SaberUK
This is fundamentally the main problem with IRC development nowadays. People want IRC to have features but are unwilling to support IRC developers to actually implement them and as a result pretty much every single IRC developer (myself included) who isn't churning out slop is burned out because its a thankless job.
The former has PRIVMSG (message) statistics which show that Libera Chat is considerably more active than freenode despite having less total users (for now, the crossover point is predicted to be the 26th and it's been moving closer and closer for days).
OFTC and Libera Chat aren't as different as you seem to think. There is also a lot of cooperation between the two projects which has been going on for years. Solanum is being developed as a joint project and some staff members are involved with both networks.
It's a crying shame how one of the oldest surviving FLOSS community resources has been turned into a personal playground for an ancap blowhard who can't accept that no matter the amount of money he throws around it won't get people to like him.
A week ago freenode had 78644 users according to netsplit. Bragging about tanking your user count by 10k in a week (and its still dropping, it's at 66715 now) is a weird flex.
I think it is very unlikely that any surveillance capacity has been added since I resigned given that the remaining volunteers (who were not appointed by rasengan and many of whom predate rasengan's ownership of the network) are decent people who would not tolerate that. InspIRCd also makes it very hard to surveil users without them knowing (and I've made it harder since becoming the lead maintainer) as it sends notices to all users on connect if rawio debug mode is enabled and all loaded modules are listed in `/MODULES` which is explicitly exempt from being disabled in the config. Being open source it's technically possible to disable these checks by editing the source but from what I have seen rasengan is not a very good programmer[1] so he would probably not be able to do that without being caught.
[1] This mess seems typical of his programming abilities: https://github.com/toc-irc/jbnc/blob/master/bouncer.js
You can use OTR for private IRC chats and an IRCv3 contributor is currently working on an end-to-end encryption system suitable for use in IRC channels so if you're concerned about your privacy you are welcome to use those.
I have to look through the source code of other IRC server implementations regularly when checking for cross-server compatibility and looking through ngircd's source code is always a pleasure. Its extremely well written and easy to follow unlike the irc2-based IRC server implementations (UnrealIRCd, etc) which usually are a pain to find out what they're even doing.
The IRC server software used by Snoonet, InspIRCd, does not contain any functionality for message interception (it doesn't even tell server operators the contents of a message that has matched a spam filter) and at least on the infrastructure I have access to Snoonet does not have any message interception capability either.
Everything IRC.com is working on usability-wise is happening on top of the existing protocol. If you're an advanced user you'll be able to connect to the server with your IRC client of choice just like you always have to any other IRC server.
We strongly believe that the future of IRC is TLS-only.
Take the "away-notify" extension for example. Without it you would have to repeatedly poll a channel with WHO to see if all users in that channel have marked themselves as away.
There are plans to contribute an updated base RFC to the IETF in due course though.
We are working on it but when you have hundreds of different implementations which are all broken in their own way its not as easy as just adding a way to negotiate the length. Extending the length to add an extra 512 octets for message tags was a temporary fix.
>Now if they had started with fixing the actual protocol they wouldn't have had to deal with that.
We HAVE started with working on fixing the protocol. Almost all of the specifications in IRCv3.1 and most of the specifications in IRCv3.2 fix core protocol issues.
I do not wish to start an argument over things which are long dead. However, I think it is important to note that the "political reasons" were that you were constantly derailing discussions and threatening people.
I can publish all of my IRC logs if anyone wants evidence of this.
>IRCv3 is an almost closed group of friends, mostly znc core developers
There is only one ZNC developer actively involved with IRCv3 (DarthGandalf) and even they have not been particularly active in the last few months.
>who have decided they can choose what the future of IRC looks like.
We accept any reasonable proposals providing you are willing to provide a strong rationale for it.
>They have put lots of pressure on and harassed other developers of clients and networks, sending them patches and infiltrating their devs if necessary, so their ideas are actually implemented.
No IRCv3 technical board member has ever forced a developer to accept patches. Some people have contributed patches to various IRC implementations in order to improve IRCv3 compliance but those patches have been accepted out of the free will of the maintainer.
>If you complain about those ideas and specs, they'll tell you to refer to their github issue tracker,
We prefer that discussions happen on the tracker rather than IRC as it is persistent and can be referred to in the future.
>they mostly ignore those who are not part of that core group I mentioned.
This is completely false. Please provide evidence of this happening.
In a future release InspIRCd will adopt support for the server-time extension which will allow us to get rid of the timestamp duplication if a user's client supports it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/12/argentina-falkl...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/05/falklands-under-ou...