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

251–260 of 397 posts

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

#251

Post by frankietwenty9 »

losteric wrote: post #241
tptacek wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used command line IRC clients in the 1990s. I wrote IRC clients in the 1990s. I'm not interested in going back to IRC, an "open" 7-bit effectively-centralized protocol with line-length limits and lowest-common-denominator clients that can't even show an image. I don't use Mutt to get access to my email, anymore, either. I guess that makes me "average". IRC, FTP, and, yes, SMTP are all bad protocols from the 1980s e…

What functional improvements are fundamentally incompatible with the "old" protocols? Longer lines could have been supported with a minor protocol revision. Giving customers the freedom to use clients that don't render images, or markup, is actually a positive. I setup Mattermost for my company. The deciding factor between Mattermost and IRC was effort to get non-technical users a nice GUI. Functionally, IRC would ha…

it feel a bit biased when you say that IRC could have a protocol bump, but you wouldn't make the same modifications to hide pictures in Mattermost.

Additionally not being able to share images as a feature? I guess everyone will do the three step upload to imgur first.

In my world - if I could get away with less different clients I would. It makes it a nightmare to support.

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

#252

Post by ddtaylor »

rasengan wrote: post #236
ddtaylor wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have a dislike for Mark not because he took risks but because he didn't let other people solve the problems they clearly had, which is dangerous. The reason there are so many conspiracy theories about him is because he's made the line between stupid and malicious near impossible to differentiate.

I'm not sure if that is the right way to interpret it. For example, every single exchange out there is holding people's assets, in trust, and thus, are also making it difficult to distinguish the line between stupid and malicious. Society is still learning and it's having growing pains. But, these pains, are leading to stronger, more resilient systems. I think we'll soon start seeing non-custodial exchanges, the way…

There were some strange warning signs though leading up to the hack including people disclosing other security bugs that pointed to a broken system.

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

#253

Post by jlgaddis »

Twirrim wrote: post #38
wencha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather see irc dead than turned into something else

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

RSS is an open standard too, but Google effectively killed it.

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

#254

Post by _arvin »

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…

You so nailed it, man. Thanks for that. I really miss those old days. I'm turning 33, but I'm constantly chasing old nostalgia these days and realizing all the old things that used to make me happy, _still_ make me just as happy. (and you're damn right I still use BitchX)

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

#255

Post by greglindahl »

tptacek wrote: post #174
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…

I used command line IRC clients in the 1990s. I wrote IRC clients in the 1990s. I'm not interested in going back to IRC, an "open" 7-bit effectively-centralized protocol with line-length limits and lowest-common-denominator clients that can't even show an image. I don't use Mutt to get access to my email, anymore, either. I guess that makes me "average". IRC, FTP, and, yes, SMTP are all bad protocols from the 1980s e…

I use mutt. It's a big increase in security compared to the typical email client exactly because it's below the common denominator. And yet it does what a startup executive needs, except for the occasional message I forward to Other Devices to view. With one keystroke.

Then again, if you want to equate the badness of IRC and FTP, which is much earlier than IRC and much more of a security problem, you're making a poor quality argument anyway. Dumpster fires and garbage dump fires are different orders of magnitude.

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

#256

Post by greglindahl »

rasengan wrote: post #189
tptacek wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used command line IRC clients in the 1990s. I wrote IRC clients in the 1990s. I'm not interested in going back to IRC, an "open" 7-bit effectively-centralized protocol with line-length limits and lowest-common-denominator clients that can't even show an image. I don't use Mutt to get access to my email, anymore, either. I guess that makes me "average". IRC, FTP, and, yes, SMTP are all bad protocols from the 1980s e…

I would be happy if it looked like 1995. It was actually decentralized.

IRC, FTP, and SMTP are all decentralized. That's the good part about them.

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

#257

Post by j45 »

digi_owl wrote: post #234
j45 wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irc created more new social connections than many networks that came after. Same goes for bbs. We need to find the next thing that truly connects people.

"Locality"? BBSs were more of the than not local, with some federation in that the operator or someone he trusted would exchange data between the local BBS and some distant BBS. Similarly IRC used to house a high number of very local channels back when i first came online (and one tried to pick a server on the network that was in one's own nation or a neighboring one to avoid finding oneself on the wrong end of a net…

Locality, interesting. I'd agree on BBS'. My experience of IRC, thought on efnet was expanding past my local calling area.

IM definitely took the bite out of IRC because it was far better at creating beginners that never made it to IRC, and a lot of IRC users got pulled to IM. ICQ, Yahoo, AIM, MSN created a new type of connection.

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

#258

Post by greglindahl »

jlgaddis wrote: post #244
Karunamon wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And logging and services that aren’t hacky god clients and user accounts as first class and... IRC has had literal decades to be improved and only now do people get serious about it after Slack and friends sucked all the oxygen out of the room. Older isn’t necessarily better either. IRC has stagnated hard , about the only thing it has on the competitors is that it’s free.

> ... it’s free. And doesn't require 8 GB of RAM to run a client.

Ha ha that's crazy talk! Eventually they threw my IRC server off of EFNet because 8 total megabytes of ram for the server+OS was too little for the working set.

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

#259

Post by greglindahl »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #195
dmitriid wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resent that you resent "average people". I'm an average person (with 17 years of professional programming career behind me). I wouldn't give two craps about IRC in 2018. Yes, I really enjoy having a smooth cross-platform experience with inline media, public and private chat rooms, search, file transfers etc. without having to set anything up and without having to deal with half-baked poorly implemented clients who…

Back in the day, lots of 'normal people' used irc too. I like things with open standards, so that people can use the tools that work for them. Bob can use the Gmail web interface to send and receive email, and Sally can use gnus in Emacs to send and receive email on her own local server.

Back in the day, the IRC crowd had a lot more 'normal people' than Usenet, which was the other social outlet on the Internet.

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

#260

Post by dmitriid »

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #195
dmitriid wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resent that you resent "average people". I'm an average person (with 17 years of professional programming career behind me). I wouldn't give two craps about IRC in 2018. Yes, I really enjoy having a smooth cross-platform experience with inline media, public and private chat rooms, search, file transfers etc. without having to set anything up and without having to deal with half-baked poorly implemented clients who…

Back in the day, lots of 'normal people' used irc too. I like things with open standards, so that people can use the tools that work for them. Bob can use the Gmail web interface to send and receive email, and Sally can use gnus in Emacs to send and receive email on her own local server.

> Back in the day, lots of 'normal people' used irc too.

"Back in the day" they had no choice or little other choice but.

And even then "normal people" would prefer things like AIM and ICQ for reasons obvious to anyone except the self-proclaimed not-normal above-average über-men.

Post reply on HN