|
Grex > Coop8 > #84: LOCAL ONLY irc server VS. Party -ryan1 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 25 of 91:
| 
Jul 13 11:16 UTC 1996 |
If the main reason for preferring IRC over party is that party's
method for filtering people is too hard to figure out, then
why not just fix party to make it easier -- i.e. implement
an ':ignore' command. Should be easy to code. (Not that I'm
volunteering, mind you.)
|
davel
|
|
response 26 of 91:
|
Jul 13 15:30 UTC 1996 |
(Grex: the system where the coding is easy but everyone's too busy to do it.)
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 91:
|
Jul 13 16:09 UTC 1996 |
Thinking about this some more, it's bothering me a little that if we have
both, it's going to segregate our groups of real-time chatters into two groups
that may not associate with eachother.
|
srw
|
|
response 28 of 91:
|
Jul 13 16:55 UTC 1996 |
But how could we ever change from one to the other if we thought like that?
I think we should go ahead and experiment. After some period of time if it
is absolutely essential that we have only one method, I suppose we could vote
then, but I honestly doubt running both at once would be a problem at all.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 29 of 91:
|
Jul 13 18:00 UTC 1996 |
The idea is that grex's party program is integrated into the grex confing
environment. Theoritcally it should be used like another conference.
A local IRC would not be distinctive and would not be something that would
contribute to the grex community.
There is already a problem of users just using Party and not bothering to
particiapte in any of the other confs. Adding an extra local IRC would
only make this problem worse. If you are going to do that, might as
well just open up the regular IRC to all users, which is what Nether does.
(Nether has its own party program, not a local IRC prog)
And I must repeat, you dont deal with twits by ignoring them.
You deal with them by talking to them and confrnting them and making them
realize that you are above their twittifying and wont be drawn into a fight.
|
pfv
|
|
response 30 of 91:
|
Jul 13 18:39 UTC 1996 |
Well, the MAJOR reason that the IRC concept was put forth is very, very
simple:
1) You simply "/ignore <name>" and you will NOT see his text,
noise or "mesgs/queries;
2) You can, in "your own channel" /ban or /kick <name> - this is so
superior to merely ignoring a moron as too promote IRC far above
'party'.
Now, Certainly if those capabilities were to be added (in the latter
case) to 'party', there would really no longer be a reason for messing
with IRC.
I have zero experience with the unix-based IRC clients - can anyone
gimme' a comparison to the 'Doze IRC client? I imagine that you can
program your own unique noises and specify your own macros &
response-macros, too.. Is there a channel-limitation for the ircII (or
whatever) that would be run? What resources are used in comparison to
party? How does it handle multiple channel 'windows' like a Doze-program?
|
ryan1
|
|
response 31 of 91:
|
Jul 13 19:00 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps you could help me out Richard, but I don't see any
"problem" with people choosing to use party instead of the conferences.
Even though they don't permanetly post their views into a conference,
they still share their views with the other people in party, which i
consider contributing to the "Grex Community". Would you consider me not
a part of the "Grex Community"? I use Picospan very little. I only use
it once in a while to post an item in Co-op or to read an interesting
item i've heard about in the motd or by somebody talking about it in
party. Although I do not use Picospan all the time, I consider myself
part of the "Grex Community". Just because Grex started out as a
conferencing-only system does not necessarily mean that it is imperative
to keep it that way.
It would be a very very poor decision if IRC access (to remote
irc servers, such as undernet or efnet) were granted to all users. It
would just slow Grex to a crawl.
It is impossible to reason with a twit that joins party for the
*SOLE* purpose of hitting his or her caps lock, and raising hell until
everybody switches to a private channel, and the twit is the only person
left in the party channel. You do not understand. I am not talking
about a common little argument in party. Sure those can be easily
resolved by working things out, but for the twits who join party just to
annoy others, this does not have a snowball's chance of working.
