From 8b49e6cb525bbc635bf224a634b97d4f9a44a7ad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Pekka Riikonen Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 09:55:28 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] updates --- doc/FAQ | 22 +++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/FAQ b/doc/FAQ index 67393975..9ef309b3 100644 --- a/doc/FAQ +++ b/doc/FAQ @@ -52,17 +52,17 @@ A: Answer for both question is no. IRC client is in no way compatible Q: Why client/server protocol is based on IRC? Would it be more interesting to implement something extensible and more powerful? -A: They are not, non the least. Have you read the protocol specification? - The client superficially resembles IRC client but everything that - happens under the hood is nothing alike IRC. SILC could *never* - support IRC because the entire network toppology is different - (hopefully more scalable and powerful). So no, SILC protocol (client - or server) is not based on IRC. Instead, I've taken good things from - IRC and leaved all the bad things behind and not even tried to burden - myself with the IRC caveats that will burden IRC and future IRC - projects til the end. SILC client resembles IRC client because it is - easier for new users to start using SILC when they already know all the - commands. +A: They are not, none the least. Have you read the protocol + specification? The client superficially resembles IRC client but + everything that happens under the hood is nothing alike IRC. SILC + could *never* support IRC because the entire network toppology is + different (hopefully more scalable and powerful). So no, SILC protocol + (client or server) is not based on IRC. Instead, I've taken good + things from IRC and leaved all the bad things behind and not even tried + to burden myself with the IRC caveats that will burden IRC and future + IRC projects til the end. SILC client resembles IRC client because it + is easier for new users to start using SILC when they already know all + the commands. Q: Why SILC? Why not IRC3? -- 2.43.0