/ . I've used IRC for years and still use it almost daily - but come on Mosh + tmux + ec2 just to have permanent chat history? I seriously can't advocate this crap to anyone in 2016. It's too little, too late.
The Web interface, Vector, works surprisingly well. Last I tried it, it still lacked polish on the surface but it functioned excellently.
IRC v3
61–70 of 225 posts
Re: IRC v3
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Syncing that somehow across all servers in an IRC network, across netsplits and everything, is far from simple. Yes, it's not simple. But it's not impossible to do. And yes, it might not work in 100% of cases, after netsplits, but so what?
That matters a lot. Inconsistent history is a problem and leads to all kinds of communication issues and misunderstandings. You said you agreed on A No I edited it later to say that I meant I was in favour of B Oh, I never saw that edit...
Re: IRC v3
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
#64I second a comment made below regarding https://matrix.org/ . I've used IRC for years and still use it almost daily - but come on Mosh + tmux + ec2 just to have permanent chat history? I seriously can't advocate this crap to anyone in 2016. It's too little, too late.
There's irccloud for that, or if you want to host yourself shout-IRC is really good.
Re: IRC v3
#65Re: IRC v3
#66I 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…
Re: IRC v3
#67I second a comment made below regarding https://matrix.org/ . I've used IRC for years and still use it almost daily - but come on Mosh + tmux + ec2 just to have permanent chat history? I seriously can't advocate this crap to anyone in 2016. It's too little, too late.
There's irccloud for that, or if you want to host yourself shout-IRC is really good.
It's also free software and easy to set up so I encourage everybody to check it out.
Re: IRC v3
#68My 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…
Length negotiation has been discussed for years, but it’s not that easy. Imagine user A negotiates a length fo 1024 bytes with the server, user B negotiates a length of 2048 bytes. User B sends a message via the server to user A. What happens?
Re: IRC v3
#69I second a comment made below regarding https://matrix.org/ . I've used IRC for years and still use it almost daily - but come on Mosh + tmux + ec2 just to have permanent chat history? I seriously can't advocate this crap to anyone in 2016. It's too little, too late.
Well, yeah. When I was a teenager my group of friends used to use a QNet IRC chat for communications. Most on mIRC and such clients. Today it's pretty much all nerds. I do enjoy IRC, and pretty much live inside my tmux session, but I don't think I can recommend it to anyone who isn't already probably using it.
Re: IRC v3
#70My 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…
Length negotiation has been discussed for years, but it’s not that easy. Imagine user A negotiates a length fo 1024 bytes with the server, user B negotiates a length of 2048 bytes. User B sends a message via the server to user A. What happens?