Re: Response 30
Pete, a text-based IRC client is much like most of the windows
clients. It has all the features. The only difference between them is
this: on a text based irc client, everything (all the text you see) is
placed into one window for you to sort out in your mind. It is not
really that complicated.
|
pfv
|
|
response 32 of 91:
|
Jul 13 23:06 UTC 1996 |
thanks, ryan - it was puzzling to me..
|
arthurp
|
|
response 33 of 91:
|
Jul 14 06:15 UTC 1996 |
Well, I can't wait for the outrage when the switch comes along. You thought
changing 'nospace' in party was bad? Hah! Then there are the people who use
party because they like it better than irc. There is a reason I Grex rather
than hitting some other site. I looked around. I liked the uniqueness of
Grex. I don't want to see us fade into the sameness.
|
carson
|
|
response 34 of 91:
|
Jul 14 11:51 UTC 1996 |
re #9: I don't see a proposal to take away, but rather one to add. There
are many things I like about party, including features that aren't
in IRC. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that party's easier to
learn than IRC, and will survive on that strength if nothing else.
re #10: I don't see filtering twits as being _the_ reason, but rather _a_
reason. Ryan actually mentioned a couple of other benefits:
* Many of the new users probably already have experience using
IRC before, and not the party program before, because the party
program is installed on only a small number of computers.
* users in irc can be on multiple channels at the same time, without
taking up another pty, which would help conserve them if there are
any grexers who like to party in more than one window.
and krj mentioned another:
* IRC is a standard tool for real time chat; now that it exists and
is widely used and known.
I could see a board meeting happening on IRC, something that could
excite even kerouac.
I do agree that social problems need to be addressed and not
ignored, but I don't see this suggestion being presented as a
panacea, at least by Ryan.
re #21: not _quite_ like any other. the suggestion is for a local only
(I'll spare you Ryan's CAPS) IRC server. as I understand it, that
would mean a program exclusively to Grex, not simply people
coming to Grex to use IRC to communicate with the rest of the IRC
world... which can already be done by members, BTW.
re #25: that would be nice, but it's not the only reason. see above.
re #27: E-mail vs. PicoSpan. E-Mail vs. Mathom. Tels vs. Talk. Csh vs. tcsh.
do those divisions bother you, or is there something about real-time
chatters vs. non-real-time chatters that I'm missing?
I think the key word is "may."
re #29: your logic doesn't follow. basically, you're saying (and I'll even
borrow some of your phrases) is "party is a part of Grex's environment,
so a local IRC would not contribute to the Grex community." could you
clarify your thought process here?
also, you say that "adding an extra local IRC would only make... worse"
the "problem of users just using Party and not bothering to particiapte
in any of the other confs." what could you possibly mean other than
that there are suddenly going to be people who stop using PicoSpan
and pledge their allegiance to the mighty IRC god? please elucidate.
re #31: you put it well in your first paragraph, Ryan.
re #33: I'm afraid I don't see thousands of users flocking to Grex to use
an IRC client whose access is limited to the Grex community, i.e.,
how many local-only IRC servers are you aware of?
|
brighn
|
|
response 35 of 91:
|
Jul 14 20:05 UTC 1996 |
On twits: The grep filter is one line. The ignore filter on IRC
is one line. How is the latter less complicated, except that it's
easier to remember? If you use the filter so much that you need to
block people every single day, you memorize the command, regardless
of how complicated it is. Ryan, you're a hacker. It sounds odd coming
from you that you're complaining that a command is too complicated,
considering that programming babble you spew in party sometimes.
/ban: When you close a channel on party, you have to invite people
in, so /ban already works. Sure, you may have a user that becomes
a problem after you enter the channel with them, so everyone but that
user migrates to another closeable channel. Where's the problem?
I've seen what happens when a twit like j0ker666 comes online during
a high-trafiic time: one of the vets switches to a channel like grex!_x,
closes it, and proceeds to invite only those people he knows. Newbies
are trapped with the twit with no life preserver simply because nobody
knows who they are.
I used IRC. Twice. Once with Selena because
Grex was down and Nether.net's Party is even worse than IRC is.
I doubt I will use IRC a third time.
My opinions:
(1) This complaint stems from one or two users who have been
a problem since M-Net's ills, notably j0ker666 and evlklown. Ryan's
method of dealing with problem users in party? SPAM them! Um, er, no.
That makes Ryan a problem user, too.
(2) Having a local IRC would create two camps. That would be bad.
