Talk:EFnet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] EXTERNAL LINK SPAM FROM CHOOPA.NET
Aitvaras links to nothing like an IRC network - either create a page for it or remove that entry? (clem 23:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))
[edit] Client Counts
User count on efnet is closer to 70 thousand than 100,000 (edit:sorry 70). IRWolfie- 01:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EFnet ops have no guidelines
If there is some dispute about this you can talk about this here.
=
Whether or not there are guidelines, the POV stuff about "EFNet continuing to 'loose' credibility" due to "substandard ops" is inappropriate.
=
Okay I removed the 'loose credibility' because it is still technically an IRC server. However the EFnet operators are substandard because they do not use the standard IRC OP guidelines as described in the IRC Operators Guide http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/ircd/ircopguide.html Thus they are substandard. I included this in the EFnet section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonapro (talk • contribs) .
- Unless you have an unbiased source which documents EFnet operator behavior, that paragraph is exactly the sort of thing forbidden under WP:NPOV. AKADriver 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok I corrected it further to include the fact that EFnet IRC operators are not required to follow the traditional standard IRC administration guidelines (IRC Operators Guide). [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)]
- The link you provided actually says those guidelines apply only to EFnet operators, while your statement implies the opposite (that they apply to everyone but EFnet operators). Granted, it is 9 years old, and I know IRC networks have changed a lot since then. Even so, they were guidelines to begin with, not steadfast policies. You've also made an unprovable statement when you say that all EFnet operators do not follow those guidelines. — AKADriver ☎ 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I did not say all. I will make it clearer. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 23:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)]
[edit] IPv6 and SSL
It is great that EFnet have some servers that use IPv6. Too bad none support SSL, I would love to see that.
- SSL is good for giving people a false sense of security. I'd be more worried about currupt irc server admins than network snifing if i was discussing anything really secret on irc. Plugwash 16:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
if you going to remove 1 legit site you had better remove them all str33tshen -- very upset -- co-owner of ufc-pride.org
[edit] What possibly really happened to eris
You may be interested to see the less reengineered version of history concerning the IRC war that produced EFnet. http://about.psyc.eu/IRC#The_Battle_Of_Eris_-_The_War_Of_IRC --lynX 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- This "history" is quite biased. But yes, there are many sides to the story. -- Wumpus Greg 18:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The word biased implies there is a personal interest in presenting it in one way rather than another. There is no such interest, this is merely a reconstruction from memory and historic mail folders from a perspective of someone who experienced massive service disruptions and wondered why that had to be. The operlist archives help understanding both sides. In the end it isn't all that important what really happened, but it is interesting to see how history has been written by a certain side, even with things that happened in the digital domain where a lot of evidence is still available. For the purpose of Wikipedia maybe somebody completely uninvolved should have a look at those operlist archives which luckily are not available on our site, we just link to them. Btw, nice seeing you again Wump.. and funny how you rewrote my headline.. ;) --lynX
- I'm not implying that at all. It's biased as it doesn't meet fact in some ways -- one point of a Wikipedia article is not just to repeat the hysterical accusations of the heat of the moment, but also look at fact. I'm glad you liked my joke. -- wumpus Greg 23:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you call it hysterical. Well today there is a whole new chat system based on the philosophy of being server-open. So I wouldn't say this was a minor issue. The fall of eris was the day when IRC stopped being like SMTP or most other decentralized protocols and became oligarchic instead. I wouldn't advocate the technical merits of this new decentralized chat technology, but politically it is quite a step forward. The creation of EFnet is of philosophical and political relevance in the History of the Internet. So in the end it's not hysterical, it's not an accusation either, or at least not intended as such, but it may be of historical relevance. --lynX
- Um, Duh. An architecture which permits server open without compromising security is a fine way to solve the problem. That was obvious 15 years ago, too. Doesn't have much to do with this Wikipedia article, though. -- wumpus Greg 02:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- IRC was never decentralised in the way that smtp and jabber are, it relies on replicating the entire network state to every node in the network, a fragile tree of persistant connections and almost total trust between servers. Those who wanted a workable decentralised network needed to start more or less from scratch. Plugwash 01:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for the elementary tutorial on IRC, I am aware of this. I could show you all the design documents of what I was thinking about doing to IRC, however, I went to work on my PhD instead. What's this have to do with this article? -- wumpus Greg 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
-
Yes, both PSYC and Jabber started from scratch with a new URL-based approach to avoid the distributed database. Okay, Jabber doesn't use real URLs. Anyway, the only thing this has to do with the article is how the creation of the EFnet exposed the political implications of the IRC technology in a painful way. Season's Greetings. --lynX 09:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
