Re: A few observations about GIMPNET

2012/10/4 Bryen M Yunashko <suserocks bryen com>:
> 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.

Most of the home-hosted bots are there to substitute the work of
missing services like nickserv and chanserv, the other ones I recall
(nagbot and bugbot) are hosted by Bugzilla and by the GNOME

> 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.)

Yeah, the suffix #gnome-$(channel_name) should help with that and many
other large projects are living on Freenode since several years and
they are able to administer the relevant channels with the proper ACLs
without delays and problems, so finding a channel could be a problem
for the very first months.



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