Re: A few observations about GIMPNET

On Thu, 2012-10-04 at 17:57 +0200, Andrea Veri wrote:
> I've been a long time GIMPNET user and tried to propose multiple ideas
> without success and without receiving a good rationale about why
> things couldn't change. I've seen many people using home-hosted bots
> to administer channels, I've seen people having to join #opers
> multiple times to request an OP status or a simple channel update and
> I feel it's time to find a solution.

I agree with the frustrations you list with GIMPNET usage.  But, I'm not
sure I agree with the "home-hosted" bots rationale.  While a number of
bots are there as a workaround for some of the limitations in GIMPNET,
home-hosted bots will always be present, even on Freenode.

> What's currently missing on the GIMPNET network:
> - services. (there's no nickserv, chanserv at all)
> - TOR is banned. (there is no way to hide your hostmask if you run
> your IRC client from your home connection)
> - SSL is not enabled, so all conversations happen in plain text. (even
> private ones, yeah)
> - even having a bot administering a channel, setting up its access
> list is hard with a dynamic IP and DNS. (you can use a wildcard, true,
> but that will result in someone spoofing your identity if he just
> wants to)
> So, the question is, should we migrate away to another network? (like
> Freenode) or is there a way for GIMPNET to improve its services?

I'd rather see GIMPNET improve its features than go over to Freenode.
Reason being, GNOME is a large project and it is much easier to see what
interesting channels there are in relation to GNOME than to try to scan
through the list of Freenode channels because just about every channel
in GIMPNET is GNOME-related (or is presumed to be.)


> _______________________________________________
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]