| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 50665 | 2004-10-28 07:13:00 | New Chat url, for those who missed it. | beetle (243) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 285551 | 2004-11-08 23:21:00 | I just dislike web based chatrooms, from my experience IRC clients are less resource hungry and offer more options. Web based chatrooms feel less responsive and often far more dependant on internet bandwidth. | Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 285552 | 2004-11-08 23:25:00 | Yeah IRC would be nicer, however maybe less secure. The Chat F1 is web based only, and doesn't seem to like Firefox in that it flickers during each refresh and the new chat is at the top of the page, rather than the bottom. Works ok in *cough* IE though. |
Jester (13) | ||
| 285553 | 2004-11-12 07:47:00 | Hey anyone up for a chat tonight? missed ya codex, was to slow.... all welcome. please :D beetle |
beetle (243) | ||
| 285554 | 2004-11-19 08:14:00 | For those of us stick in the mud type people chat still works just fine. see you there. beetle |
beetle (243) | ||
| 285555 | 2004-11-19 11:41:00 | Seems strangely deserted at the moment R2 |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 285556 | 2004-11-19 12:26:00 | > Yeah IRC would be nicer, however maybe less secure. There *is* an F1 IRC server you know... :)... FAQ 75 (or was it 65) can tell you all. AFAIK the security level should be the same - both transmit data in a non-encrypted fashion, but in both cases the data goes straight from client->server->client. Cheers George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 285557 | 2004-11-19 19:52:00 | > both transmit data in a > non-encrypted fashion, but in both cases the data > goes straight from client- > server- > client. Does it now? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 285558 | 2004-11-20 03:23:00 | That is, unless there's an evil hacker tapping the lines.... But what I was meaning is, neither one is more or less secure than the other (except for Chill's invisible encrypted secure IRC server of course). Cheers George |
george12 (7) | ||
| 285559 | 2004-11-20 03:44:00 | I would debate that still.... Traffic usually goes through a good several hops before reaching said destination: Matt's traceroute [v0.54] Stellar Sat Nov 20 16:44:15 2004 Keys: D - Display mode R - Restart statistics Q - Quit Packets Pings Hostname %Loss Rcv Snt Last Best Avg Worst 1. ??? 2. 222-152-125-1.adsl.ihug.co.nz 0% 1 1 46 46 46 46 3. 222.152.127.53 0% 1 1 44 44 44 44 4. fid-int.tkbr4.global-gateway.net.nz 0% 1 1 148 148 148 148 5. vlan-283.tkbr4.global-gateway.net.nz 0% 1 1 48 48 48 48 6. 203.96.120.202 0% 1 1 47 47 47 47 7. 203.96.120.197 0% 1 1 170 170 170 170 8. so-1-3-0-0.pabr3.global-gateway.net.nz 0% 1 1 172 172 172 172 9. google.pabr3.global-gateway.net.nz 0% 1 1 175 175 175 175 10. 216.239.48.174 0% 1 1 177 177 177 177 11. 216.239.48.214 0% 1 1 174 174 174 174 12. 216.239.48.210 0% 1 1 177 177 177 177 13. 216.239.49.168 0% 1 1 175 175 175 175 14. 216.239.47.145 0% 1 1 177 177 177 177 15. 64.233.175.134 0% 1 1 184 184 184 184 16. 216.239.47.130 0% 1 1 249 249 249 249 |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 285560 | 2004-11-20 03:45:00 | Hmm.... That didnt turn out quit as well as it should have. Regardless, that was a traceroute between myself and Google... That's where/who it goes through to get to Google. Is your server Off-shore? |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||