Forums Developers Linux MiRC

Hi i'm kenshin from the Phil. I would just like to suggest to the miRC developers to have a miRC for Linux version.I have been using LInux now for few months and Linux is boring without miRC.Hope you consider my request.

This has been suggested many times before. Read here for more information.

Linux is boring because it pretends to be something it will never be. As for mIRC, as Poppy said, it's not on the cards and probably never will be. One man makes mIRC tick. Khaled doesn't have a whole floor in an office building chokkas with coders hammering away at mIRC's source code on Linux boxes.

To Khaled's credit, he does an excellent job with the Windows version and I would not like to see mIRC suffer in quality or development terms simply because a few people want to run it on Linux.

If you like mIRC, run Windows XP or 2000.

Go to the Linux Wine webpage and download that..
it should allow you to run mIRC without modifications on Linux.

Linux is boring because it pretends to be something it will never be

Linux doesnt pretend to be anything - it just so happens that some people prefer the stability/license/interface of the various linux distro's than windows

but u dun wanna get me started on why windows is bad :P u really dont :P

And while you may think that linux is pretending to be something that it will never be, a very large number of people (including most at microsoft) see it as a strong competitor to the windows monopoly

One man makes mIRC tick. Khaled doesn't have a whole floor in an office building chokkas with coders hammering away at mIRC's source code on Linux boxes

He could have - I know of atleast 3 people who would be interested in assisting porting the best windows irc client over to linux - and I personally have offered to assist in porting it but its his choice not to accept help with his program from the community - which is fair enough

To Khaled's credit, he does an excellent job with the Windows version and I would not like to see mIRC suffer in quality or development terms simply because a few people want to run it on Linux.

Yes, khaled does a good job with mIRC for windows, but there is absolutely no indication that mIRC would "suffer" in any way if he were to port it over to the ever-growing world of linux

If you like mIRC, run Windows XP or 2000.

I have to say, that is the most stupid thing u said in that post. Some people dont have the option, or money, or any number of things to run windows - not to mention those who dont wish to support a convicted abusive monopoly... but I digress

And as a reply to someone elses post + information for the original poster...

Go to the Linux Wine webpage and download that..
it should allow you to run mIRC without modifications on Linux.

Unfortunately, there are still bugs in either wine or mIRC which cause it to hang after an extended period of use under wine (a couple of hours) - but if you can live with that, then mIRC runs reasonably well (although the irc displays are very slow to update...)

Unfortunately, there are still bugs in either wine or mIRC which cause it to hang after an extended period of use under wine (a couple of hours) - but if you can live with that, then mIRC runs reasonably well (although the irc displays are very slow to update...)

Sorry to say this but... This is the very reason (according to some regular posters here who know what they are talking about) as to why mIRC will never appear as a .tar.

The other reason is that Khaled probably doesn't want to either do this task or even hand the task to others. He does seem quite defensive about dishing out mIRC's source code and I can't blame him.

Invariably the motion for a Linux mIRC always ends up in a Windows v's Unix debate. The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability. Proof of this is that I chat on a Windows based network and all four servers have been up for the last 8 months so get a clue.

The next issue is the continued questions when Khaled has a personal homepage with his signature in BLACK INK which clearly states that there will NOT BE A UNIX/LINUX/APPLE/ATARI/C64/WINDOWS-CE versions of mIRC. The l337 coders you say are forming an orderly queue to assist with this will therefore be waiting for a long time, I hope they packed a lunch or two and took a chair.

Sorry to say this but... This is the very reason (according to some regular posters here who know what they are talking about) as to why mIRC will never appear as a .tar.

Uhhh, I'd never suggest that a windows program should be provided as a tarball - and if it were ever to be ported to linux, such issues as the two I mentioned would be imaterial

The other reason is that Khaled probably doesn't want to either do this task or even hand the task to others. He does seem quite defensive about dishing out mIRC's source code and I can't blame him.

Of course - neither do I - this is his project and he has every right to do what he wants

Invariably the motion for a Linux mIRC always ends up in a Windows v's Unix debate. The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability. Proof of this is that I chat on a Windows based network and all four servers have been up for the last 8 months so get a clue.

The majority of people who post on here "demanding" a linux version are clueless about how difficult it can be to convert such a project, and think if they shout loud enough people will do what they want.
I am not going to partake in a windows/linux argument, but the fact that you have achieved a stable network with windows NT is in no way proof that it is as stable / more stable than linux. There are linux machines that I'm aware of with uptimes of over 3 years, but similarly, thats no proof that linux as a whole is more stable than windows NT - just that that particular configuration is highly stable.