(3) IRC is available elsewhere. Party isn't (well, MNet and Nether.net).
(4) We should *not* experiment with Local IRC.
(5) Why is Steve Weiss posting such long posts if he hates Party and IRC and
doesn't use either? This strikes me as someone who doesn't know what they're
talking about unnecessarily clogging the discussion. Steve, no offence,
youhave much to contribute elsewhere, but I don't see how this is your
discussion.
|
steve
|
|
response 36 of 91:
|
Jul 14 20:29 UTC 1996 |
Heh. Paul, 'twas this STeve, not Steve that made the responses
you're referring too.
...I don't think my usage or non-usage of party/IRC is relevant
to this. I daresay that I used this type of software before 99%
of the Grex/M-Net community ever did, and found it lacking for
reasons I've said elsewhere.
Disgregarding my personal feelings about the functionalithy of
the software itself, its still the case that changes to such a part
of Grex will impact it. It is that change that I'm concerned with.
Thats why I think I can still contribute to the discussion, even
though I'm not going to be a user of that specific area of Grex.
|
jenna
|
|
response 37 of 91:
|
Jul 15 01:46 UTC 1996 |
selena - nether connects to a non-local IRC. i believe
ryan is proposing an irc that would be only for people on grex
like party is.... beyond that irc and pary aren't THAT different
sure it's new commands, but it's true IRC is more universal than party.
(though party exists on almost all the unix systems I've seen, not
every system runs unix or derirtives thereof). Persdonally
I think there would be less resistance to making it easier to ignore people
in party as we have it than starting something new.
|
brighn
|
|
response 38 of 91:
|
Jul 15 02:26 UTC 1996 |
Sorry, STeve... there's too many steves around here. =}
(Apologies to SRW as well.)
|
carson
|
|
response 39 of 91:
|
Jul 15 13:39 UTC 1996 |
re #35: twits: I'm confused as to what you might consider complicated.
to me, an intuitive one-word command seems inherently less
complicated than a not-so-intuitive one-word command with
multiple variables. I only see the degree of complexity as
subjective.
and, yes, Ryan can filter with ease. I can filter at ease. by
your own admission, _you_ can filter at ease, no problem. how
many people have that skill, brighn?
of course, I know you better, and I think you're just trying to
pick on Ryan because you disagree with him. perhaps you could
do a better job of disagreeing and not just do it on principle?
/ban (although I'm not sure why): I don't see a problem, but I
don't think of this proposal as a solution, either. in fact, I
pretty strongly agree with STeve that this won't solve any
social ills, perceived or otherwise. then again, I suppose you
weren't aiming your statement at me. ;)
you provide an example of what typically happens when a "problem"
user comes on, but you don't do anything with it. come on, brighn!
inquiring minds want to know what you were getting at! seriously,
I think you meant to follow that example with your ideal of "the
ways things should be," which I'd love to read, but I could be
mistaken as well.
you say you doubt you'll use IRC again. and...? you're better
at this Chesire cattery than I am. ;) FWIW, I've only attempted
to use IRC four times, and can only say I used it well once.
I don't see a local-only IRC program as being implemented for
my sole personal benefit, as I may never use it. Perhaps I'm too
Gallant, eh?
(1) (and again, I see it as a proposal, not a complaint. YMMV.)
I dunno. I see Ryan as offering other solutions rather than
keeping his head in the mud. Ryan isn't exactly the sweet
saintly soul that you are, but I see no reason to belittle his
ideas by attacking his character.
(2) oh, but why would that be bad, oh wise one? can you come up
with something other than "because it will be?" that argument
has already been taken. ;)
(3) FTR, party, as I understand it, is freeware and could be
installed on just about any Unix machine that wanted it.
(4) again, why not? just what it is that you (and others) are
so afraid of?
