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

Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

drewdevault.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 222 posts

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#191

Post by echelon »

Etheryte wrote: post #144
phicoh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then lots of people have bouncers to be there 24x7.

Personally, the main benefit of a bouncer is not missing highlights when someone wants to turn your attention to something interesting, reading up the logs for even a single channel isn't a reasonable way to invest your time.

> reading up the logs for even a single channel isn't a reasonable way to invest your time.

I'm beginning to feel this way about everything. Reddit, Twitter, social media in general...

The hoarder mentality likes for this stuff to still exist in the hopes it might one day be useful. In fact, it has very little value.

Snapchat got it right when they started with ephemerality.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#192

Post by sanderjd »

Etheryte wrote: post #144
phicoh wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then lots of people have bouncers to be there 24x7.

Personally, the main benefit of a bouncer is not missing highlights when someone wants to turn your attention to something interesting, reading up the logs for even a single channel isn't a reasonable way to invest your time.

It's not about scrolling up, it's about search. Which is another thing that IRC, even with a bouncer, is not good at.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#193

Post by superkuh »

rakoo wrote: post #172
crooked-v wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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%.

It's really not. Everyone thinks it's super complicated and dangerous because everyone is thinking about running a webserver, a database, and some active scripting language.

Just running a webserver is dead simple. The only technical stumbling block would be forwarding the port from the router and a good chunk of internet users understand that.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#194

Post by xvilka »

Ability to remove spam messages would be awesome, these days it is very hard to deal with on a public channels. Also log out of the box. None of them are distraction. And proper authentication out of the box. Better design for poor, unstable connections, i.e. mobile phones.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#195

Post by caf »

KirinDave wrote: post #70
asveikau wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No offline history: You have to have a client/bouncer running 24/24 if you want history. I would say it's even worse than this. Even if you attempt to have a client 24/7, the lack of an acknowledgement and re-transmit on lack of acknowledgement means that if you have any hiccup that causes you to need to reset the TCP connection, you can drop messages.

Indeed, the dependence on a persistent connection itself is an absolute non-starter for this feature. It's statistically guaranteed to fail, and IRC as a protocol spec is powerless to do anything other than shrug.

That's only relevant if the feature is being used between bouncers and clients with existing servers.

While this is certainly the initial deployment scenario, there's no reason in principle why you couldn't develop a server that natively supports that extension.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#196

Post by pteraspidomorph »

wayoutthere wrote: post #66
Pigo wrote: post #6

I'm glad Freenode has a user base for work related stuff, but I man do I miss when Undernet or Dalnet was still popular. I know I'll never run into my mother on IRC, and it is probably because of the format.

I used to run a server on Dalnet (then later on Espernet). Good times; nobody knew I was 15 so I learned a ton about programming from some smart people

I think it's the opposite; I was never accepted on Espernet precisely because they could somehow smell I was older. That community was pretty young.

I'm pretty sure Dinnerbone was around 18? at the start of Bukkit.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#198

Post by zapzupnz »

ganzuul wrote: post #160
zapzupnz wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you ask if you missed anything during the period For high-volume, fast-paced channels this may not be appropriate. For slower channels where people rarely post anything, you constantly asking "did I miss anything while I disconnected" might be considered spam. > I might not want a 24/7 archive What you may or may not want has no bearing on what the technology should be capable of providing when others may require i…

The social structure in those two examples will be very different. You would not want to do what you suggest. IRC remains popular, so same to you buddy.

> The social structure in those two examples will be very different. You would not want to do what you suggest.

I didn't suggest anybody do anything in my post. I merely postulated on scenarios where technology can (and does exist to) solve problems that aren't your own.

> IRC remains popular

I don't doubt it; in fact, I never disputed that. Further, in no way did I imply that IRC should cease to exist because other options are out there that address other peoples' needs, nor did I indicate that I think any IRC users are wrong to prefer it.

> so same to you buddy

Please keep your language respectful; your tone in that reply was nothing short of dismissive and needlessly condescending.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#199

Post by caf »

josteink wrote: post #134
beefhash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an aside since you brought up Undernet: Their CService website[1] has been down for weeks now. As far as I know, that's the only way to even register with X. I'm not sure if this is being worked around, somehow, or if UnderNet is just being left to die. [1] https://cservice.undernet.org/

Undernet has always been flaky. I help run a irc network which was spawned out of Undernet #linux around 15 years ago, because even back then we were really unhappy with general instability and how Undernet was run. Back then, it would split or simply go down several times a day. We were making the claim that “Undernet is dying” even back then. A few people and #linux channel-ops legitimately asked “How hard can it b…

It amuses me a little that this mirrors how Undernet itself got started - in that case, by the ops of #hottub on Dalnet.

There's a certain whimsical botanical style to the way in which IRC networks tended to grow large enough to start budding off new networks, some of which were able to find sufficient purchase to grow large themselves and repeat the cycle anew.

Post reply on HN