mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#119103 04/05/05 03:30 PM
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 24
B
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
B
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 24
Quote:
the spamfilter on that ircd is server side and is not in control of the users at all, and I beleive in networks taking a role in blocking spam. Now instead of someone getting a infecticous link to a fake webcam, the drone gets a gline and the user never even knows a dron had targeted him.


The problem there is it lulls the client into a false sense of security. This kind of thing should be the clients responsibilty. IRC should be an unrestricted open meeting place in that way, Anybody can send you any kind of message.

What if I want to send a user a link legitmetly, there would be some way round this filter to allow me to do that, Otherwise my freedom is impeded, So the server side measure is reduced in usefulness and could only at best compliment a good client side system, And therefore probably is not worth any serious discussion.

Somehow this is different to Email or SMS spam where you would like a server-side filter perhaps, But i can't quite put my finger on why it's different, I just feel that IRC should be a less restrictive meeting place, A bit like walking around in public where you are exposed, Anybody can say anything to you. I think that is part of the appeal of IRC, and this kind of filtering is easily handled by a client.

Last edited by Biggles; 04/05/05 03:35 PM.
#119104 04/05/05 05:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
The trouble with anyone deciding to 'update' the IRC protocol is that it will be a self-appointed person/group, so there's no reason for anyone else to adhere to what they say if it conflicts with their idea of what IRC should be. Personally, I'd probably end up being one of them since there's a very high likelihood that anyone wanting to join such a group for updating IRC are doing so because they want a lot of changes to the protocol - leaving those who think major changes will be a very bad idea (eg. me) out of it.

For each of the changes in the original post there's a good reason (I think) why they shouldn't/can't be implemented into IRC (I've replied with them on another site where tidy_trax posted this thread). Quite frankly I think 99% of the changes that people come up with for IRC that could put put into effect without disrupting everything are useless and unnecessary, and the ideas which actually would benefit chatting would, largely, require changes far too sweeping to be implemented in IRC and would be much better off put into a new protocol.

You might say that this attitude wil leave IRC with no way forward for improvement and that it'll eventually die. And that's probably true. But people will always want to use the internet for chatting so if IRC ever does die it'll only be because another, better, protocol has supplanted it. Better for IRC to die because it's been superceded then for it to die because of massive rifts due to groups trying to enforce their ideas of 'IRC 1.1' on the chatting populace.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
#119105 04/05/05 06:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Individual networks can have a group to work on them. For the hundreds or thousands (not really sure) of networks, it becomes a problem to have a committee or a board to run development. A board or a committee by definition is a small (relatively) group of people who will run things or direct things or whatever. Instead, I'd suggest letting everyone who is interested join together at one location to work on development rather than being run/directed by a specific group.

As for your second point, you're looking at it in such a way that nothing would ever be done. You're looking at it as if it were an endless loop where IRC won't improve because mIRC isn't going to support it right away, and mIRC won't improve because IRC doesn't have new features and so on.

Instead, there is nothing wrong with looking at it the same way as other things are done. For example, graphics cards (top end) have features and abilities added to them that are not used in any games or apps at the time they are developed... and, in some cases, for months or even as much as a year after. But, because they are developed with the goal of the features being used in the future, then game developers can go ahead and start adding the features as they need them. The same would work perfectly well with IRC. If a feature is added to IRC that won't be used immediately, but which people are sure will eventually be used once mIRC and other clients are updated to use it, then there will be improvement. With your view of it, nothing would ever be done.


Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
#119106 04/05/05 07:03 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 89
N
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
N
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 89
Quote:
The trouble with anyone deciding to 'update' the IRC protocol is that it will be a self-appointed person/group, so there's no reason for anyone else to adhere to what they say if it conflicts with their idea of what IRC should be. Personally, I'd probably end up being one of them since there's a very high likelihood that anyone wanting to join such a group for updating IRC are doing so because they want a lot of changes to the protocol - leaving those who think major changes will be a very bad idea (eg. me) out of it.

The same applies to the person who invented IRC - there was no reason for anyone to adopt his view on online chatting. But something NEW was created, along with the freedom to use it or ignore it - and we chose the former. I don't see a problem if a group of people appoints themselves to be "The One and Only IRC Designers" and makes something innovative for us - it will only work if it's convenient and effective, but that's exactly the sort of things we'd embrace.

