IRC v3 • Hacker News Board

Re: IRC v3

#211

Post by lorenzhs » Tue, Oct 11, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

Gruselbauer wrote: post #205

lorenzhs wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dev here. It's completely independent of your config. Indeed many things carry over to Glowing Bear automatically, such as scripts that modify the lines (colorize_nicks.py) or create new text buffers (like highmon or grep.py), filters, triggers, etc.

Did check it out. Absolutely amazing project and if anyone still reads through this chat, absolutely what a modern IRC experience should be like in my view. Effortlessly does a lot of the things people on here like about Slack. I like WeeChat as a client, it's fast and lean and works inside the tmux session that pretty governs my digital life both private and professionally. Alas, it's not always accessible. Getting…

Thanks a lot for your kind words :)

Re: IRC v3

#212

Post by mclellac » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 3:01 PM UTC

xir78 wrote: post #91

k__ wrote: post #76

I used IRC for over 10 years, but after using Slack for 1 it just felt outdated to me. Offline messages and simulatnous logins from multiple places are just two features I was missing in IRC and didn't even know till I had them, haha. But yeah, IRC networks just worked as message broker and not as databases, so I never thought about it.

Also not being able to see or search chat history was a deal breaker for IRC. It's like the days before answering machines...

I'd argue that most people that use IRC use shells and a terminal multiplexer to access IRC, and this isn't an issue for them.

Re: IRC v3

#213

Post by jrnichols » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 6:04 PM UTC

I wish that there was just a solid way to prevent DDoS attacks and netsplits. IRC has always been one of my favorite communication mediums.

Re: IRC v3

#214

Post by bnjms » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 1:32 AM UTC

Gruselbauer wrote: post #204

rat87 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

Absolutely not. It's got a bit of an edge without seeming like something an angry teenager came up with - murder.im or so, "Riot" doesn't have only inherently negative associations -, it's short, easy to remember... it would've been a great name for many software projects, but especially for collaborative, communicative software I find it to be a stellar choice.

I actually wrote a reply explaining why it was a great name and vector somehow fell flat before understanding that you were being genuine. I agree. Riot has that edge but a Riot is always a group activity. And it's something anyone can join. They only need jump into the riot.

Re: IRC v3

#215

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:58 AM UTC

tarancato wrote: post #23

I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented. If you complain about those ide…

Almost everything you have said is false. Please cease this defamation.

>IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers

There is only one ZNC developer actively involved with IRCv3 (DarthGandalf) and even they have not been particularly active in the last few months.

>who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.

We accept any reasonable proposals providing you are willing to provide a strong rationale for it.

>They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented.

No IRCv3 technical board member has ever forced a developer to accept patches. Some people have contributed patches to various IRC implementations in order to improve IRCv3 compliance but those patches have been accepted out of the free will of the maintainer.

>If you complain about those ideas and specs, they'll tell you to refer to their github issue tracker,

We prefer that discussions happen on the tracker rather than IRC as it is persistent and can be referred to in the future.

>they mostly ignore those who are not part of that core group I mentioned.

This is completely false. Please provide evidence of this happening.

Re: IRC v3

#216

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

nenolod wrote: post #97

tarancato wrote: post #23

I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented. If you complain about those ide…

Regarding the IRCv3 group: it's actually worse. Historically the IRCv3 project originated at Atheme as a project to bring some extensions to IRC in order to make it more modernized, such as the SASL binding (IRC Authentication Layer). ZNC guys and Atheme guys did not get along because political reasons, so they threatened to fork the project. Atheme decided to spin off the IRCv3 project at that time as it was no long…

>ZNC guys and Atheme guys did not get along because political reasons, so they threatened to fork the project.

I do not wish to start an argument over things which are long dead. However, I think it is important to note that the "political reasons" were that you were constantly derailing discussions and threatening people.

I can publish all of my IRC logs if anyone wants evidence of this.

Re: IRC v3

#217

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:05 AM UTC

bitwize wrote: post #152

tarancato wrote: post #23

I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented. If you complain about those ide…

> I don't feel like typing much because it's nap time but IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers, who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like. This is how standards get built now. See also: systemd, R6RS.

This is not how IRCv3 works. We have contributors from almost every single major IRC network and implementation.

Re: IRC v3

#218

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:12 AM UTC

c3RlcGhlbnI_ wrote: post #47

My favourite bit is how they skipped adding length negotiation and it is causing them problems already. See the brief discussion of size limit on http://ircv3.net/specs/core/message-tags-3.2.html Adding tags forced them to increase message length because of how IRC messages are hilariously limited to 512 bytes in all directions. In the existing protocol you already have to guess how long your messages are allowed to…

>My favourite bit is how they skipped adding length negotiation and it is causing them problems already.

We are working on it but when you have hundreds of different implementations which are all broken in their own way its not as easy as just adding a way to negotiate the length. Extending the length to add an extra 512 octets for message tags was a temporary fix.

>Now if they had started with fixing the actual protocol they wouldn't have had to deal with that.

We HAVE started with working on fixing the protocol. Almost all of the specifications in IRCv3.1 and most of the specifications in IRCv3.2 fix core protocol issues.

Re: IRC v3

#219

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:14 AM UTC

jbk wrote: post #9

That's a great idea. Maybe also backport some features of Slack, like edition of messages (with a flag marking it as edited), or a common way to have plugins/extensions, or tagging links as images.

Edited messages are on my TODO for inclusion in IRCv3.3.

Re: IRC v3

#220

Post by SaberUK » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:19 AM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #4

IRC (current version) works fine for me. The trick is to front it with ZNC or similar software. Anyway, why isn't this being done through the IETF?

It is simpler for us to work on stuff by ourselves rather than getting the bureaucratic nightmare which is the IETF involved. IRC has never followed the RFCs strictly (even RFC 1459 describes a specific protocol which has never existed) so it is not too much of a problem.

There are plans to contribute an updated base RFC to the IETF in due course though.