the benefits of the change need to outweight the downsides (previously listed).
Let's take a look at the 'downsides' we've had so far shall we?
- Video support will hurt mIRC as a text chat client.
- Why? The two are not mutually exclusive. - I don't want mIRC to become an instant messenger.
- That's fair enough in some respects, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion for mIRC that already exists in an IM is immediately going to transform mIRC into one. Look at the suggestion objectively and stop worrying about where it came from. - What about added bandwidth?
- Added bandwidth to who? The video stream would be over DCC so IRC servers would not be affected one bit. As for the clients, well, if you don't want the extra bandwidth use then just don't accept DCC VIDEO requests. - What about privacy?
- What about it? How is video chat any more of a privacy concern than text chat? - What about software bloat?
- You don't know there'll be software bloat and I don't know that there won't. It's pointless for us to argue about it because we'd just be guessing. All we can do is talk about the actual feature suggestion and let Khaled worry about implementation details and whether it's worthwhile. - People will confuse mIRC with other messaging media.
- I have no idea what the hell that means. But nonetheless DCC VIDEO and SOUND protocols already exist and have already been implemented in some IRC clients, so I don't see how mIRC supporting what's already available and in use on IRC will make it appear as less of an IRC client.
Bottome line: I don't care if DCC VIDEO brings more users. I don't particularly care whether DCC VIDEO is supported or not since I'll probably never use it myself, but so far not one person has given what I would consider a reasonable argument against it.
