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

161–170 of 397 posts

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

#161

Post by superkuh »

ulkesh wrote: post #19

I love the optimism. Really. However, while IRC is a great collaboration tool, and one I also grew up using, I find that though users are anonymous and no one can see each other, there are still plenty of trolls who have many ways of getting under one's skin. This utopia of IRC simply doesn't exist. It is still comprised of humans. Anonymous humans. And anonymity tends to bring out the worst in people.

No utopia exists. But IRC is a hell of a lot more pleasant than you make it sound.

What I'm afraid of are the centralized proprietary chat networks and the perverse incentives that creates for censorship. Censorship is the worst in people. Anonymity just means people aren't constantly playing identity and power social games.

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

#162

Post by orf »

matthberg wrote: post #56
Twirrim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could any of this kill IRC? It's an open standard.

Embrace Extend Extinguish, the root of Electronic Evils. Hopefully it doesn't happen with IRC as it has with other lovely parts of electronic history. Microsoft was the origin of the term with their browser and OS products of old, yet it has been unfortunately more and more relevant with Google, particularly email and android openness (gmail only features and Google play services, respectively).

It's being extingushed right now because nobody is extending or embracing it.

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

#163

Post by orf »

seba_dos1 wrote: post #147
j45 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack is inspired by irc and uses irc's core approach of channels, usernames, messaging, bots, and more.

And how exactly does that make it an IRC client?

It doesn't, nobody said it was. Re-read the comment.

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

#164

Post by inimino »

iamdave wrote: post #100
bandrami wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I watched as a Lack of emoji support took down a critical production database for over 100 non-profit organizations in 2015 and made ripples across the charitable giving sector. All because someone included a smiley emoji while making a donation to a local community foundation. Lessons were learned because of poor planning admittedly but if you don't take emoji support seriously it's probably because you haven't suff…

Sounds more like "Unicode support" or even "input sanitization" was the missing feature there. As long as you have bytes in = bytes out and you don't crash on unexpected input, you never need to know that emoji even exist to avoid these problems.

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

#165

Post by strkek »

warmwaffles wrote: post #85
xf86alsa wrote: post #84

https://matrix.org is essentially a modern IRC, but federated and completely FOSS. I suggest people drawn to an IRC-like experience without the proprietary nature of Slack and Discord [give it a shot]( https://riot.im ).

You know that IRC is FOSS as well right?

And federated too, if I may add.

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

#167

Post by kuon »

This is a bit off topic, and I love IRC, but I'd love a modern IRC client.

Features I'd like:

- Inline images and media

- html preview

- people list, friends, but also an automatic highlight system, when I chat with someone I don't know for some time, I'd like to have that person on some list.

- Conversation history (a way to jump to my conversations within the channel history).

- More advanced profiles (image, bio...) Option to publish my public channel list.

- End to end encryption if in private channels

- Notifications

- Status (busy, helping...)

- Activity summary (mostly for private channels but being able to know who was active, and what was discussed).

- Reactions (on busy channels it is quite fun and a fun way to say thanks without pollution).

- Threads.

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

#168

Post by justin66 »

nopacience wrote: post #76

Long live IRC There will always be new platforms like slack, discord, gitter, and whatever. IRC was and still is great. IRC is simple, its text, its stable. Its simple to program on and a lot can be done above it. IRC is open. The basis of old internet protocols are simple, open and powerful Email, IRC, HTML, FTP And as the article points out, irc has no face. IRC was a time people had to ask for a picture. Different…

> The basis of old internet protocols are simple, open and powerful

> Email, IRC, HTML, FTP

FTP sucked back in the day and it still sucks. Otherwise, yeah.

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

#170

Post by strkek »

_8j50 wrote: post #143
CapacitorSet wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't IRC compatible with e2e? I could see it working at a "transport" layer, with additional commands to import, export and view keys.

If you break backwards compatibility? Maybe to an extent. How do you handle clients that don't support it? How do you secure channels and allow some of the current server op/admin (what freenoders call staffer) functionality? By the time you consider that and more you might as well make a new protocol. Let's say someone with an older irc client or who doesn't want e2e messages you,what then? Now your irc conversation…

I can perfectly see this implemented without breaking backwards compatibility, similar to how we have usermodes for "connected via SSL" and channel modes for "requires SSL".

It doesn't require breaking backwards compatibility because, as far as outdated clients are concerned, they just "can't enter a channel because they lack a required usermode" or "can't send a message to some user because they lack a required usermode".

We only need the spec to define "some way" to do it so clients can announce their support and servers know what to do with the supporting clients.

Then it's up to IRC daemons to provide some modes for it.

Post reply on HN