The lack of nick services is an inferiority of Undernet. It has been washed over in the past seemingly out of an arbitrary "We want to be different" mentality. I'm not impressed. It is an excellent idea and is not difficult to implement but it is being ignored. True, Undernet is not Dalnet, but it is also true that if the DoS attack on Dalnet would lay off it would once again be the most populated IRC network. Perhaps learning by example is better than stone-age adherance to "We will not put nickserv here because... yeah". I realise this is abrasive, but apparently this has been a long-standing problem that nobody has addressed. One system is clearly superior to the other in fair playing conditions -- learn from it and assimilate!
As I've said before ... it isn't rocket science. I've seen it before and it is not a catastrophically difficult undertaking to put in a nickserv
I had to Quote that because it's the best reply I've ever seend regarding to "No Nick Registration". I strongly agree with Tomekeeper. And come up with an idea (don't know if it's already been said):
1. Only registered users should be able to have 1 (ONE) registered nick.
2. The registered nick should be the same as the username.
I don't see how that would affect the network or the users ... of course there will be a higher load on the servers but it would be worth it. Think about it.
And furthermore, the identity is not given by the username (there are lots of users that don't know what an username is! They never heard of Cservice), the nickname is the first thing seen, that my friend gives you the IDENTITY
. Even I don't check the usernames for every person I speak to. I just know the by the nick.
This is my opinion