Live data from Hacker News

IRC v3

ircv3.net

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: IRC v3

#61
post #16

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.

Now riot.im

Re: IRC v3

#62
post #25
post #22

Earlier 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...

That's exactly the same on Slack, and people like it.

Re: IRC v3

#63
post #44
post #21

Earlier 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. :)

People do it on Slack and love this feature.

Re: IRC v3

#64
post #52

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.

There's irccloud for that, or if you want to host yourself shout-IRC is really good.

Shouts actually outdated, I'd checkout the fork The Lounge - https://www.github.com/thelounge/lounge

Re: IRC v3

#66

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…

I'm trying hard to see what's wrong with that but fail. Isn't that basically how you get anything done?

Re: IRC v3

#67
post #52

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.

There's irccloud for that, or if you want to host yourself shout-IRC is really good.

irccloud keeps going down every time freenode netsplits. It got so bad lately I actually canceled my subscription and instead set up weechat+glowing bear, which is not as polished, but it works fairly well on both desktop and mobile. (And cheaper)

It's also free software and easy to set up so I encourage everybody to check it out.

Re: IRC v3

#68
post #59

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…

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?

or 511, because C told A that this was a funny number and faster for some reason.

Re: IRC v3

#69

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.

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.

Let me get this straight... you keep IRC running all day but you wouldn't recommend it to others because it's all nerds?

Re: IRC v3

#70
post #59

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…

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?

User A gets two messages like SMS that can be joined? Or is that too naive?
Post reply on HN