The next issue is the continued questions when Khaled has a personal homepage with his signature in BLACK INK which clearly states that there will NOT BE A UNIX/LINUX/APPLE/ATARI/C64/WINDOWS-CE versions of mIRC.

Fair enough - I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself, the continued interest by new users does show that there is a real demand for mIRC on linux

The l337 coders you say are forming an orderly queue to assist with this will therefore be waiting for a long time, I hope they packed a lunch or two and took a chair.

I resent that comment and indeed several others in that post and your previous one.
While there are some very loud *nix users who claim to be "1337", complain about windows, and want to have their cake and eat it, there is also a large portion of the linux community that does none of those things
Stereotyping everyone who uses linux by your experiences with a few "1337 kiddies" do is like saying that only black people drive BMW's because the black drug lords in manchester do

I would be grateful that if you reply to this post that you try to refrain from inflamatory remarks like "get a clue" (which I presume are the type of remarks you dislike from the "1337" people you've encountered in the past)

Fair enough - I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself, the continued interest by new users does show that there is a real demand for mIRC on linux.

There is no "real demand" for a Linux version of mIRC. How many times does it have to be said to you? I've been a member of this forum for about a year and the subject has/was brought up around 12 times that I know of in that time. Among 1,000's of other posts I fail to see who that can raise an arguement of "real demand".

My mention of "get a clue" was obviously in reply to your flame of Windows (fashionable I know but a little tiring at times especially when you have no valid evidence to support it), it's like you believe everyone still uses Win 95 (which was iffy, stability-wise) the way you carry on.

It is a simple request that people do some reading before posting a new thread here. I mean no malice towards the original poster and the proof of that is in the manner I originally replied. I just pointed out that the only option is to use what is available as nothing is likely to change. It's when those of your ilk barge in with...

but u dun wanna get me started on why windows is bad :P u really dont :P

... then you have no-one to blame but yourself when others decide to get defensive.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself,

To be frank with you, I don't mind if Khaled changed his mind and made a Linux version. Every man and his dog in the joint knows and respects the fact that the decision is his and his alone. But he has plainly said before that HE DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE ONE AND DOESN"T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO EITHER. What part of this do you not understand?

If you want to use mIRC, use Windows. If you like Linux better then use programmes made for it like X Chat, which is also a good programme.

Lastly, it was you that first started the Windows v's Unix debate with that slop about instability. You reap what you sow in this world. Both OS's have their purposes and both do the job well. Your insinuation about Linux being more stable than NT emphatically false. Please note that I didn't make any counterclaim. :tongue:

There is no "real demand" for a Linux version of mIRC...
the subject has/was brought up around 12 times...
It is a simple request that people do some reading before posting a new thread here

Perhaps the sticky post at chance that due the top of some of the forums, plus the chance that due to the current linux market more people are likely to read documentation / search before posting/requesting/etc are factors in that.
I suspect that only a few would argue that mIRC was an inferiour client to those available on linux
What do you expect to demostrate real demand for a client that it has been made clear has no plans for existance? those "1337" people who dont read up before asking questions or search to make more noise?

My mention of "get a clue" was obviously in reply to your flame of Windows (fashionable I know but a little tiring at times especially when you have no valid evidence to support it)

I have not flamed windows. I stated that some people prefer it to windows and listed three of the reasons that some people have used to justify their preference. Perhaps I should have worded it slightly differently.

My reference to windows being bad has nothing to do with its stability, or anything to do with the actual program itself, but rather its monopolistic position in the market place and the effect that any monopoly has on consumers - and in particular with the way that microsoft continues to abuse that monopoly
I personally use windows for a large portion of the time I'm using a computer (both NT and 2K) due to the applications that I need to use and have only had a few stability problems (mostly due to the USB drivers, but I digress yet again)

But he has plainly said before that HE DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE ONE AND DOESN"T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO EITHER. What part of this do you not understand?

You could also quote my sentance before the one you quoted...
Fair enough
or perhaps from my first post...
but its his choice ... - which is fair enough

Lastly, it was you that first started the Windows v's Unix debate with that slop about instability. You reap what you sow in this world. Both OS's have their purposes and both do the job well. Your insinuation about Linux being more stable than NT emphatically false. Please note that I didn't make any counterclaim.

I said that some people have cited stability as the reason that they prefer linux
I understand and accept that a well configured windows machine could probably run for as long as a well configured linux machine
(Oh, and isnt The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability a counterclaim?)

Anyhow, someone should stick a big warning at the start of this thread that it has gone slightly off topic

Anyhow, someone should stick a big warning at the start of this thread that it has gone slightly off topic

It was you that took it there.

