81–90 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How unfortunate. I've been working on an open source version of what you're purporting to provide as a service.
Open source software != free service -- in fact, even when the software is open source, you usually have to pay for a hosted, managed service.
I could charge instance-hours for a prefabbed EC2 instance image too.
Nice work, Leah! Love the fact that it's just IRC at heart. Is there any way to integrate a file-uploading facility (drag'n'drop in the web client, ideally, like Campfire) to the IRC concept, or is that an impedance mismatch?
Thanks!! I'd love to add some file uploading and/or hosting capability. I think it would be easy enough on the website side of things but I'm not sure yet what it would mean for existing IRC clients.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source software != free service -- in fact, even when the software is open source, you usually have to pay for a hosted, managed service.
I can make an automatic heroku application. I even have a guy who works at Heroku that would help me do it. I could charge instance-hours for a prefabbed EC2 instance image too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NickServ and "IRC services" in general are shoehorned extensions to IRC. Most clients support them in some automated fashion now, but there's no guarantee, and usage differs depending on "IRC services" package. At any rate, my original comment came off a bit the wrong way. I'm not trying to say that IRC isn't a workable solution for this kind of group chat system, as it clearly is. I just don't see why using IRC over…
I think it's actually an issue of perception. When I hear Jabber or XMPP, I think of one-to-one chat and when I hear IRC I definitely think of group chat. In general, IRC clients seem more tailored towards groups. That said, there's definitely room for both protocols and I could see supporting XMPP as well at some point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is supposed to "be IRC". It's a chatroom backed by IRC, and it seems to work perfectly.
If it's not supposed to "be IRC" perhaps they shouldn't include the word IRC 12 times in the article, their website shouldn't have an "IRC Help" page and instructions to "set up your IRC client" and your "IRC settings", the front page shouldn't say "Hosted IRC" in huge bold letters and a "Sign up for your IRC server" link at the bottom. Might make people think it was IRC. But that's just my opinion.
I know it's brand new and all, but there seems to be a lack of "normal" irc functionality/usability. Nickserv has no 'help' functionality, nicks apparently have to be universally unique across all of Grove (better hope someone doesn't use my name in a different organization?), there's no chanserv. The help page is concise but should probably be printed in MOTD or some other way for non-Web clients (I was confused tha…
This may shock and surprise you, but I've been using IRC on servers without NickServ and ChanServ for decades. No services != not IRC.
Also, since it appears to be a new & custom irc server, i'd not really be willing to trust corporate communication on a platform known for attracting hackers.
Obvious troll.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major advantage I see with this over HipChat is that you can use existing IRC client software to connect. Personally, I'd much prefer Irssi in a terminal to an Adobe AIR product.
I can see the reasons for that, but the HipChat application lets you drag and drop files to share them with everyone in a room, auto-loads images... that alone is worth the client app to me.
Setting up open source IRC servers is a pain. They are almost completely void of documentation. And as the article points out, IRC doesn't usually have the traditional username/passwords or access controls you really need for business group chat.
I realize this is an MVP. Here are somethings I think should be included:
* Groups. It makes it way easier to manage access controls.
* A way to invite outsiders. The specific use case is inviting customers to join a chat, without the customer taking up a user/license seat.
* You've probably done these but I can't tell from the website; persistent chat rooms and varying admin privileges (ops in some rooms, not others, ability to create rooms, etc.).
EDIT: Why was my comment down voted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's actually an issue of perception. When I hear Jabber or XMPP, I think of one-to-one chat and when I hear IRC I definitely think of group chat. In general, IRC clients seem more tailored towards groups. That said, there's definitely room for both protocols and I could see supporting XMPP as well at some point.
XMPP MUC is not fun, nor fun to scale. IRC has netsplits, but it does work reliably for tons of people all day every day.
>Geeks love IRC, but it comes with a few hassles, mainly having to host it, that have led teams away from using it in favor of easier IM solutions. The nature of IRC's channel-level organization¹ obviates the need to set up independent servers for a given team group. What advantage does something like this offer me over just opening a new channel on freenode? ¹I.e., access lists (ops, voice) and modes like +psk (p[ri…