|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Bowl of petunias
|
OP
Bowl of petunias
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2 |
Hey mIRC developer.
I use IRC (mIRC) 8 years, and i dont see any progress in IRC protocol.
Maybe you can start to develop Peer to Peer protocol for IRC ? Ofcorse it must work with server too, but Peer 2 Peer will be used for DCC(File transfer) / Video transfer / Voice transfer.
It will be greate if not only your web and program(mirc) will be in "21st century" but IRC protocol too(irc servers).
Some idea: Server has all IP's of clients, thoes ip will be used for p2p network
People please support, dont make IRC to die..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,741
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,741 |
mIRC is a client for IRC. As you mentioned yourself, any changes need to be made in the IRC protocol. Khaled does not have any say in how the IRC protocol is administered.
-genius_at_work
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 51
Babel fish
|
Babel fish
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 51 |
Well, he can redesign the IRC protocol to his liking, by writing an IRCd of his own, and making mIRC fit itself onto it.
But I don't think that because of that, all the other IRC networks in the world will switch to the new protocol ^_^
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 759
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 759 |
Not to bash on about it but Khaled could add voice/cam support without going through IRC at all. In fact you dont even want this to go trough IRC or any centralized server to begin with. /CTCP would be suited to initiate a connection, where the connections are on an allow basis. Wouldn't hurt no one if it was added :p
$maybe
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962 |
Well one of the main reasons IRC hasn't developed much is because it's just as useful now as it was 10 years ago. The only real issues with IRC as a text chat protocol are that it was designed for 8-bit text encodings whereas if it were designed today it would almost certainly be built around UTF-8 to eliminate the annoying encoding problems.
Everything you're talking about is covered by DCC, so there's no reason for IRC to be changed. DCC is already a peer-to-peer (Direct Client-to-Client) protocol. Video and voice chat are already possible over DCC, and although I probably wouldn't use it much I think mIRC could benefit from supporting it so I agree with you there.
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 842
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 842 |
What about clients that don't support it?
What do you do at the end of the world? Are you busy? Will you save us?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962 |
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918 |
Where does a "P2P network" (I'm assuming that means "filesharing network") come into this whole picture anyway? I thought this suggestion was for video/audio streaming?
- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC - "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031 |
He means video/audio chat support. I guess maybe he doesn't realize that DCC is more or less the same as P2P and video/audio chat would be possible using DCC.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2
Bowl of petunias
|
OP
Bowl of petunias
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 2 |
DCC is p2p, BUT its too "sux" to be a real p2p.. we need a big and good designed p2p network, so if 2 people do not have a real static ip, so the files/voice/video will be transfered thrue other clients.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,031 |
I would fight to the death against that crap. Single one on one video/audio chat connections is one thing, what you're proposing is very much another and has no place on IRC imo. Give you guys an inch and you want five miles.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918 |
It's not Khaled's responsibility to design "networks", his job in this scenario would only be to make a client stream video to another singular client. The fact that you keep injecting the word "network" leads me to believe you're barking up the wrong tree here
- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC - "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962 |
I'm not sure I get what you want. Or perhaps I'm more worried that I do. What do static IPs have to do with anything? What possible benefits could there be for involving any peers other than the sender and the recipient in voice/video/file connections?
Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,559 |
Now it sounds like some sharing "database" with clients holding data for others - a p2p in the sense of file sharing - and an IRC client is NOT meant for such an end...
|
|
|
|
|