[nycbug-talk] ancient protocals
Wed Jun 16 17:03:34 EDT 2004
On Jun 16, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Mikel King wrote:
> 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
>> opposing viewpoint...
> smoke signals, Teletype, or tin cans with string?
BZZZZZZT! Those are physical transport layers, not protocols (though
teletype could be considered a bit of both) :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2357 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20040616/225ede0c/attachment.bin
More information about the talk