3 ms·

i love IRC, without bncs you close it, and you are not there :) its amazing you connect and the history is empty, like every day is fresh slack/discord/whatsa

i love IRC, without bncs you close it, and you are not there :) its amazing you connect and the history is empty, like every day is fresh slack/discord/whatsapp/etc are just invasive, everybody somehow expects immediate answer to their request.

shp0ngle 4y ago
in reality, everyone use some kind of irssi or whatever, to replicate slack etc, so everyone is there and “active” but nobody really is. Hugely annoying.
- nequo 4y ago
  > to replicate slack IRC replicating slack. The irony. old-person grumble
  - lmm 4y ago
    Yes IRC came first. The point is that every sufficiently experienced IRC user is running an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of slack, via their bouncers/bots/etc.
    - nequo 4y ago
      I hear you. IRC is a mess for anything other than ephemeral text-based communication. (Which I only say because I'm sticking to running irssi in a terminal window. I imagine there are clients that work better for other use cases, like inlining gifs, etc.) But bouncers and bots have been around since the 1990s. There's nothing particularly ad hoc, informally specified, or bug-ridden about them. They are open source and they've been around for longer than some of their users. Slack, by contrast, is proprietary software used for corporate communication, which comes with its upsides and downsides. IRC is just a different tool to solve a different problem.
      - lmm 4y ago
        > But bouncers and bots have been around since the 1990s. There's nothing particularly ad hoc, informally specified, or bug-ridden about them. The protocol for actually controlling the bouncer or bot is always ad-hoc. Whether client X will have support for bouncer Y or bot Z is a crapshoot, and whether such integration will keep working is even more so (of course you can generally fall back to doing it manually, but that's a serious downgrade in usability). As for bug-ridden, well, all I can say is that that's been my experience.

shp0ngle 4y ago

in reality, everyone use some kind of irssi or whatever, to replicate slack etc, so everyone is there and “active” but nobody really is. Hugely annoying.

nequo 4y ago
> to replicate slack IRC replicating slack. The irony. old-person grumble
- lmm 4y ago
  Yes IRC came first. The point is that every sufficiently experienced IRC user is running an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden implementation of half of slack, via their bouncers/bots/etc.
  - nequo 4y ago
    I hear you. IRC is a mess for anything other than ephemeral text-based communication. (Which I only say because I'm sticking to running irssi in a terminal window. I imagine there are clients that work better for other use cases, like inlining gifs, etc.) But bouncers and bots have been around since the 1990s. There's nothing particularly ad hoc, informally specified, or bug-ridden about them. They are open source and they've been around for longer than some of their users. Slack, by contrast, is proprietary software used for corporate communication, which comes with its upsides and downsides. IRC is just a different tool to solve a different problem.
    - lmm 4y ago
      > But bouncers and bots have been around since the 1990s. There's nothing particularly ad hoc, informally specified, or bug-ridden about them. The protocol for actually controlling the bouncer or bot is always ad-hoc. Whether client X will have support for bouncer Y or bot Z is a crapshoot, and whether such integration will keep working is even more so (of course you can generally fall back to doing it manually, but that's a serious downgrade in usability). As for bug-ridden, well, all I can say is that that's been my experience.