Live data from Hacker News

Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

drewdevault.com

31–40 of 222 posts

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#31
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 too miss the good old days of Undernet, where Romanian criminals would show off hacked systems, or DDOS other IRC users.

It was a particularly good MMORPG.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#32
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you on that - but that's not written in your post so my point still stands. Many of the paint points are solved when using alternative clients. Alternative clients will allow you to, for example: * Use Slack on an ancient computer * Use TTS systems * Not use threads (you can just dump everything in the channel) * Not have link previews * Use keyboard only * Get a less distracting experience I'm…

You just described 6 use cases for IRC. Then I'll just stay on IRC.

I’m just trying to show that there are alternative ways to use Slack for those who are forced to use it. If you and/or your company actively use IRC then my suggestions obviously don’t apply to you.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#33
This really comes back to the Capability vs. Suitability model that Gary Bernhardt has spoken about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NftT6HWFgq0

IRC is capable. It is a box of nuts and bolts that lets us communicate and build awesome bots and so on.

Bloating the protocol gives us suitability: features that are robust and can federate.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#34
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To stefan's point, Slack clients are unofficial and unsupported software built on top of proprietary protocols which are subject to change at any time according to the whims of a private company which has their bottom line at heart instead of your communication needs.

I don't disagree with you on that - but that's not written in your post so my point still stands. Many of the paint points are solved when using alternative clients. Alternative clients will allow you to, for example: * Use Slack on an ancient computer * Use TTS systems * Not use threads (you can just dump everything in the channel) * Not have link previews * Use keyboard only * Get a less distracting experience I'm…

>I don't disagree with you on that - but that's not written in your post so my point still stands.

I kind of feel like the second-to-last paragraph of my article does address this.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#36
post #17

IRCv3 is a scourge because of this. They’re looking to bloat the protocol. IRC is good because it’s IRC.

IRC was made a spec in 1993. Not 2003, or even 2013.

And when that RFC was made, they made strong decisions about bandwidth costs. They gave up things like federation and more.

So yeah, it's time that it's revisited in making a IRC that can be federated, multiple login/endpoints without using bouncers, and more. I welcome their new RFC. And it it doesn't work, we're free to keep what we currently have.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#37
I think if most people saw the limitations of irc as the author then it would still be the dominant protocol

And it doesn't seem to me that "fixing" irc is just a matter of adding the bells and whistles, but there's some work to be done on the lower levels as well

For example, how well would irc work on mobile? Keeping logs requires a bot usually on irc as well.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#38
post #19

> IRC messages are always lines of characters terminated with a CR-LF (Carriage Return - Line Feed) pair, and these messages shall not exceed 512 characters in length, counting all characters including the trailing CR-LF. Thus, there are 510 characters maximum allowed for the command and its parameters. Yeah, lets just forget how painful it was for non english speaking users to use IRC. 255 characters for unicode and…

not an issue

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#39
Well, I consider stuff like the absence of server-side friend lists, server-rendered embeds and formatted messages a bug at best, though in IRC's case it's simply the lack of ability because the protocol is horribly outdated, modern approaches and limitations could afford a lot of QoL improvements.

Re: Absence of certain features in IRC considered a feature

#40
post #19

> IRC messages are always lines of characters terminated with a CR-LF (Carriage Return - Line Feed) pair, and these messages shall not exceed 512 characters in length, counting all characters including the trailing CR-LF. Thus, there are 510 characters maximum allowed for the command and its parameters. Yeah, lets just forget how painful it was for non english speaking users to use IRC. 255 characters for unicode and…

As a user of non-English languages, this is not really a problem in practice. We settled on UTF-8 years ago. My second language is pratically the worst case for bumping up against these limits and I never have an issue with them.
Post reply on HN