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares? They were first to mass-distribute an OS that had a GUI, had a stack of applications to go with it, was ready for the net, came with a browser, and ran on a IBM compatible PC (don't here that term used much now ay) which was the type of computer making the most inroads in the market share stakes. It was only a matter of time before it would take over from Commodore and Atari and who wouldn't expect the OS most used on it to go along for the ride? Hell you can even still get Browser/Dialler/LAN applications for DOS which was also popular at the time and before it.

Jealousy is a curse mate. Leave the tall poppy syndromefor those with nothing better to do with their time. I'll admit I wouldn't mind a fistfull of Uncle Bill's booty but either way I just get on with life and use my computers in the easiest and most efficient way possible. Ohhhhhh and by the way, I do have a Unix box, FreeBSD to be exact. It doesn't get much use though, mIRC only runs on Windows.

lol ive got both ...... i cant stand chatting on a linux system because its got nothing to offer either ..... hell yeah its stabole tho .... but u cant hardly find things for it ...... if there isnt stuff available to cause instability of course it wont become unstable ..... its like buyin new snow tires for winter and not being able to drive cause ur transmission dont work ...... its a waste of time ...... but um sorry were talking bout Nix windows comparison so um since there isnt a comparison ill just stop now ..............

I could tell you why Linux sucks big time, but I don't really want to get into this religious war.

mIRC for Linux won't happen in the nearest future (just one more argument in favor of Windows

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares?

The united states governent
The european union
AOL
Sun
Apple
Me

Its not that they HAVE a monopoly thats inherently bad, its the way that they have and are using that monopoly to squash competition (netscape, java, etc...)

Jealousy is a curse mate

Sure, I wouldnt mind some of billys money - and to deny that I'm jealous of someone with so much money would be a lie
but my opinions arent based on jealousy but rather things like the fact that microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser which harms competition (which is therefore bad for everyone who doesnt have the kind of choices over what they use that I have)

[edit]whoops, changed <i> to bbcode[/edit]

well [censored] if i were bill and his money id try to squash anyone who stood in my way too its simply good business sense ........ i mean really this has turned into a debate now of which is better linux or windows and um now its not even about mirc ........ pointless arguement ........ again khaled chooses to only work on a windows based mirc and its his "baby" so to speak so give him the leeway to do with as he pleases ...... if ur unhappy with linux chat programs and there are a few well build ur own ...........
as they say necessity is the mother of invention and heck for all we know khaled could hate linux OS for some reason or another ....... its all his choice and it has been said several times not to get hopes up about mirc for linux ........ debate should be over with that much said

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares?

The united states governent
The european union
AOL
Sun
Apple

The five examples listed there are monopolies in their own right. Sun leads the way in the enterprise server market, AOL is the world's largest ISP (About 30 million customers or there-abouts) and happily distributes a ripped version of MICRO$OFT Internet Explorer with their internet access CD's. Apple (which I humbly refer to as Crapple) are the leading opposition force to the PC market. The EU seems to dictate all non-military world policy and the US Govt dictates all military policy and is about the only country that has army bases in countries that belong to someone else (albeit with that country's approval). Any country with 20 aircraft carriers would be silly not to claim that stake I suppose.

Now what was that you were saying about monopolies?

if i were bill and his money id try to squash anyone who stood in my way too its simply good business sense

Yes, it is good business sense

but, it is also highly illegal
Its illegal because if not it would be possible for one company to ensure that everyone used their non-monopolistic product (IE) due to the users reliance on their monopoly product (windows)

The five examples listed there are monopolies in their own right.
Sun, AOL and apple are not monopolies...
AOL may be the largest ISP, but I severly doubt they serve more than 50% of the entrire online world - which completely prevents them being a monopoly in the ISP business
A monopoly isnt just bigger than any competators - its bigger than ALL competetors added together
Ditto apple - u cant say their second place so their a monopoly to the rest. Perhaps there is another market which I dont know about where they ARE a monopoly - but they certainly arent in personal computers
I dont have any figures for Sun's penetration in the server market, but I know they face strong competition from HP - and I've never heard their position described as monopolistic before...

