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

IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

irc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 397 posts

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#111

Post by mjevans »

sanlyx wrote: post #43
RpFLCL wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I'm a big fan of the federation of different IRC servers, but also like have rich media embeds and drag+drop image uploading, even if that currently means being tied into the discord servers.

But I think this is only a problem from a UX standpoint. IRC has DCC, for instance, but it's a matter of building a client which e.g. inlines DCC "attachments" or displays images beneath messages with links. If IRC is truly "revived" there's a chance IRC clients grow or new ones emerge to keep up with "modern" IM systems, and IRC will still have more benefits than these (openness, ubiquity...)

Forcing content upon others is something I view as an anti-feature. Linking to content that they MAY choose to display (or pre-cache in selective instances) CAN be a feature.

For example, I might allow specific rooms that I know are moderated or specific individuals that I trust to push arbitrary data in to my storage. However I definitely do not want that to happen in a random room of strangers.

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#112

Post by raziel2p »

dev_dull wrote: post #67
crooked-v wrote: post #39

IRC will never get popular again. Server-based history and connections shared across devices are just too useful.

Not only that, but passionate IRC people still hold onto the belief that things like TLS are "useless"[1] 1. https://www.quakenet.org/articles/99-trust-is-not-transitive...

> Removed due to near constant misrepresentation of the presented argument.

Saves me the trouble of writing it out myself I guess

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#113

Post by gsich »

pmoriarty wrote: post #28
ve55 wrote: post #10

I'm interested to see how they manage to convince communities to use their IRC services over competitors like Discord when so many users see Discord as easy, free, trendy, etc. Of course services liks Slack, Telegram, Skype, etc, are also potential competitors in this ecosystem. >IRC Gaming (We're going to have literally hundreds of thousands in cash prizes!) I suppose literally paying users money is one way, but it…

Are there any open source Discord clients? So far, I've refused to try it because the only client Gentoo has is a binary blob.

It's essentially a browser binary.

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#114

Post by HoppyHaus »

always_good wrote: post #68
crooked-v wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now teach the other hundreds of thousands of ex-IRC users how to set up their own bouncer servers and get them to actually stick with it for any amount of time.

Exactly. "Just use a good client that's always online" doesn't change the fact that almost everyone else on IRC goes offline when they shut their laptop or into a tunnel and you can't even send them a message while they're offline. IRC has deficiencies that ensure that only a small cabal of power users will endure it. I prefer to be part of communities that are more accessible to more walks of life than the person wh…

I'm of the pinnacle of chat crowd, and I will fully acknowledge the difficulty to someone that is not on the technical side. However, popularity does not determine quality. From a programmer (bot/client) creator, its perfect. The protocol is simple, light, and fast. For basic usage there is no confusing things, and even where I've had confusion (DCC), it turned out to be simple. From the view of just a user, I still prefer IRC. The clients are lightweight, my Hexchat client is taking up 28mb of ram right now, and its one of bulkier ones. The lack of images allows compactness and simplicity.

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#115

Post by trumped »

orliesaurus wrote: post #71

Read the article, a bit skeptical, but we'll see. P.S. I been registered on rizon since 2002 - who else is a an oldschool IRC user in here?

EFnet was my first favorite network... haven't used that network in years though... #warez950 I think was one of the channels...

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#118

Post by fimdomeio »

hmm... To me irc was great as a young teenager in the first half of the 90's because my friends were there. I used a lot of geographical local channels so at some point people started organizing dinners, and I ended up knowing a lot of people. I still love the concept of irc but people are gone and they are never coming back unless someone destroys fb, snapchat or whatever they are using right now.

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#119

Post by Pete_D »

bandrami wrote: post #44
beefhash wrote: post #17

As a routine user of IRC: This scares – nay, terrifies – me. London Trust Media is colossal. They seem to have control over freenode and Snoonet, two networks basically unchallenged in their niche. Snoonet hasn't been doing so well since Discord, but that's another story. They also seem to own Private Internet Access. If a player becomes too big, they'll change the rules of the game. Just look at the state of Interne…

> first class support for emoji I'm sorry. Even in 2018 I cannot take seriously any claim that "support for emoji" is being used to make business case decisions.

Times have certainly changed drastically. I remember when Google Talk was announced and the tech crowd of the day embraced it precisely because it didn't have emoticons (or custom fonts and colors, or games, or a host of other features MSN/AIM/etc. had and were beginning to be considered tacky). Maybe it's cyclical, and in a few years we'll be back to minimalism.

Re: IRC.com Bought by London Trust Media, Pledges an IRC Revival

#120

Post by mjevans »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #83
ve55 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In practice this is very easy to achieve with IRC if you just use a BNC or otherwise have a client always running, for example inside of tmux. A lot of IRC users run their client inside of tmux, then they attach to it from any device, desktop, laptop, or phone, anywhere they are. It has all the same connections, history, etc. Of course I mean 'very easy' for someone who is used to the technical side of things. A norm…

> Of course I mean 'very easy' for someone who is used to the technical side of things. A normal user of GUI webapps likely isn't interested. Then it's not "very easy". It's "mildly complicated" at best. For IRC to succeed it needs to actually be very easy for all users, going down to very basic users who likely have never even heard of the terminal, let alone touched it.

These days I have to point new users to Quassel; there's the 'monolithic' version that behaves like old IRC clients, and there's the client/server version where the quassel "server" acts as a client and various quassel clients connect to that.

Note that it doesn't support mobile devices (in theory someone could submit a pull request to change that, but they'd probably need to write an additional QT GUI that worked correctly for them).

https://quassel-irc.org/about

Post reply on HN