In summary I do not believe this is a good idea at all. IRC channel use
causes a real perfomance problem across the networks that make up the
'Internet'. Despite the best attempts by a large number of network
administrators around the Internet, IRC is becoming more popular by the day.
The root of the problem is in the way that it operates and more specifically
the way that it is used. IRC works by using a broadcasting protocol which is
bad enough, but the packets broadcast are usually short (to the point that
the actually data sent is shorter than the protocol layer info that is added
to send the data). As a result networks (or at least the gateways between
them) are flooded with short packets at the performance cost of all users
between Network A & Network B. Network bandwidth is so obviously effected
that a lot of Networks refuse to handle IRC clients (or at least their use
is banned).
Whilst there are major performance problems with IRC technically, the way
people use them also causes further problems. Most people will run multiple
IRC channel windows at once whilst doing other things as well. For the
really serious IRC's I know they may run up to five clients whilst using the
Web or some other Net 'application'. These people are the reason why
sometimes you can wait ridiculous amounts of time to have simple Net
requests filled. Whilst is not a linear relationship these people are
chewing up the bandwidth that another 4 or 5 people could use.
All of that aside what about the people who do not have IRC access or refuse
to use it? No doubt discussion from the mailing list would be
continued\concluded on the IRC channel thereby negating in the future some
of the benefits that this list has realised in the area of knowledge
propagation about Natives. Would for example people be reluctant to reply
(RML) to topics that where discussed in depth in the IRC channel recently.
I think the work that you and Alan have done in respect to the RML should be
applauded, and I'd hate to see a division of this group by introducing a IRC
channel. The RML seems to be monitored almost constantly (as Emails arrive
at my desktop throughout the day) and thus a fast response is almost
guaranteed. I believe that if something is not important enough to compose
an Email about, then don't flood the net with this same crap because it is
quick & easy through IRC. Lets "keep up appearances" by refusing not to.
Cheers.
Scott Hunt
----------
From: andrew at pcug.org.au
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
Subject: IRC #rainbowfish
Date: Friday, 27 September, 1996 10:37AM
Greetings! How many of you have the facilities for IRC? (Inter Relay Chat)
(A live connection and a client program) I'm thinking we should have our own
IRC channel, just to keep up appearances with the other mailing lists around
the place ;)
Anyone interested? If so I'll start hassling server ops around the place
for a permanent channel, otherwise we'll just create a temporary one for a
pre-arranged time.
Regards, Andrew Boyd
><> <>< ><> Andrew Boyd - andrew at pcug.org.au -
Frex at FurryMUCK!
<>< <>< : http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew
><> <>< "A cyberpunk is a technonerd who gets laid"
<>< : ><> Rainbowfish Mailing List:
http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew/rml.htm
: <>< Sth Hem. Killifish: http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew/aunzza.htm