Log in

No account? Create an account
LiveJournal Client Discussions [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
LiveJournal Client Discussions

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

USENET-style LJ client? [Aug. 23rd, 2004|12:48 am]
LiveJournal Client Discussions


I've been looking around at the available LJ clients and not finding one that does what I want.  Do I have to write my own?  Most clients seem to think that their job begins and ends with helping me write WYSIWYG journal entries, but I find the LJ web interface is fine for that.  What I want a client for is
  • Tell me when new comments have been attached to my friends' journal entries.
  • Tell me which comments are ones I haven't read yet.  (Currently I have to squint at the dates and usually just end up rereading comments I've already seen.)
It seems to me that this is most easily accomplished by adapting a USENET reader, such as Pan, using the following analogy:
LiveJournal USENET
User login  → Server
Friend  → Newsgroup
Journal entry  → Thread-starting post
Comment  → Reply post
And so forth.  Of course, there are some differences (deleting a comment has different semantics from cancelling a reply, thread-starting posts can be edited if yours, etc.) but I suspect a decent job could be achieved by "just" replacing Pan's backend and leaving the UI pretty much the same.

And I completely out to lunch on this?

[User Picture]From: bleything
2004-08-23 05:44 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

My position on all of this is in the thread in lj_dev, so I won't repeat it here. I will say this: it is wrong to look for ways to comply with the letter of the TOS (and the law) while evading the spirit thereof. Not that I'm suggesting that's what you were doing, but that's what the term "workaround" implies in this sense.

In this case, we're talking about a thing that would be useful to many people and is difficult to find objectionable. Again, let me be clear: I don't oppose the functionality requested here, I'm just trying to make sure people consider all the ramifications of what they're talking about. I'm trying to foster reasoned discussion about more than simply the technical aspect of things.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: emarkienna
2004-08-25 03:44 pm (UTC)

Re: NNTB, Zilla #1576

Well, my viewpoint is that it doesn't violate even the spirit of the TOS (so it's not like I'm trying to evade it), but I realise that others may think it does.

I guess my curiosity is then, why didn't these issues get discussed when RSS was introduced - or if they were, what was decided.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)