fpgroups.com: Revised chat room

[John Esak]

I kind of agree with you on all below... but I'm thinking this is all for an
OT thread... or better a whole 'nother place. When you guys find that place,
don't tell me about it. :-)


John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+john=valar.com at lists.celestial.com] On Behalf
> Of Fairlight
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:42 AM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: fpgroups.com: Revised chat room
> 
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 05:44:02AM -0400, Brian K. White may or may not
> have
> proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> > The server daemon software, like the client software, both are
> proprietary.
> 
> You say that like it's evil.  You can practically hear it spit out as an
> epithet.  TeamSpeak is proprietary, and I have absolutely no qualms using
> it considering it's the best, IMHO, nor do all the people I know hosting
> TS2 servers on linux boxes.  Ventrilo, likewise, is proprietary, and while
> I'm not a vent fan (preferring TS2 instead), it's also not wholly bad
> software--I just don't like their emphasis.  In fact, while I can think
> of a great many text-based open-source IM and chat packages, I cannot for
> the life of me remember reference to -one- VOIP open-source project that's
> ready for prime time, much less ubiquitous.
> 
> > WHat is my option on say, Palm, today?
> 
> Let's be realistic, here.  :)  Although...if SOCOM on PSP does VOIP as
> part
> of gameplay chat (as does KillZone: Liberation), I suppose it's possible.
> But that unit itself allows for a headset with a mic.  Does a Palm?  We're
> talking about device dependance, here.
> 
> > * chatzilla, a mozilla/firefox plug-in, It's sometimes very convenient
> > having an irc client built into the browser so that sometimes you don't
> need
> > a client at all. It also allows for the use of irc:// urls. Available on
> 
> That really makes no sense.  Chatzilla -is- a client.  Therefore if you
> have it, you apparently need a client.  You may not need -another- client,
> but as a matter of tacit fact, if you need Chatzilla, you needed a client.
> 
> > * CGI:IRC, an irc client written as a cgi, thats inconvenient to set up
> in
> > that you need to configure a web server somewhere, but if you have that,
> > then from the users point of view that is the ultimate in convenience
> since
> > it doesn't even require installing a plug-in and it's the only way thats
> > really available anywhere, including locked down kiosks.
> 
> It's also a bit of a resource hog.  Although less of one than what Jose
> has
> up right now.  The main problem I'm now seeing with Jose's chat is that
> it's polling the "who" list every few seconds on any page of his site.
> Then when you're on the actual chat page proper, it's polling that -plus-
> polling the chat.  All this happens asynchronously, but the timer is so
> tightly wound on both, and it's not like a request has no overhead anyway,
> that the browser performance for typing in the message field is noticeably
> affected, even on a P4-3GHz/2GB system.  CGI:IRC on the other hand uses
> NPH
> and server push, which is far more efficient, as it maintains a connection
> to the server, and it's server-push based, as I recall.  It's slightly
> buggy in the last version I tried, but overall pretty good.  But it still
> takes server resources you'd rather not expend.
> 
> > * x-chat, a standard native irc client, ported to
> linux/freebsd/windows/mac.
> > Not java, ported, or rather, more like written reasonably portably and
> > simply compiled. Supports lots of features not possible in other
> clients.
> > There are numerous plug-ins written in numerous scripting and compiled
> > languages, for example there is a text-to-speech plug-in.
> 
> I don't recall anyone actually liking x-chat from day one.  Everyone I
> remember trying it switched away from it for one reason or another.
> 
> > * ircii and/or bitchx, plain text irc clients that work over
> > serial/telnet/ssh/console/screen/mscreen etc...
> 
> ircII + LiCE, FTW.  :)
> 
> Don't get me started on BitchX...I hate that thing with a passion.
> 
> > * GAIM, an all-in-one IM client that knows how to connect to several of
> the
> 
> Boy, you -are- out of the loop compared to normal.  GAIM is no more and
> hasn't been for quite a while.  It's been Pidgin for quite some time,
> although it supports all the same things and more.
> 
> There's also centericq for curses-based of the same stuff--although the
> maintainer has a -horrid- C++ codebase that nobody wants/likes to work on,
> and support for MSN and AIM keeps breaking and getting repaired very late
> in the game compared to others.
> 
> You're also omitting Trillian, which predates GAIM by years, but which
> I tossed over for Pidgin, as Trillian is only maintained for security
> updates anymore.  It wouldn't talk to Yahoo 8 clients for instance, where
> Pidgin will.  Pidgin will also do Yahoo file transfers, Trillian will not.
> Cerulean seems to have given up on doing anything but taking in money.
> 
> You're also overlooking programs like BackRoom, which are Java-based IRC
> client applets.  That one (BackRoom, from Webmasters) is arguably the best
> I ever used, and it was available back as far as '98, and I believe
> earlier
> since we were in several major versions when we got into it.  In my
> opinion, that's the way to go if you're not going to do Chatzilla.  It
> required its own special ircd, however, which was not ideal for all
> situations.
> 
> > Anyone may also write an irc server, and several of those exist too. The
> > usual advantages and disadvantages of open source software apply. No
> license
> > counts, no cost, no obligatory help, vast seas of voluntary help, only
> 25%
> > of which is bad, ability to modify to suit, ability to port to other
> > platforms, deploy anywhere and any how you like...
> 
> Need for a system on which to host it, not all ISP's of course being
> comfortable with the idea...  There's a downside to that as well.
> 
> > like java, tcl/tk, smalltalk, etc.. it's probably hard to find any os or
> > language that doesn't sport at least one irc client, no matter how
> obscure
> > you try to get. It's even possible to write one in filepro, even without
> the
