Re: Why MLChat? [Was: Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]]

[Maxence Guesdon <maxence.guesdon@inria.fr>]

> As said, IMO, this is not a good point, but the joke is funny :)

It's a classic one.
 
> Sure, IRC needs a server and this not.  Then the question is for which
> reasons MLChat is better than the standard talk? (Please note that I'm
> asking for a question from the _user_ point of view, not from a
> developer point of view, and, yes, I know that the talk protocol is
> orrible ... I'm working on a talk implementation for an exam)

Well it'a far more convenient, in my opinion but i may not be fair...
 
> BTW I'm not against MLChat, but debian is suffering of a bloating
> problem regarding the number of packages in the archive, so is probably
> better to be sure, before packaging a program, that:

I understand.

> 1) the program is usefule and not merely a clone of another program

Well it is useful, but i don't know it such a program exists yet,
or even a better program. It is possible.

> 2) the program is effectly used by someon (I'm happy to know that at
> INRIA all people use MLChat, but IIRC INRIA is full of RedHat boxes :-))

Yes, RedHat and Mandrakes... but there are some debians like
Roberto di Cosmo's box.

-- 
Maxence