The possibility to change IRC creates a similar freedom - it lets the majority decide what's convenient and what's not. I don't see how a door that is always locked is better than a door that you can open and close at will. I have problems understanding why we should restrict ourselves from fixing the door until someone builds a better house. I don't really want to wait another decade for a better house, I'd rather take a hammer and make it better today. I see no benefit in limiting people's creativity, I see no real excuse for embalming the current state of things forever.

It will not be a tragedy if IRC indeed freezes and eventually dies, displaced by something else. But in that case it will be very little for IRC community to be proud of.

#119107 04/05/05 07:09 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 89
N
Babel fish
Offline
Babel fish
N
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 89
Quote:
As for your second point, you're looking at it in such a way that nothing would ever be done. You're looking at it as if it were an endless loop where IRC won't improve because mIRC isn't going to support it right away, and mIRC won't improve because IRC doesn't have new features and so on.

Yup, I'm rather pessimistic here. I have a weird assumption that for a distributed system to evolve dynamically, its protocol, client- and server-side software must be designed and developed by people working in tight collaboration with each other.

Quote:
Instead, there is nothing wrong with looking at it the same way as other things are done. For example, graphics cards (top end) have features and abilities added to them that are not used in any games or apps at the time they are developed... and, in some cases, for months or even as much as a year after. But, because they are developed with the goal of the features being used in the future, then game developers can go ahead and start adding the features as they need them. The same would work perfectly well with IRC. If a feature is added to IRC that won't be used immediately, but which people are sure will eventually be used once mIRC and other clients are updated to use it, then there will be improvement. With your view of it, nothing would ever be done.

I see a difference that appears significant to me. Graphic cards are made by people who compete for the customer and continuous improvement is the only way for them to survive. But even so, they do work closely with software developers. NVIDIA and Microsoft are making DirectX because they simply cannot afford investing into things that may never get supported. Microsoft and DirectX developers work together, sorting issues and discussing new features.

You can see that there's an abyss between the free and commercial worlds. But one thing still unites them - they exist solely to make the customer's experience better than it was yesterday.

#119108 04/05/05 07:28 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,330
You are correct in saying that the hardware and software companies work closely to get things working between the two. I think we can use the same philosophy with IRC. Let whatever people want to improve IRC to work closely with Khaled (and other IRC client developers) to get the new features added to IRC and then added to the software quickly and efficiently. smile


Invision Support
#Invision on irc.irchighway.net
#119109 04/05/05 09:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
M
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
M
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
This seems similar to the group of people that want to improve the DCC protocol (creatively named DCC2) where various client developers joined. I haven't heard much about its development since it was announced though, but I don't believe it's been discontinued. I guess this is also comparable to the MTS project, although obviously that is solely for mIRC and is a creation of a protocol rather than a sudden new development of a currently widely used one.

If it does eventually work for that I see little reason why it couldn't work for the IRC protocol. *Shrugs*

Regards,


Mentality/Chris
#119110 05/05/05 05:40 AM
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 540
A
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
A
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 540
I could easily host some forums and even an ircd to get the ball rolling.

#119111 11/05/05 10:48 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Don't want to beat a dead thread here, but I only just noticed this response.

What Jarkko Oikarinen did and what tidy_trax is proposing are two entirely different things. Jarkko, as you pointed out, made something new. tidy_trax is talking about taking something old (and in some places not so old seeing as the protocol is so fractured) and trying to make it into something new - the same supposed protocol but incompatible with the existing implementations.

There needn't be another decade before 'a new house' comes along. In fact I'm quite certain it would be much faster and in many ways easier to create a new protocol than try and pull all of the peices of the current one into a single whole again - and without the limitations of what that 'fixed' protocol could be. I certainly don't want to limit people's creativity, quite the opposite, I propose that instead of thinking small (IMO) and trying to patch up a rather beaten and in some ways flawed protocol (albeit one that's been very good to me over the years) that people instead put their efforts into creating a new protocol which overcomes all of the shortcomings of IRC and avoids the mistakes of the past by forming some kind of working group to maintain it and prevent the division that has occurred within the IRC protocol.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard