Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature • Hacker News Board

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#171

Post by progval » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:43 PM UTC

zzo38computer wrote: post #168

maeln wrote: post #41

I love the simplicity of IRC, I still use it to this day, but I have to say, I understand why IRC cannot be used for any serious team communication. The two biggest pain point that I see is: 1. Because there is no real account management you don't have any proper authentication, which make administrating a channel real dodgy (even with network provided bots). 2. No offline history: You have to have a client/bouncer r…

"Because there is no real account management you don't have any proper authentication, which make administrating a channel real dodgy" I think often that lack of needing an accout is an advantage, and not a disadvantage. However, sometimes you do want some, and many IRC services include NS REGISTER and NS INFO and so on for account management; even without that, channels can be passworded if needed. "You have to have…

> alternative is for the logging to be part of the server implementation; I have once done this, and it is possible, but it does not seem to be common

IRCv3 has support for this: https://ircv3.net/specs/extensions/batch/chathistory-3.3.htm... and at least InspIRCd (a major server implementation) implements it.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#172

Post by rakoo » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #136

superkuh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Why add extra steps and add in having to keep the code to adapt to APIs or URL paths that change every 6 months? It's not like keeping a browser and IRC client open are mutually exclusive. I personally just $ cp whatever.jpg ~/www/ because I host my static site from my home connection and have for 20 years. I know self-hosting is not for everyone but everyone self hosting would literally solve all the proble…

"Just run your own home web server to share images in chat" is the kind of self-parodic response that's made Slack so successful in contrast.

It's at the same level as "just run curlftpfs on a remote server and trivially run CVS on it" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224). The HN crowd is quick to find a good reason why the proposed solution isn't the correct one, but unfortunately it's only true in very niche cases. When it's working for the 80% we're always complaining about it not working for the 20%.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#173

Post by progval » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

dfabulich wrote: post #145

The article here claims that IRC is better than Matrix because Matrix supports pasting long snippets and IRC doesn't. The author furthermore claims that Matrix users are being a "nuisance" by posting long snippets to IRC with a link fallback, like this: ihabunek [m] sent a long message: ihabunek [m] uploaded an image: image.png (39KB) This is "being a nuisance"? It's just two chat lines, and the first line isn't mean…

The issue with the "long message" thing is not pastes; it's that Matrix is misconfigured by default. When a user types a short but multi-line message, Matrix forces IRC users to click the link to see it, whereas sending multiple messages to IRC would be better. Or the beginning of the message, then the link, so at least we know if we're interested in the content.

I have seen a user who had half their messages replaced by a link, that was unreadable.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#174

Post by progval » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #136

superkuh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why? Why add extra steps and add in having to keep the code to adapt to APIs or URL paths that change every 6 months? It's not like keeping a browser and IRC client open are mutually exclusive. I personally just $ cp whatever.jpg ~/www/ because I host my static site from my home connection and have for 20 years. I know self-hosting is not for everyone but everyone self hosting would literally solve all the proble…

"Just run your own home web server to share images in chat" is the kind of self-parodic response that's made Slack so successful in contrast.

Or just send it to any of the bazillion websites that offer image hosting.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#175

Post by progval » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:54 PM UTC

rakoo wrote: post #120

kungtotte wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several image hosts with tools available that make uploading as easy as passing a filename to a command or dropping it in a synced folder, so you're really just adding one step to the process of pasting an image into IRC.

Except I might not be working in a terminal, I might not have the file available locally (I personally don't have any stored on my computer). Like the poster above I'd like to drag and drop something from a tab to the conversation, and not have to deal with the steps between. That's what technology is about after all.

If you don't have it locally, then it's probably on the web with an URL, you can paste the URL directly on IRC.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#176

Post by clarry » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 9:55 PM UTC

ryanlol wrote: post #157

deadbunny wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you living in a world without netsplits?

Netsplits are pretty rare these days.

Yeah? I just counted six netsplits in the past 24 hours that affected a channel I'm on on IRCnet.

I still love IRC. My second home.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#177

Post by joepie91_ » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 10:07 PM UTC

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #148

dfabulich wrote: post #145

The article here claims that IRC is better than Matrix because Matrix supports pasting long snippets and IRC doesn't. The author furthermore claims that Matrix users are being a "nuisance" by posting long snippets to IRC with a link fallback, like this: ihabunek [m] sent a long message: ihabunek [m] uploaded an image: image.png (39KB) This is "being a nuisance"? It's just two chat lines, and the first line isn't mean…

I expanded on this here: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3Ca6e64b69-c0cf-...

That seems like an extremely handwavy motivation, not much of an elaboration.

> When one side sees it embedded in the chat but the other side sees it as a link, it affects how the former uses the feature and how the latter perceives the former, in ways that could be unexpected to the former. The point of my article is that these features have a social effect which is not necessarily positive.

How does it affect it? What ways? What social effect?

This explanation is totally devoid of any concrete examples of a mismatch of expectations and resulting social effects, it just alludes to them existing without any concrete basis - essentially weasel wording.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#178

Post by ohithereyou » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

KirinDave wrote: post #99

ohithereyou wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 is trivially solvable on the server side by requiring TLS+SASL 2 is trivially solvable on the server side by writing logs IRC is a protocol, not a product, and an IRCd author can add these features. The fact that it has not been done speaks to the demand for these features.

I would not call running those services "trivial", but yes. If you bolt actual authentication onto something below L7 of the protocol, then you get real authentication. However, it's difficult for permission models to properly integrate with this, which is why many servers still support nickserv. > Logs Yes if you sacrifice all privacy you can patch over this problem by running a local bot and then using extra softwa…

>However, it's difficult for permission models to properly integrate with this, which is why many servers still support nickserv.

freenode and Rizon both support SASL, and UnrealIRCd has support built in[1]. It's not 'bolted on' as you claim, and many networks support it.

>Yes if you sacrifice all privacy you can patch over this problem by running a local bot and then using extra software to republish it. I suppose that is a valid, if unsatisfying, answer.

You can add a module to an IRCd to log on the server. This is ideal in a work situation where people know they're being logged. This is not a client side method as you seem to imply.

>it's not for everyone

Nobody, especially the most 'hardcore' of IRC users I've met, would contend that everyone should be using IRC. Rather, what they're contending is that IRC has technical limitations and the people that use IRC _prefer_ having those technical limitations because their use does not require those features.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#179

Post by andrewshadura » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 10:17 PM UTC

Have the author tried to write bots for Matrix? It's much simpler than for IRC and doesn't require a persistent connection.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#180

Post by ohithereyou » Mon, Jul 01, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

ircdrone wrote: post #158

Pigo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss the wild west, sue me. My entire life wasn't on whatever system I was using, so it wouldn't have mattered if someone messed it up. I don't miss the hardware of the time, but at least the web wasn't sterilized and owned by a few companies.

Correct, today’s internet has been taken over by companies and search engines by seo spam. But if there was anyone left enjoying tue good ole days of lawlessness, irc would still be a thing.

I don't know where you went, but there are still plenty of people using IRC. Not as many as were in the past, but it's still popular enough with the crowd of people I hang around.