Subject:
|
Re: LUGNet Chat
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Oct 1998 00:38:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3832 times
|
| |
|
|
sarah@eskimo.com (Perhaps a Princess....) writes:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 22:54:52 GMT, "Alex Wetmore" <alex@phred.org>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> *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 :)
>
> Sarah
My head is starting to spin with all this info... Could someone who's
experienced with all or most of these be really nice and post a summary
(starting a new thread) where things are listed in an advantages/disadvantes
format?
News vs. IRC vs. talkers vs. MUD/MUSH vs. (more if any)
RFC standards and software compliance? (platforms, OSs, etc.)
Depth of discussions? (single line vs. threaded vs. other)
Multiple rooms/areas?
Text or Graphical?
Load on server?
Packets across net?
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 :) (...) (28 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
|
|
|
|
