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

81–90 of 225 posts

Re: IRC v3

#81

Post by lucb1e »

They've been working on this for years and I'm seeing very little of it. And beyond that, it's missing everything we take for granted nowadays: scrollback, keeping note of where you were and media sharing.

Yeah media sharing can be done with, what's it called, CTCP? That's just piping stuff through a short message service, like Twitter or DNS. It doesn't properly display media either, but it allows for small file transfers.

And of course scrollback can be done with bouncers. But it's not something I see my mother using. Facebook Messenger is what I see my mother using.

Is there anything new on the website, or it it just being linked again?

Re: IRC v3

#82

Post by lstamour »

kuschku wrote: post #72
lstamour wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What if the message is a configuration message that can’t be split? And how would it be split? Or should there be a mechanism for reassembling message frames?

That's what I mean. Like SMS it's a syntax that would allow for smart clients to re-assemble the message but is visible in plain text for backwards compatibility

Re: IRC v3

#83

Post by daenney »

ChoHag wrote: post #50
daenney wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am more than well aware what the IETF is and what it has done. However, your response providers absolutely no answer to my question and is quite frankly patronising and rude.

I asked why this should be done under the IETF? What are the benefits, specific to the IRC protocol, of doing this under the banner of the IETF versus not? What do you believe will be gained by doing this under the IETF?

There's plenty of protocols and technologies that we use today that don't fall under the IETF banner and are plenty successful. The W3C is an organisation that comes to mind for example.

Re: IRC v3

#84

Post by bnjms »

Powersource wrote: post #61
bnjms wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Glad to hear they updated the name. Riot.im sounds better for telling others to use it.

Re: IRC v3

#85

Post by agentdrtran »

DiabloD3 wrote: post #79
k__ wrote: post #76

I used IRC for over 10 years, but after using Slack for 1 it just felt outdated to me. Offline messages and simulatnous logins from multiple places are just two features I was missing in IRC and didn't even know till I had them, haha. But yeah, IRC networks just worked as message broker and not as databases, so I never thought about it.

I use ZNC, so logging in from multiple places works well.

But now you have to run a ZNC server as well - it's a lot more work for a very simple feature.

Re: IRC v3

#86

Post by uxcn »

jwr wrote: post #54

I am very glad this is happening. IRC was one of the first applications I started using on the internet. These days it nearly disappeared because of closed silos like Facebook, Twitter and Slack. This effort could help bring back a decentralized service that is not under the control of any single company.

I'm a huge fan of the IRC protocol, and I think I've set up IRC channels at nearly every company I've worked for.

Freenode and Weechat seem to support the changes, but I honestly worry that the protocol ends up more complicated than it needs to be, or possibly more complicated than people can use. Diaspora already provides a lot of what IRCv3 looks like it's trying to do. I guess I'm just not sure what the difference is.

Re: IRC v3

#87

Post by Gruselbauer »

Dowwie wrote: post #69
Gruselbauer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> but I don't think I can recommend it to anyone who isn't already probably using it

I wouldn't recommend it to my friends, who were hard enough to get off WhatsApp and into Telegram at least. To my parents, who have trouble enough running Skype. To the girlfriend, who's happy with Snapchat. IRC, even at the very basic level with a GUI or Web client, demands things from users I don't consider realistic to expect from them.

I'm very happy with it the way it is though. Just saying that I won't waste time recommending Arch Linux as a desktop OS to friends who have trouble keeping a Windows install useable for six months.

Re: IRC v3

#88

Post by Gruselbauer »

ryanlol wrote: post #71
Gruselbauer wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Today it's pretty much all nerds Probably says more about your social circle than IRC. There's a lot of channels and if hookers and blow are more your speed than say, gentoo, you can certainly find a channel primarily discussing them.

First off, I don't believe there's anything even remotely wrong with being a nerd. Quite the opposite. I do hang around in channels focussing on a diverse range of topics, from various freenode foss-channels to torrent trackers to radical politics and also, yes, shadier communities.

I just believe that even the most benign, non-techy use of IRC poses demands that are incompatible with the vast majority of users today. But that's a strength to me. IRC is filled to the brim with some of the smartest, most creative, exciting people I could think of.

Re: IRC v3

#89

Post by op00to »

grubles wrote: post #41
op00to wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Suddenly it's my job to bring everyone else up to speed on what happened in their off hours? I have a job to do. Slack and Rocket.Chat (and matrix and ...) both solve that problem and a lot of others without the legacy bullshit that IRC slops down the road. I'm sick of spending time working around what is an outdated and inadequate protocol because of momentum in my office.
Post reply on HN