(5) don't be silly. just about everyone in BBS is spouting off
about things they have no interest in and know nothing about,
your error in this case notwithstanding. ;)
Standard Text Disclaimer: This response was made in the hopes of
achieving a better understanding.
|
janc
|
|
response 40 of 91:
|
Jul 15 16:12 UTC 1996 |
Putting a :ignore command in party is a little more complex than you would
think at first. The problem is that it is hard to identify which noises are
made by which users, so filtering out noises is difficult. What would
probably have to be done is store noises in the log file as something like:
ryan1<Looking around, ryan1 notices that brighn has fallen asleep>
Before displaying the noise, party would strip out the initial "ryan1". With
this tag on the internally stored version of noises, it would become easy for
an ":ignore ryan1" command to filter out his noises as well as his comments.
Maybe I'll do something like this someday.
|
pfv
|
|
response 41 of 91:
|
Jul 15 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Yeppers, janc has the basic prob in a nutshell... My filter - still
lacking a Sun-port - has to spend a lot of time testing the
noise-exceptions, since the Staff at mnet felt _standards_ were not
needed, and refused to at least write a small set of rules/guides for the
noise formats -- It's almost like we need a specific program to add
noises to party! AAMOF, it also induces a bit of it's own lag by having
to screw around to insure that it's grabbed all of a 'line' which it must
potentially filter: there is no 'terminator token' for it to look for.
OTOH, the /ignore of IRC is _always_ going to work, because every 'emote'
is an absolutely standard format, (at least - I have not seen a variant to
date).
The /kick <name> would be a pain to implement in 'party', IMNSHO.
However, it is a lot less inconvenient than opening another channel and
starting the entire :invite cycle again.
Too, the /ban <name> would offer the same problems/benefits.
On top of all this, there is really no point in modifying 'party' to do
the job already done by other programs like IRC.
Now, the ONLY drawback I can see is not "pseudo-social" (the weakest of
all the arguments I've heard), but relates to the clients and the cutesy
'bots' that are the main topic of ding-bat interest on the network IRC's.
It appears that grex having this local-only server would draw these
'wannabe's and would suggest that grex would have to mod the server to
ban all 'bots' except whatever they are gonna' allow their dues-paying
members to maintain the "vanity-channels".. OTHERWISE, you'd be drawing
every stripe of dingbat, cracker and hacker that wants to test his latest
rage-driven, anarchist bot... Definately NOT a good state of affairs for
a local system!
With that in mind, even installing the IRC would be more of an experiment
or an alternative than a party-replacement, and indeed, we all have the
*CHOICE* of elm, pine and mail or vi, pico, and "idunno".. The idea of
CHOICE is a valid idea, the idea of forcing personal
'politcal-correctness' views down the throat of users is not valid.
|
brighn
|
|
response 42 of 91:
|
Jul 15 17:49 UTC 1996 |
Carson, is there a specific reason for your ad hominems?
If you think I'm picking on Ryan, rethink, please. I like Ryan.
He stated his opinions, mine differ.
The grep filter *does* take more time to learn than the IRC
filter, I'll admit that. So rather than generate a new chatting
area, learn from IRC and improve ours. JanC points out that it
is difficult to simplify that command, so maybe one of the Powers
that Be could put explicit instructions for it in the Party MOTD?
My point was, either twits are enough of a problem that people
will use the command enough to memorize it, or twits aren't
enough of a problem to use IRC. I think that's logical enough.
When I went into main party a few days ago, Ryan warned me to get
out. Why? Joker666 was being a nuisance and Ryan was SPAMming him.
Harumph. Well, I'm not Ryan's father, but he's not mine either.
What *should* happen when a twit comes on and there are newbies around,
and all the vets are tempted to switch to a private channel?
Did I imply that I had a solution, Carson? I don't believe I did.
I think it's unfair to the newbies, but making the vets hang around
and babysit the newbies at the cost of making the vets put up with
the twits, well, that's unfair too. It's a big mean old Net out there,
and while I personally try to be friendly and as helpful as possible
to newbies (as do you, Carson, and Ryan too, for that matter... although
of course we all have our moods), I'm not here just for them... I'm
here to enjoy myself. And if I can't enjoy myself because of twits,
then I'll leave the area where the twits are. *shrug* I was just
commenting because I don't think it's fair to leave the newbies behind.
