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

391–397 of 397 posts

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

#391

Post by detuur »

rasengan wrote: post #307
csomar wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think people want IRC for the lack of functionality. I think they miss IRC because they see in Slack a real threat to decentralization, privacy and openness. I don't use IRC. But I'd never use Slack either in a project I maintain/lead. We need a better alternative.

Also, slack is like a dumbed down version of IRC. As an example, on IRC you could run an auction or a 10000 person university lecture because there is a +m channel mode (moderation). +m quiets all users in the channel and only allows you to speak if you receive the channel-user mode +v (voice) or have +o (operator status). Some ircds also have a +h etc. You can setup bots like “RaiseYourHand” for people who want to a…

Actually, Discord does this pretty well. I honestly consider it a 21st century successor to IRC. The unfortunate fact is that Discord is still a closed system, with not even the ability to run your own instance, instead with the owners insisting on a cloud-run infrastructure.

Just imagine how much better Discord, Slack, et al. could be if you could host your own instances with your own rules and with your own extensions.

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

#392

Post by krageon »

detuur wrote: post #391
rasengan wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, slack is like a dumbed down version of IRC. As an example, on IRC you could run an auction or a 10000 person university lecture because there is a +m channel mode (moderation). +m quiets all users in the channel and only allows you to speak if you receive the channel-user mode +v (voice) or have +o (operator status). Some ircds also have a +h etc. You can setup bots like “RaiseYourHand” for people who want to a…

Actually, Discord does this pretty well. I honestly consider it a 21st century successor to IRC. The unfortunate fact is that Discord is still a closed system, with not even the ability to run your own instance, instead with the owners insisting on a cloud-run infrastructure. Just imagine how much better Discord, Slack, et al. could be if you could host your own instances with your own rules and with your own extensi…

If it is closed (and nominally 'free' for the average user), you have to assume everything you say and do is being mined and sold to the highest bidder. How can something like that be the successor to anything?

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

#393

Post by hobs »

inimino wrote: post #164
iamdave wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched as a Lack of emoji support took down a critical production database for over 100 non-profit organizations in 2015 and made ripples across the charitable giving sector. All because someone included a smiley emoji while making a donation to a local community foundation. Lessons were learned because of poor planning admittedly but if you don't take emoji support seriously it's probably because you haven't suff…

Sounds more like "Unicode support" or even "input sanitization" was the missing feature there. As long as you have bytes in = bytes out and you don't crash on unexpected input, you never need to know that emoji even exist to avoid these problems.

Yep, and this sounds even more fishy because the idea that no unintended unicode characters wouldnt be copied and pasted into a form field is a joke.

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

#394

Post by molsongolden »

dmitriid wrote: post #342
_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But mIRC was (is?) also easy to use. AIM, Discord etc. have the 'word-processor problem': the protocol and the interface are inexorably intertwined. You're stuck with whatever user interface they provide. And this 'word-processor problem' is compounded by the 'normal people' issue, or, even worse than that, the 'lowest common user' problem. It's optimisation not for the best or the most powerful or even the prettiest…

> With an open standard, you can have good interfaces for 'normal people' and an interface for 'lowest common users' and interfaces for other types of users Please show me a cross-platform good interface for "normal people" for either IRC or XMPP: that supports all the latest standards and is on par with, say, Slack. Where cross-platform isn't Windows-Linus-Mac, but desktop-mobile. For IRC I'm aware of none (except t…

thelounge works great on both desktop and mobile.

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

#396

Post by kqr »

coatmatter wrote: post #372
kqr wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked at Matrix.org? It's essentially the "modern IRC" people are asking for. I strongly suggest giving it a chance.

I'm being semi facetious, but what does Matrix offer that I'm not able to get from my 24/7 tmux+irssi virtual private instance? Please don't say more notifications or addictiveness.

To me, it offered the ability of my fiancee and family (who don't have 24/7 tmux+weechat VMs) coming online. I now have them in my IRC client. It's wonderful, and I have wanted that for so long.

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

#397

Post by koffiezet »

freeflight wrote: post #288
frankietwenty9 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Additionally not being able to share images as a feature? I guess everyone will do the three step upload to imgur first. Maybe I'm missing the point here: But IRC does have a file transfer feature, so what would stop people from sharing images just the same way like plenty of "content" has been shared over IRC?

dcc and xdcc can only be used to send an image to a single client, so sending an image to a channel is a no-go.
Post reply on HN