4 ms·
So Freenode is centralized... kinda — I certainly wouldn't argue that it isn't, at least. But the next point you make — "but you're still logging into someone
by adrusi 11y ago
So Freenode is centralized... kinda — I certainly wouldn't argue that it isn't, at least.
But the next point you make — "but you're still logging into someone else's server" — is not necessarily true. IRC is not a federated system, but a good way to think of it is as a federated protocol that has a central point of control at the federation level. Kind of like geopolitical federation: individual states in the US (theoretically) have sovereignty within their borders, but when it comes to interacting with their peers, the other states, they are controlled by a centralized power known as the US Federal Government. In the same way, a single IRC server can act independently so long as all the recipients of all of the messages that all of the clients are sending are also connected to this server. Once a recipient of a message is connected to a different server, then the irc network (the federal government, if you will) takes control.
Now, this all is mostly of theoretical interest, because in reality if you objected to the centralization of an IRC network, you'd be much better off just running your own network than applying to run a server for an existing network.
The reason to prefer Freenode's brand of centralization over Slack's is the same as the reason to prefer Debian to Apple. Debian and Freenode are community-run organizations, staffed by volunteers, which push to advance the values of free software. Apple and Slack are for-profit corporate organizations which are driven by the wills of their investors, not their users.
Yes, a proper federated IM network would be better than Freenode. But there isn't one, and just because Freenode isn't the best solution, doesn't mean it isn't better than Slack.
- iheartmemcache 11y agoI'm agreeing with you in the larger sense (Debian + IRC are way more 'community-run' (both in the literal sense and the community feeling you get after spending 3 years in #openbsd (i.e. Deb/IRC == Woz)), and Slack + Apple is refined, user-accessible, and designed with traditional capitalist values (i.e. Steve Jobs). But your comparison of IRC leafs = the state/commonwealth gov't :: IRCs hub (assuming there is one) = the federal gov't is real flawed. >> Yes, a proper federated IM network would be better than Freenode. But there isn't one. Ah the short term memories of Silicon Valley. http://xmpp.org/ http://xmpp.org/ + Pidgin. Support for DNSSEC. Support for TLS[1]. OTP is provably uncrackable. Support for that too! Though it has no major company backing it, the protocol's RFC has been published and there is public source code for both clients and servers. (There was support for Google until they realized 'uh we can make more money by Walling in our Garden' and in 2013 Hangouts came out, but there is a proper federated IM network that's secure(ish), agnostic and fairly robust). >> But a good way to think of it is as a federated protocol that has a central point of control at the federation level. Eh. IRC is inherently only as federated as the opers who choose to run their links and leaf nodes in a united fashion. In the late 90s/very early 2000s -- back when Freenode was OPN and even blackbox took tens of minutes to compile! -- there was so much drama with where people would fork off networks over trivial BS. I have a disagreement with my bud John, and drama ensues and a network gets forked. I can't just 'fork' off from the US. Some gentlemen in the 1860s tried to do it and didn't fare quite well. [1] To be fair, STARTTLS can be chunked into basically any protocol. My point stands.
- lmm 11y agoPidgin is awful for group chat. So is every other jabber client out there. I want to like it because it's open-source, but it's just unusable for many use cases (e.g. try to participate in a conversation using a home and a work computer, or just try to find a groupchat UI that isn't awful).