Then again, I like to bait the twits, especially Joker666... he's a
fun little sociopath. =}
I commented on whether or not I'd use IRC because somebody (Ryan,
maybe) suggested that there was concensus on Party that IRC would
be a good idea. As a heavy Party user, I thought it was fair for me
to comment that I, personally, would not use IRC. I wasn't trying
to make it sound as if Grex must answer to me, salaam salaam oh Great
Brighn. Honestly. Just because I happen to hold a strong opinion
about a few things, and state those opinions, doesn't mean I think
the world revolves around me, Carson.
(Any more than it means that you think yhe world revolves around you...
or does it? =} )
(1) Fine, proposal. I still contend it's because Ryan is having
trouble with one or two twits of recent appearance (Joker admitted
to me, in fact, taht he's here only because MNet is down and will
leave as soon as it comes back up reliably... in his words "I RULE
MNET HAHAHAHA I AM GOD")
(2) Any cliquishness is unfortunate. Party is empty enough as it
is. Dividing the already typically small group in Party into two
even smaller groups would start defeating the purpose of Party.
Yes, I'm afraid that all of my friends will move to IRC, or (worse)
half of them will, and I'll be forced to choose between the two.
Selfish reason? Maybe. I doubt I'm the only Partier with that concern.
(3) Noted. IRC can be installed anywhere. "can" and "is available" are
two different beasts. But this was a minor point anyhow.
(4) That's personal opinion. I think there are enough projects
on Grex that are in various states of being worked on, we don't
need any more (non-essential) stuff mucking things up more.
(5) STeve is perfectly capable of defending himself, Carson, he
doesn't need you cleaning the dribble off his chin. (Hey, guys,
you didn't think I could get through a post this long without at
least *one* unnecessary attack on Carson, did you? I'm Goofus,
remember? He's Gallant, the saintly one who's never mean to anyone.
Oops, two attacks, oh well, at least I'm still under his total
for his post to me... =} )
Standard Text Disclaimer: I freely admit to my arrogance. That
free admission is where Carson and I differ. (that's three, damn,
I always break down at the end... but hey, that one was masterful
catty, eh? The first two were just rude...)
|
janc
|
|
response 43 of 91:
|
Jul 15 20:25 UTC 1996 |
I've started poking around in party to make some changes that will make
adding a good :ignore command possible. Most of the problem Pete describes
are because he is trying to build an external filter. I'll be doing it
internally, and I can bypass many of those problems (e.g., I can do the
filtering before I do the wrapping, so it is easier to figure out where a line
ends).
If there are people who believe there should *not* be a :ignore command in
party, this would be a good time to start screaming.
|
robh
|
|
response 44 of 91:
|
Jul 15 20:52 UTC 1996 |
There already is one, technically. I see no reason to object.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 45 of 91:
|
Jul 15 21:08 UTC 1996 |
That sounds like a good idea. Just curious:
Would it be hard to add commands to show which people
you are currently ignoring, and provide a way to unignore people?
For example, if they type :ignore with no arguments, it would show
who you are ignoring.
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 91:
|
Jul 15 21:26 UTC 1996 |
That's one of two reasons I don't use the Grep filter, Ryan,
thanks for mentioning it... I know how to turn it *on* but I don't
know how to turn it off without leaving Party (that is, if there *is* a way).
|
janc
|
|
response 47 of 91:
|
Jul 15 23:38 UTC 1996 |
I've got a version implemented which is currently compiling. I'll probably
install it later today. The old version of party will be available as
party.old for a little while, but not long. (The new party won't be able to
ignore noises generated by users in the old party).
The new commands are:
:ignore janc - suppress all messages from janc
:ignore ryan1 steve - add two more users to the ignore list
:ignore - print out the list of currently ignored users
:notice janc steve - remove two users from the ignore list
:notice - remove all remaining users from the ignore list
All noises are now tagged with the author name. However you won't normally
see the tags, because party will suppress them. However if you do
:set raw
the tags on noises will be visible. (This means anonymous noises are now
not as anonymous as they used to be.)
|
janc
|
|
response 48 of 91:
|
Jul 16 00:13 UTC 1996 |
OK, party 2.10 is in. Seems to work. Let me know if any problems show up.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 49 of 91:
|
Jul 16 01:08 UTC 1996 |
YAY! Cool!
|