> > new net commands. By more than one means even. Via user() and netcat. Or
> > maybe even via plain file io commands and named pipes connected to
> netcat,
> > or connected to telnet. Or plain file io commands and the virtual device
> > nodes provided by the tcp/ip features built into ksh/bash/zsh.
> 
> Or you could shell out the cash to use fP-Sockets.  *duck*  There's also
> the "trivial" time investment to actually write such a miserable beast.  I
> sure as hell wouldn't want to do it under either model.
> 
> There's such a thing as using the right technology for the right job.
> There's overlap, but not everything should be written in fP, even if it
> could theoretically be done.
> 
> > The short version of all that is that there is really no end to the
> reasons
> > why open source versions of whatever_you_want_to_do are more desireable,
> > useful, & more widely convenient than any proprietary solution. But
> 
> I'm as big a fan of open-source as the next guy.  But considering how much
> I've been spending on software lately, I have to say that it's far from my
> only criterion.  Robustness, flexibility, and featureset all figure in.  I
> could have gone with Scribus for free, but didn't like the idea it was in
> perpetual beta status, and thus went with Serif PagePlus, which is wholly
> proprietary but which kicks absolute ass.
> 
> I fail to see why the OSS zealots insist on open source everything.  I'm
> as
> much in favour of free software as the next person, but I'm also in favour
> of things being complete, done correctly, and being relatively stable.
> Two
> out of three isn't good enough, and you're lucky if most OSS projects have
> achieved even that level.  It's at that point, when there are no viable
> alternatives that aren't a pain in the ass, that I'm more than willing
> to go to commercial alternatives.  I've even recently dumped POVray for
> Bryce, DAZ|Studio, and Serif ImpactPlus.  POVray is just too much of a
> pain, and the modellers for it all suck in one way or another.  Blender
> is powerful as hell (as evidenced by the Elephant's Dream movie [you can
> find it on YouTube]), but it's SO poorly documented and complex that I
> wouldn't want to go near it without a year's training.  GIMP is still
> missing things that not only Photoshop has, but Serif PhotoPlus has.  I
> tried OpenOffice.org Draw and it was a sad joke compared to Serif
> DrawPlus.
> The OOO Draw wouldn't even deign to draw the object you were moving as you
> moved it if you were just nudging it a bit...so you had to wayyyyyy move
> it out of whack to get to the point you could see it while moving it to be
> able to move it 1 to 2 pixels away from where it started.  It's just plain
> sloppy, period.  Try OOO Draw and then try Serif DrawPlus and look at the
> difference.  One is not easily usable or full featured, the other is.
> I'll
> gladly pay Serif for the quality software, thanks, especially at their
> reasonable prices for software that's really designed pretty damned well
> and priced far under the actual software's feature/class status.
> 
> The only time open source seriously figures into a decision for me anymore
> is when something isn't offered for multiple platforms--notably the
> platform I'm working with.  Or even an older version of the same platform.
> There's a TeamSpeak 2 server for glibc 2.1 yet.  I run it.  But there is
> a lot of proprietary software that requires 2.2 or higher, which would be
> totally unsuitable for running on an old linux system I have here that
> I have no reason to upgrade (and it's not exactly upgradeable...Cobalt
> Qube3).  I'm not going to put in a brand spankin' new machine to run one
> or
> even two packages, sorry.  So yeah, having the base for something that you
> can back-port or at least compile when a matching binary-only dist is not
> available is a plus.
> 
> Other than that, the whole open-source thing has lost its novelty,
> especially after (for me) 18 years, since way before it was OSS or the
> OSI existed.  Emacs, screen (back at orst.edu), etc...been doing it for
> ages.  The more I look around, the more I see people jumping on the "open
> source" bandwagon for either the wrong reasons, or not even knowing what
> their reasons are.  Sometimes they do it just on principle of being too
> damned cheap to pay for quality software rather than getting stuck with
> something that's in a perpetual alpha or beta state, and whose gamma will
> possibly never be completed.  Sometimes it's a Very Good Thing[tm] to have
> a Responsible Party in the form of a vendor, whom you can actually
> pressure
> to get stuff done and changes made.  You try to pressure any of the open
> source crowd, their response is, "You have the source, hack it yourself."
> You go to a company as a paying customer, you at least have some pull,
> especially in numbers.  If they want to survive, they'll adapt to what's
> requested.  It's simple numbers and economics for them.  You have -no-
> leverage with open source developers because it's pretty much a hobby for
> 90% of them.
> 
> Open source is not the holy grail, I'm sorry.  It's a good thing, but it's
> not a universal panacea.  And I'll openly disagree with anyone that says
> it
> is, including Stallman and -especially- Raymond--two people I consider
> ideologists more than anything else, although at least Stallman's
> background is a bit more respectable, IMHO.  I can take him half
> seriously,
> even if I disagree with him.
> 
> > sometimes it just sounds so meaningless to say "there are many
> > advantages...", it sounds like all the writer probably really means is
> "It
> > doesn't cost me $35.50" or "If I copy it, which I am going to do
> anyways, at
> > least if it's open source I won't get arrested." When really those are
> about
> > the least of the issues.
> 
> Actually, my experience has been that those -are- the biggest issues for
> most people.  And for those whom it's not, they swing to the other end of
> the spectrum where they evangelise it to the point you'd just as soon not
> be associated with it.  As with everything, it's a good idea to at least
> experiment with moderation--at least in moderation.
> 
> mark->
> --
> The latest synth mixdown...
> http://media.fairlite.com/Isolation_Voiceless_Cry_Mix.mp3
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list