|
|
| Author |
Message |
braindigitalis
Idler
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 443
Location: IRC
|
 Posted: Apr 24, 2005 6:18am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Om wrote: | Yeah, some messages will get delivered in fewer sends on a mesh than in a tree, but not always.
| Code: |
A-----B
|\ /|
| E |
|/ \|
C-----D
|
In a mesh, then a message from server A to servers B and E will require 2 sends, if E was the hub in a tree linked network, then it would also require 2 sends, so it's not always lower 
But one thing that is dramatically different is how the bandwidth is distributed, if all servers have an equal number of equally active users then on a mesh the bandwidth will be split equally between all the servers, with no higher loads on hubs |
except your diagram is wrong as A would be directly connected to D, and C would be directly connected to B. there is no reason for them to NEED to go through E. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheWingedOne
Newbie
Joined: 03 Apr 2005
Posts: 71
Location: The Void...
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2005 6:34am Post subject: |
|
|
| Therefore I'm correct, as I said disregarding the reroute token. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Om
none
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Apr 24, 2005 7:31am Post subject: |
|
|
Oops, sorry about my bad diagram,I meant the right thing, and then covered up a couple of links with server E >.<
Is better for my above post, sorry.
TheWingedOne, I never said you were wrong, I was just pointing out that it doesn't always use less bandwidth than a tree linked network |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ferg1
none
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 4:55am Post subject: |
|
|
| integration of voice over IP with the ircd, ditto for video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
braindigitalis
Idler
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 443
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Apr 25, 2005 5:01am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ferg1 wrote: | | integration of voice over IP with the ircd, ditto for video. |
I dont see how this is really possible... but prove me wrong, and i'll look into it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FrostyCoolSlug
none
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 29
|
| Posted: May 01, 2005 12:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
Theoretically.. i suppose its possible, would require a module to act as a server for something though 
Hell, in all reality.. if you have the source code to a server, and can shove it in one file.. you can (at least hypothetically), tie it into the IRCd with some work :p
(also note, this would compromise IRCd performance :p) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roku
Newbie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: May 01, 2005 12:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oh I'm sure someone will be requesting VoIPServ :/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ferg1
none
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: May 14, 2005 9:23am Post subject: |
|
|
I think when someone builds voice into IRC... and eventually video... and integrates it seemlessy with IRC channels and private messages, it'll be an incedibly popular feature.
To make the best use of it, it would ultimately require a new client, however we need a new main client anyway. There isn't a single user friendly IRC client out there. It's no wonder the IRC using population seems to have reached is peak, IRC has reached everyone technically capable and willing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magpie
Idler
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 454
Location: Essex, UK
|
| Posted: May 14, 2005 9:47am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure I really see the point of attempting to integrate some form of voice communication into IRC. Why not just use one of the many VoIP solutions (e.g. skype) that support conference calls?
Besides, you'll never really end up integrating this into IRC, as you're going to want to send the video/audio peer-to-peer as much as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ferg1
none
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 8:30am Post subject: |
|
|
The structure of IRC is very good, the concepts of rooms, private messages and services. If you could incorporate multiple forms of media in with the text, so you could see and hear people in the room with you, it would work very well. Of course the voice/video data would probably not run over the server links (though there are security implications for networks increasingly protecting their users identities), but you could still integrate it seemlessly with the IRC style of chat.
Then you could also expand it so that you can send a PM to someone on IRC by dialing a number on your mobile phone... or having PMs sent to your message serv account on IRC made accessible as a form of voicemail... infact... you could dial into chat room conversations too. There is lots of other stuff you could do, some of it with money making potential... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olene
Newbie
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 61
Location: olene on DALnet
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 11:00am Post subject: |
|
|
| Theres no such thing as a "room" on IRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roku
Newbie
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Posts: 92
|
| Posted: May 17, 2005 11:14am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There isn't a single user friendly IRC client out there.
|
IRC clients are becoming complex because IRC it's self is becoming complex. The more modes/features you add the more modes/features the IRC client has to support. This is the way of things .. not just IRC. As humans become more advanced they demand that objects around them become just as advanced. The more advanced things become, the harder it is to make "user friendly". The term "user friendly" is also a relative term, meaning it's based solely on an opinion. Such as in my opinion there is no such thing as a non-user friendly IRC client.
| Quote: |
To make the best use of it, it would ultimately require a new client, however we need a new main client anyway.
|
Please explain "new main client". IMO there is no such thing. If you are refering to "most popular client". Then I must say that there is a reason that the client is popular. Since the most popular IRC client for windows is mIRC, I'd like to inform you that users complain or switch clients nearly everyday because they don't like the simple interface that mIRC has. Which ironicly would be the reverse of your "user friendly" statement.
| Quote: |
Of course the voice/video data would probably not run over the server links
|
That's a good thing. No reason it can't be treated like DCC.
(FYI, IRC clients that support video have been around since the mid 90's.).
The same client that I'm thinking of stopped development in 1998 and it also supported a web based scrolling ticker similar to Conference Room's new ticker. The client also support a crude form of image or icon if you will as a header to actions and events. This tiny detail hinted at flirtation with the possibility of using emoticons in IRC windows. Which, by the way, is totally possible without changing the IRC protocol.
For the insanely curious, the client is called pIRCh.
| Quote: |
(though there are security implications for networks increasingly protecting their users identities),
|
User identity protection is on the user. The IRC protocol has measures included to allow users to fake all user info except their IP address. Users that wish to hide that can get a bouncer. No need to tax the IRCd.
Keep in mind that a kiddiot is going to attack someone/something when provoked. which do you thing is wiser? .. let the user get attacked? or draw the attackers attention to the server because the users host is masked?
| Quote: |
but you could still integrate it seemlessly with the IRC style of chat.
|
If it doesn't run over IRC it doesn't need to be integrated with IRC. All that's needed is an RFC standard a few 3rd party apps. As far as any connection between the IRC client and video app ... use scripts, modules or DDE.
| Quote: |
Theres no such thing as a "room" on IRC.
|
To the layman there is. room is another name for a channel.
Not everyone on IRC is technicly involved, many just want to talk to their friends and leave the technical stuff to the geeks and nerds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
