Timeline for What does chat offer that IRC does not?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2020 at 13:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 13:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Fixup of bad MSO links to MSE links migration | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 9:16 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Migration of MSO links to MSE links | |
| Mar 30, 2011 at 22:41 | comment | added | Aarobot | @Faheem: All things that the chat already does - well, excluding the "command or two" which I really don't see as a feature. Just to be clear, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with IRC, just that it's not something the SE team should be aspiring to with its chat system considering the types of people who will be using it. | |
| Mar 30, 2011 at 19:28 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | @Aarobot: In defense of IRC, up-arrow recall of previous sentences, seamlessly switching between different channels with a command or two. With irssi, at least. | |
| Oct 28, 2010 at 6:22 | comment | added | balpha StaffMod | @Michael Looking at a few comments we have received about chat and IRC, hardly "everyone knows". I sometimes get the feeling some poeple have no idea what IRC is (even in a simple sense) and still have an opinion why we should or should not be using it. | |
| Oct 28, 2010 at 2:37 | comment | added | Michael Neale | Everyone knows what they mean by IRC - you can skip the disingenuous bit at the top | |
| Oct 20, 2010 at 22:48 | vote | accept | Casebash | ||
| Oct 18, 2010 at 21:09 | comment | added | John Ferguson | Sounds like, Google Wave! @wds I understood. Probably at some point antidisestablishmentarianism wasn't a word. | |
| Oct 18, 2010 at 12:22 | history | edited | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 | edited body |
| Oct 18, 2010 at 10:32 | comment | added | wds | propiatarism is not really a word. I can't edit on meta but that really bugged me. | |
| Oct 18, 2010 at 5:05 | comment | added | sajidnizami | TBH, web based chat offers a better experience. Moreover I do not think everyone would be comfortable opening ports for IRC clients in their office firewalls just to talk. Lots of things are wrong with IRC that web based chat cleans out. | |
| Oct 18, 2010 at 1:10 | comment | added | Aarobot | I also agree with everything here, especially the last paragraph. I did IRC years ago, and honestly, I can't think of a single feature from IRC that I miss on the chat here. I think the original question was just for curiosity's sake, and certainly worthy of being asked, but anyone who has seen the current chat and says (apparently without a hint of irony) that it should be IRC-based needs to have his head examined. | |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 20:58 | comment | added | Johan | I really like your last paragraph. It's so true that even people who in general like to figure out how things work sometimes just wants to get things done. You don't care how it works ALL the time. | |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 10:15 | history | edited | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 38 characters in body |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 10:03 | history | edited | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 1 characters in body; edited body |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 9:53 | comment | added | Pekka | Chat really has evolved into an impressive tool. Kudos. | |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 9:50 | history | edited | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 | edited body |
| Oct 17, 2010 at 9:39 | history | answered | balphaStaffMod | CC BY-SA 2.5 |