Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Pro-network:
> > We get a network of irc servers.
> > Anti-network:
> > They netsplit frequently due to the nature of irc.
> > We already have servers, and bandwidth, and it would seem to could
> > create a small, stable irc network that could handle our modest load
> > of ~700 concurrent clients. I don't know how well irc scales; could a
> > single server handle that load?
> Probably, if the machine wasn't too busy. But you need to consider
> something about the general unreliability of network connectivity; the
> single-point-of-failure model suggests that using just one server is a
> bad idea, and more are a maintenance problem.
Yes of course. A small network of 3 or so machines could probably take
care of that though. So could some well-connected general access irc
proxies, though I'm not sure such a proxy actually exists.
> There's also the question of trusting irc daemons enough to run them on
> Debian machines.
Heh, I love irc. :-P
> > Anti-network:
> > As has been mentioned, we have debian developers who do that work on
> > OPN and other networks already. So we know how to do it and we have
> > people who could do it if they desired to do so.
> > A single server would be less of a target than an entire irc network.
> No, a single server would be a much easier target than an entire IRC
> network; I think that's a more relevant data point. Plus this could
> risk other Debian equipment.
I take your point, but it would only be a target to those who want to
attack debian, while an entire irc network is a target for well, anyone
who is bored and wants to attack an irc network.
> very-polite don't-see-what-the-problem-is way. But:
> - Switching networks without some significant advantage stinks of politics
> too much for me.
> - It increases the chances we'll have to do it again, and we lose the
> stability that has made the network useful.
> - While I have my issues with Rob, I have very few issues with the
> day-to-day running of the network.
> OFTC is too much of a wild card, which I think is clear to any detached
> observer from reading the traffic in this thread. I suggest that we
> stay where we are.
I don't feel strongly that we shouldn't. I'd rather stay with OPN than
move to another network that has no guarentee it won't exhibit the same
problems we've had with OPN which after all arn't that severe.
see shy jo