Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 25-May-2024 13:16:08 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:
   IRC at ICQ be like: I was there before you, I'll be there after you.
   • Embed this notice
     Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: (lanodan@queer.hacktivis.me)'s status on Saturday, 25-May-2024 21:26:48 JST Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell:

     in reply to

     • Olivier Mehani
     @shtrom I wouldn't call IRC decentralised as a protocol, specially due to it's original design of being a single network, which still quite lives on today with how clients being aggregators is how independent networks are made usable.
     Like if you take ICQ, allow anyone to run their own network and allow to connect to multiple ones in the clients, it would then be the same as IRC.
     
     Which is quite different to protocols (like xmpp/email/fediverse) where independent authorities are baked-in. And also different to hierarchical ones (DNS, Usenet, …).
   • Embed this notice
     Olivier Mehani (shtrom@piaille.fr)'s status on Saturday, 25-May-2024 21:26:50 JST Olivier Mehani

     in reply to

     @lanodan The difference between an open decentralised protocol and a proprietary centralised service.

     I was musing about how, when ICQ is off, that's it. It will be a pain to recreate the experience at scale. Protocols, you can reimplement them and redeploy them.

     I guess one could still reimplement a fake ICQ backend and re-cobble the network from scratch. But still.

     Protocols!

   • Embed this notice
     Polychrome :blabcat: (polychrome@poly.cybre.city)'s status on Saturday, 25-May-2024 21:56:02 JST Polychrome :blabcat:

     in reply to

     • Olivier Mehani
     @shtrom @lanodan we did it with MSN, we can do it with ICQ :blobcatuwu: