Subject:
|
Re: LUGNet Chat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:54:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1263 times
|
| |
|
|
Perhaps a Princess.... <sarah@eskimo.com> wrote in message
36208bba.79678367@209.68.63.236...
> Nope. i already have access to tf on my ISP and I suspect that Eskimo
> is not the only ISP that has this loaded for everyone who wants to.
> I'm sure it has IRC access too (though I understand that Eskimo has
> been banned from some IRC servers so, depending on where this thing
> goes, I might not be able to access it. There was a big political
> frou-fra-fra a while back)
Many ISPs these days don't have shell accounts. Many aren't even based on
Unix. The largest ISPs in the country (AOL, Worldnet, MSN, Compuserve, etc)
probably account for more then 50% of the users out there, and none of them
have shell accounts with tinyfugue installed. Even some smaller local ISPs
(such as my own ISP, oz.net) don't have shell accounts either.
I'm suggesting that LUGnet setup their own IRC server. This would not be
part of the IRC network, so you would be able to access it just fine. I
think that one problem which people are having is seperating the idea of IRC
the protocol with IRC the talk network (which is technically called EFNet).
IRC the network has tons of problems which I don't think LUGnet needs to be
involved in. IRC the protocol is an RFC standard which is widely
implemented.
> I do NOT have a IRC client already. And I don't know what makes you
> think that most people already have them. Most people I know already
> have newsreaders, web browsers, and email programs. And that's it.
For people who don't have an IRC client there are two options:
1) Have them download a client
2) Put a java based client on http://www.LUGnet.com. Then anyone with a
browser which supports Java (so pretty much anyone) could get involved
without having to download an install anything. Doing a search for "java
irc client" on http://www.yahoo.com turns up tons of hits... at least some
of these are probably free and useable by LUGnet.
> You can create both types of clients as well for "talkers" personally,
> I find the GUI detracts. But for people who want it, they are out
> there. (A friend of mine uses one)
Fine, so you can use a text based client. I will as well. For those who
like GUIs they can use mIRC or Visual IRC or whatever they want.
> *raises an eyebrow* Telnet is not a standard RDC'd protocol?
Telnet is an RFC'd protocol, but its not a standard RFC'd protocol for
talking.
Think of it this way. Rather then using NNTP Todd and Suzie could have
designed a system which one telnet'd to and entered and received messages on
(basically a bbs). It would probably be ugly and slow, but it would work
just fine. It'd probably have many fewer users because people would prefer
to use their graphical NNTP clients to access rec.toys.lego and keep
discussing things there.
Similarily, IRC is a generic protocol for describing how clients and servers
should talk to each for the purposes of real time chat. You can do it with
telnet, but there really isn't a technical reason why one should. There are
plenty of reasons why one shouldn't.
alex
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
| (...) *shrug* The argument is probably moot. Likely, I would not use an IRC server. There is not much ttle more probability that I would use a talker either. I simply don't have the time for either. News provides me plenty of reason to talk as is :) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
| (...) Not necessarily. I played on SouCon MUSH and PernMUSH for MONTHS using telnet only. (It was at least a year before I had access to tf) Sure, now that I have tf I would be hard-pressed to go back to plain telnet. But it CAN be done. ANd it is (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
42 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
