[nycbug-talk] ancient protocals
Wed Jun 16 17:00:00 EDT 2004
Isaac Levy <ike at lesmuug.org> wrote:
>Forking the thread,
>Re: [nycbug-talk] IRC SERVER
>On Jun 16, 2004, at 4:38 PM, Bob Ippolito wrote:
>>> I've heard cool things about silc, but I'm +1 for sticking to IRC-
>>> there's good reason it's been around so long...
>> Yeah, the same reason people use POP3 and other retarded protocols..
>> the specs are too stupid to get wrong so the client-server software
>> interaction generally works as expected. No real good reason other
>> than that :)
>Completely understandable, but I'd rather argue that SMTP is flawed
>analogous to IRC, (rather than POP3) due to the fact that the world
>still continues to use Email due to larger than a critical mass
>adopting it, regardless of it's flaws.
>I'd also argue that for sanity's sake, some contexts make
>ancient/flawed protocols a good choice to use, especially when they
>aren't one's primary focus- (i.e. wanting to just use it and not get
>bogged down training people how to use it, or managing the
>software/infrastructure to maintain it). If that makes sense.
>I'm not opposed to change, the opposite in fact, but I'd rather focus
>on changing the things I can, and accept what is out of my personal
>scope (as I begrudgingly do when using email daily).
>Again, this is tempered by a whopping IMHO- and am interested in any
>talk mailing list
>talk at lists.nycbug.org
smoke signals, Teletype, or tin cans with string?
More information about the talk