Sure... there is only one united states govenement, but you can hardly say they have used their "monopoly" to kill competition

Now what was that you were saying about monopolies?
That the abuse of a monopoly was illegal - and microsoft have illegaly abused their monopoly

now are u sayin illegal in us standards or world standards cause im pretty sure the us is the only one who makes monopolies illegal ...... maybe its unethical imoral to the rest of the world but um microsoft is operated in exactly the same way a japanese business would be run ..... ruthless and totally for profit no matter what ....... how do u think they put nearly half the tv companys in the us out of business??? the sold thier product for less than it cost to make and ship the product here to the us ..... therefore under bidding every us manufacture in the same technology .... sure they lost money for a few years but lok at them now ....... u can say microsoft is illegal but whats the difference???? was microsoft illegal before linux????? of course not they didnt have competition ....... now ur turning a mirc discussion into a defimation of character of microsoft ...... man just get over it mirc wont port to linux ...... does that make mirc illegal?

now are u sayin illegal in us standards or world standards cause im pretty sure the us is the only one who makes monopolies illegal ......
Monopolies arent illegal that I know of - only the abuse of those monopolies is illegal

And it is illegal in both the US, all European Union countries and australia - I cant say anything about others, because I dont know

how do u think they put nearly half the tv companys in the us out of business??? the sold thier product for less than it cost to make and ship the product here to the us ..... therefore under bidding every us manufacture in the same technology .... sure they lost money for a few years but lok at them now

A loss leader is perfectly legal and is not the same as abusing one monopoly to create another
Microsoft are currently trying to get into other markets (mobile phones, games consoles) using loss leader tactics - which is all perfectly legal

was microsoft illegal before linux
I dont know tbh - but linux is irrelavent in my eyes in terms of microsofts monopoly - the only monopolistic practices that I'm aware of have been windows specific

man just get over it mirc wont port to linux
I have a long time ago
does that make mirc illegal?
No

It would probably be better to read up on the microsoft anti trust trial to understand just why microsoft have abused their monopoly and why its illegal, because I've only been an interested spectator - I'm not a lawyer or even someone who is "very much in the know" - just an interested ordinary bloke

So, to sum up then.
- mIRC won't be available on non-Windows systems anytime soon
- Some people on this board really have too much time on their hands.

Sun/AOL/etc are not monopolies.

Linux vs. Windows is a stupid debate. People who typically carry them out are completly idoitic and have no understanding of Linux. Linux is not meant to be a desktop. It would suck for a desktop. It's meant to be a server. Those who want to chat, play mp3s, etc, Linux is a waste of time. Why? Because that's stuff for personal use not a server (running your own dns, services, etc on a secure/stable envorniment) Why people have this debate I'll never know. I use Linux often in the server envorniment and I have Windows 2k on my personal computer. Both are equally great in their own right. I'd never use 2k to run as a server and I'd never run Linux to be a desktop.

mIRC demand in Linux is not popular for many reasons:
1) Look how bad fwaggle/etc got treated for merely replying? I'd steer clear also.
2) Not many people use linux for personal usage as people do for Windows. If they do, they prefer simplicity (as Linux is quite simple ... there's no lets open 50 dialogs to change a setting) -- xchat, bitchx, etc are fine for them.
3) Most Linux users dislike mIRC. Not all, but most I've met do.
4) There's many, many, many more ...

How's AOL/Sun a monopoly? They do not force you to use their stuff, cut out compatability of others products in their own. I can name atleast 20 instances where microsoft has tried to make it virtually impossible for their mainstrea marketting products to work with nothing else (Netscape Navigator, for example)

As far as "Including a rip of IE" I would hope you're not calling Netscape a rip of IE. They're totally different. If that's the case you're clearly mistaken ... I could even provide you a lot of facts to prove that it's completly not IE related at all.

If anyone is "ripping" software that is Microsoft. They've ripped everything they made damn near. Only they copyrighted it first. Hrmm... isn't Windows ripped? Sure is, it was stolen from Xerox/Apple in the 80's. JScript? Ripped too, atleast, it's all JavaScript with some newer functions and guess what?! They only work on IE! So yet Microsoft pushes developes to stick to "Microsoft only"

That is the funny thing about Windows. .EXE executables hide who is really ripping what. As far as monopolozations go no one you mentioned is guilty but Microsoft. Last I heard they're even trying to shutdown various contributors of the open source movement (like getting PHP eliminated, etc). I've also heard that MS is going to be working with people like Intel to develop chipsets/software that makes it virtually impossible to leech/warez stuff but the way I read about it (on some news site months back) it's going to be a burden for anyone using a computer who isn't running Microsoft products. Could this happen? It could, MS could easily toss Intel 25 billion dollars and make them do whatever they want. Technically, it wouldn't be a monopoly then because MS Does not own Intel.

Back to topic though ... Windows is Windows, Linux is Linux, completly different and intended for completly different things. I agree it should not be ported at all. It would lose a lot of functionality I'm sure and take ages to port (by Khaled that is) considering all the API would change.

Out of simple logic, Khaled killed 16 bit because he wanted to write one program ... I think asking for two versions is a bit harsh. C/C++ is a GOOD language to learn, and certainly if people can sit on IRC and chat away or come here and debate with people for long periods of times they could easily learn it, write their own for Linux, and be happy.