4 ms·

> If IRC were good enough to handle the needs of small software company communication, people would use IRC. Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would

> If IRC were good enough to handle the needs of small software company communication, people would use IRC. Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough? You go on as if your first sentence stands up on it's own. It makes no sense at all.

randomsearch 11y ago
> Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough? Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more. Everyone I know working in academia or on a startup that uses any kind of instant chat uses Slack. None of them previously used IRC for the same purpose. And it's just _obvious_ why, once you've used Slack for a while. They're quite different -- IRC is a protocol for real-time discussion on the internet. Slack is a business tool that incorporates real-time discussion.
- rando289 11y ago
  > Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more. Wow, going off the deep end here. Unless you are a time traveler, there is no way to not use IRC because of slack, 'prior to slack existing.'
- rando289 11y ago
  > it's just _obvious_ why Uh, nope. Most people use communication platforms due to network effects: because they were invited to use it, because their friends/coleagues use it. Slack is no different.
  - KirinDave 11y ago
    Considering Slack is a per-organization service with minimal cross talk between organizations, your premise seems flawed. I mean, Slack appeared on scene after many other technologies existed. People recommend it for their friends because it works well. There is no global network effect at play.
    - csallen 11y ago
      I don't think his point needs Slack to have a global network effect built in. I'd assume that, usually, a small handful of people in an organization decide on using Slack. Once the choice is made, network effects lock members in. Assuming the average org has 20 people or so, probably 90% of Slack's users are probably thanks to network effects.
KirinDave 11y ago
It's an observation in the context of the article in question, not a statement in an argument, you buffoon. The article acts as if we just don't know the "benefits" of IRC and then proceeds to list a bunch of very questionable benefits. I know all about IRC. I think it's a tire fire that won't go out. Sort of like perl, UNIX signal handlers, and systrace.
- dang 11y ago
  > you buffoon Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of whether someone has misunderstood you. Please don't do this again. Some of your other comments have crossed into incivility as well. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

randomsearch 11y ago

> Given A and B, if A were good enough, people would use A... What if B is better? What if both are good enough? Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more. Everyone I know working in academia or on a startup that uses any kind of instant chat uses Slack. None of them previously used IRC for the same purpose. And it's just _obvious_ why, once you've used Slack for a while. They're quite different -- IRC is a protocol for real-time discussion on the internet. Slack is a business tool that incorporates real-time discussion.

rando289 11y ago
> Prior to Slack existing, lots of people who now use Slack weren't using IRC, because Slack offers a lot more. Wow, going off the deep end here. Unless you are a time traveler, there is no way to not use IRC because of slack, 'prior to slack existing.'
rando289 11y ago
> it's just _obvious_ why Uh, nope. Most people use communication platforms due to network effects: because they were invited to use it, because their friends/coleagues use it. Slack is no different.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  Considering Slack is a per-organization service with minimal cross talk between organizations, your premise seems flawed. I mean, Slack appeared on scene after many other technologies existed. People recommend it for their friends because it works well. There is no global network effect at play.
  - csallen 11y ago
    I don't think his point needs Slack to have a global network effect built in. I'd assume that, usually, a small handful of people in an organization decide on using Slack. Once the choice is made, network effects lock members in. Assuming the average org has 20 people or so, probably 90% of Slack's users are probably thanks to network effects.

KirinDave 11y ago

It's an observation in the context of the article in question, not a statement in an argument, you buffoon. The article acts as if we just don't know the "benefits" of IRC and then proceeds to list a bunch of very questionable benefits. I know all about IRC. I think it's a tire fire that won't go out. Sort of like perl, UNIX signal handlers, and systrace.

dang 11y ago
> you buffoon Personal attacks are not allowed on HN, regardless of whether someone has misunderstood you. Please don't do this again. Some of your other comments have crossed into incivility as well. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html