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

Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

exple.tive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 370 posts

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#271

Post by [deleted] »

steveklabnik wrote: post #165
obhmt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted to communicate with laypeople they'd offer support over the channels laypeople expect support nowadays, namely Facebook. Instead they are going to choose some middle ground that will displease everybody; they will botch it, as they like to do. They are already working on botching it, since they've moved the Rust channel to a closed source alternative with no expectations of privacy: https://blog.rust-l…

Mozilla did not move the Rust channels. We did.

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#272

Post by [deleted] »

steveklabnik wrote: post #165
obhmt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted to communicate with laypeople they'd offer support over the channels laypeople expect support nowadays, namely Facebook. Instead they are going to choose some middle ground that will displease everybody; they will botch it, as they like to do. They are already working on botching it, since they've moved the Rust channel to a closed source alternative with no expectations of privacy: https://blog.rust-l…

Mozilla did not move the Rust channels. We did.

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#273

Post by rmtgk »

steveklabnik wrote: post #165
obhmt wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted to communicate with laypeople they'd offer support over the channels laypeople expect support nowadays, namely Facebook. Instead they are going to choose some middle ground that will displease everybody; they will botch it, as they like to do. They are already working on botching it, since they've moved the Rust channel to a closed source alternative with no expectations of privacy: https://blog.rust-l…

Mozilla did not move the Rust channels. We did.

It's simply pathetic that the handlers of one of the most important parts of Mozilla unilaterally decided to move the community to a closed source service and Mozilla didn't have teeth to do anything about it.

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#274

Post by j1elo »

coldtea wrote: post #269
j1elo wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "secret" (a link to another private whatsapp group to which not everybody should enter, just for easiness of organizational purposes in an event, so not much of a critical secret) was reportedly seen by around 5 people out of 200 in the group. No one of them bothered, if they did it would mean just a bit of explanation and taking them out of the new group. By all means, being able to quickly make a correction was…

> Your position is that of _if we cannot solve 100% of a problem, there is no use to solving 95%_ which is clearly a false dichotomy. No, my position is that if 5% of a problem (5 out of 100 people seeing it) is equally catastrophic as 100%, then it makes no sense to differentiate, which is a very true dichotomy. The fact that just 1 person that's not supposed to see it seeing it can do damage, makes the problem a bi…

I agree for catastrophic mistakes. It doesn't mean the feature is rendered useless for the non catastrophic ones.

Which one occurs more often than the other, that's another question, but I'd argue that the later is more common, and there is no doubt that people knew, in the event they wrote a very catastrophic secret, the limitations of the edition/deletion of messages (as long as most people nowadays seem to know about screenshots being a thing)

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#275

Post by ebiester »

nickjj wrote: post #220
Frondo wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IRC is rarely used compared to Slack, with its 10 million users. I used it daily for decades, but let's not forget netsplits, nick collisions, zero log history (without a bouncer, and then you need a place to run a bouncer!), no file-sharing in a NAT world (dcc stopped working a loooong time ago), and no integration with any other apps, and on and on. Don't get me wrong, I wish there was an open-source project that b…

Netsplits happen once in a blue moon nowadays (on freenode at least), nick collisions are also solved (you can register your nick on freenode and other networks), and you can totally set up logging on your channel and unlike Slack it won't disappear after 10,000 messages. You can also make it accessible through the web so people can easily see past history. File transfers are definitely an issue over IRC but https://…

So, what client just allows you to join a channel and scroll up without having to learn the idiosyncrasies of a bot? Now, how do you search every channel on the instance?

I'm curious if someone has figured this out in the interm.

(My current hope lies in Mattermost, honestly.)

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#276

Post by Samis2001 »

ve55 wrote: post #6
Dylan16807 wrote: post #2

I don't really understand how switching to a different system is going to do anything about levels of abuse and harassment. I'm sure it will be easier to use, at least. IRCv3 was trying to solve some of this but I haven't heard a peep in years.

Spam can be difficult to stop on IRC compared to modern webchat applications. From lacking things like javascript, captchas, cdns, and so on, to having a distributed network architecture and fewer ways to verify users.

....JavaScript?

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#277

Post by admax88q »

sumedh wrote: post #152
xfitm3 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slack is trash and hostile to users, but unfortunately, it has significant momentum. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mozilla switches over.

> Slack is trash and hostile to users It seems better than Skype and Hipchat and whatever Google's latest chat app.

> It seems better than other trash messaging platforms.

I mean you're not wrong, but you're not setting the bar particularly high :).

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#279

Post by bmn__ »

norswap wrote: post #140

I never see addressed the biggest reason (according to me) why IRC loses, so let's spell it out. IRC isn't persistent (i.e. you can't read messages delivered while you were offline) unless you setup an IRC shell. This is technically difficult (much more so than dicking with nickservs and so, which is already a pain point). Hosting it is also not free . Count 5$/month on CloudOcean or some such. https://www.irccloud.c…

> clone of IRCCloud. Easy.

https://github.com/leedo/alice

Re: Mozilla is giving up on their IRC server

#280

Post by the8472 »

j1elo wrote: post #274
coldtea wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your position is that of _if we cannot solve 100% of a problem, there is no use to solving 95%_ which is clearly a false dichotomy. No, my position is that if 5% of a problem (5 out of 100 people seeing it) is equally catastrophic as 100%, then it makes no sense to differentiate, which is a very true dichotomy. The fact that just 1 person that's not supposed to see it seeing it can do damage, makes the problem a bi…

I agree for catastrophic mistakes. It doesn't mean the feature is rendered useless for the non catastrophic ones. Which one occurs more often than the other, that's another question, but I'd argue that the later is more common, and there is no doubt that people knew, in the event they wrote a very catastrophic secret, the limitations of the edition/deletion of messages (as long as most people nowadays seem to know ab…

The issue is that zapzupnz deletions to propagate. This can only be ensured in locked-down systems.

There's a difference between offering corrections and retractions that others may or may not accept and actually enforcing deletions. This is both socially and information-theoretically true.

Post reply on HN