mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: SkypeMe mode &&& Mirc ! [Re: ibeencamping] #197191 30/03/08 10:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
A
argv0 Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
A
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,918
We already discussed this. There's really very little left to say on the subject, which is likely why the thread turned off topic. Skype's protocol is proprietary btw, which would mean mIRC would need to get permission to license it, which I highly doubt would ever happen. Video chat in general has been requested several times, and there are publicly available DLLs that do this such as ByteCam, so perhaps Khaled will do something similar, but there isn't all that much *real* interest from the community, especially since people use IRC specificially because it is text-based. If someone needed a video alternative, they would use it-- IRC is not that medium, and everyone using IRC knows that.

The conclusion seems to be that it is not likely to happen, but we'll all see what Khaled decides.


- argv[0] on EFnet #mIRC
- "Life is a pointer to an integer without a cast"
Re: SkypeMe mode &&& Mirc ! [Re: argv0] #197202 31/03/08 01:05 AM
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 334
foshizzle Offline
Pan-dimensional mouse
Offline
Pan-dimensional mouse
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 334
lol, one person supporting the idea will not get it bundled with another program that has nothing to do with IRC. its not going to happen


This is not the signature you are looking for
Re: SkypeMe mode &&& Mirc ! [Re: foshizzle] #197222 31/03/08 04:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
L
LostShadow Offline
Fjord artisan
Offline
Fjord artisan
L
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 509
Originally Posted By: foshizzle
sorry i dont spend 5 hours to try and perfect my message so ppl dont bitch about it

That's fine, since I don't know anyone who does that.

Originally Posted By: fozhizzle replying to Collective
perhaps you should worry about yourself

Let's assume for a minute, that by default, everyone worries about themself. This could mean that at any time, that we are thirsty, we would try to do something to not feel thirsty. So your request could also be redundant if my assumption were correct.

But suppose your argument was that he should only worry about himself. I would tell you that is useless: what's wrong with worrying about others?

By the way, suppose for example you said that as a defense mechanism. The fact that Collective might worry about you, wouldn't justify that you have to defend yourself by attacking. So there is nothing wrong with other people worrying about you (or in this particular case, worrying about your grammar). But why people may take offense to that could be beyond me.

Page 2 of 2 1 2