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

191–200 of 225 posts

Re: IRC v3

#191

Post by dajohnson89 »

prawnsalad wrote: post #20

There's a lot of neat stuff in IRCv3 to bring IRC up to date, but most importantly it is standardising a lot of the existing protocol and patching up some of the existing warts that make pushing IRC difficult - all while being backwards compatible. Developing kiwiirc.com over the past few years to cover many different IRC servers in all different languages and using many different services/auth services has been a re…

Thank you so much for developing such a great IRC client. Question:

>IRC is getting interesting again and IRCv3 is up there making a lot of this possible.

Could you elaborate? What are the most promising things about IRC today? I personally am a huge fan and have been a user for over a decade now. But I do see a lot of underutilized potential.

Re: IRC v3

#192

Post by kodisha »

We, small gaming community were using IRC as matchmaking "service" where we would all add to a queue, and the bot would then create teams based on players ranking.

That worked quite nice, for ~15 years, and whole community was created, things worked quite nice, diehard users used BNC and terminals, but lately everyone is switching to Discord.

Main matchmaking is still on IRC, but other sub-groups migrated to discord long ago, and that scares me, because no one at the moment knows what will happen with Discord year or two from now.

Re: IRC v3

#193

Post by GrinningFool »

Frondo wrote: post #74
bcook wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So logs are no longer append-only? This seems like a uselessly complex thing for all servers and client logs to support. Seems like it would break many things. What situation needs an edit feature? I can think of none, since a quick follow-up correction is simple. Also, edits would ruin many of the funny situations encountered on bash.org. :)

Logs can be append-only, while clients can still show edits. These aren't in conflict. It wouldn't have to be complex, either, and it certainly isn't useless (says me and a few other people already!). Quick example: I recently typed out about 10 long lines of business development chatter in Slack, the first of which contained a list of prospects. I realized I left a few out in my list, and edited the message to add t…

Without editing, you could be sure that everyone saw your follow-on correction.

With editing if people read the first version of your opening message, you don't know if they saw the edits or not.

I find edits useful for typos/formatting/cosmetics, but I don't ever edit significant information into a previous post for that reason.

Re: IRC v3

#194

Post by danfromberlin »

cyphar wrote: post #179
sudhirkhanger wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think IRC will be able to compete with likes of Slack?

IRC is already more widely used than Slack. So yes. A better question would be of Matrix.im will compete with Slack -- and to that I'm not sure.

What evidence do you have that IRC is already used more widely than Slack? Also, what's your metric, number of users?

Re: IRC v3

#195

Post by GrinningFool »

wcummings wrote: post #166
exhilaration wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use Slack heavily in our organization and editing happens all the time - whether it's to fix a typo, or insert a missing word, or cross out something we wrote earlier and put in the corrected version. Once you can do it you'll learn the value of it.

I still use the common irc convention of rewriting the incorrect bit with an asterisk at the end on slack. Old habits die hard.

Same here except for cosmetic changes. It's the only way to be certain that people have read your corrected version, and not just the pre-corrected original.

Re: IRC v3

#196

Post by Teckla »

crooked-v wrote: post #151
majewsky wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see someone on my IRC channels type out 10 long lines of anything, I tell them to use some sort of pastebin instead.

Slack has a pastebin built in, too.

Slack has a pastebin built in, too.

I'm not sure why your comment was down voted, but as both an IRC and Slack user, I have to say I love Slack's built in pastebin.

Re: IRC v3

#197

Post by Karunamon »

superkuh wrote: post #161
Karunamon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "real protocol" sucks on ice nowadays. No conversation history, no offline message storing, no push notifications, absolutely none of the niceties we've learned since 1990. The whole reason the Slacks and Hipchats and Discords of the world exist is that IRC is a terribly limited protocol that many people have tried to hang enhanced functionality on top of and none have succeeded. Personally, I'm in favor of letti…

I don't know about you but I have all of those things simply by leaving my bog standard IRC client connected to the networks. IRC is not a limited protocol. What is happening is that people are using limited computers and networks (smart phones) that aren't capable of the same thing a 1990s computer was.

Which only means the use case for the average user changed and the protocol failed to keep up. And you speak as if the few things I mentioned were the only things that IRC can't do that literally all of its competitors can, rather than a small sample of missing features.

Let's see, in addition to what's above, off the top of my head:

    * Video chat / screen sharing
    * Audio chat
    * First class support for connectors to external services (i.e. not a fake client connected to each room)
    * First class support for permissions, registration, etc (rather than a fake god-client service package)
    * REST API
Compared to IRC, Slack is more beautiful, more usable, more flexible.

It's a great microcosm of the free-vs-proprietary debate that's been raging so long. Slack is winning the fight because it wins in ways that are visible to everyday users, while not being philosophically better.

Re: IRC v3

#198

Post by jandrese »

nocarrier wrote: post #8

Why isn't encryption baked in by default? It's optional from what I can tell. I don't know how you can design a new protocol and not include encryption.

I agree. Even if it's as simple as having a way to exchange public keys baked into the protocol and allowing cyphertext in messages. Even better would be if certain channels could have their own encryption key (exchanged securely between people allowed to join the channel, and changed if someone leaves/joins).

This is like the email situation where encryption options exist, but it's too hard for mere mortals to use. If it's built into the base protocol then there's a chance that clients would implement the standard and actually use it.

Re: IRC v3

#199

Post by RandomlyGen »

drcross wrote: post #104

I run an XMPP server for myself and a few friend and have had no end to the trouble with it getting OTR or any level of encryption working reliably before friends lose their interest. Please, someone, just offer us an open source slack clone that runs off on a R-pi and has a walk through wizard to enable the 99% of typical install requirements. Even as someone who works in the industry, I dont have time to learn the…

Have you tried rocket.chat?

Re: IRC v3

#200

Post by wtetzner »

st3v3r wrote: post #143
wtetzner wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes everyone agrees that they really are enhancements.

Doesn't really matter. If it's part of the spec, then they should implement it.

No, this is a bunch of people making up what they think the spec should be, and making it "real" by forcing people to implement it.
Post reply on HN