8 ms·

>I said it's an alternative, not a replacement. The days of simplistic IRC protocols have gone. Now people want emojis, search, session persistence, web client,

>I said it's an alternative, not a replacement. The days of simplistic IRC protocols have gone. Now people want emojis, search, session persistence, web client, and more things. Let's take those each at a time, shall we? >Emojis This has nothing to do with the protocol. If you can send arbitrary UTF-8 messages (which you should be able to do, obviously, and can with modern IRC clients) then you can send emojis to your heart's content. >Search I've never personally found search particularly useful, but there's nothing about IRC that makes it any harder or easier to search messages. The way all chat search works and will always work is that you log chat messages somewhere and provide a way to search them. That has nothing to do with the protocol and everything to do with the server logging messages. You can then extend your chat protocol with a command that you send to the server that asks it to search the current channel (or all channels, or all channels I'm in, or all channels I've been in, or all messages sent in all channels that I was in at the time, that's up to the server though - corporate probably want the former, public you'd want the last one) for a particular string/regexp/whatever. There's nothing particularly complex here from the perspective of the chat protocol and in fact it would be simple to extend the IRC protocol with a command for doing this at the protocol level. It's just much easier to write bots to log messages and web interfaces to search those logs with. >Session persistence No, nobody wants this. What people want are to see messages sent while they weren't there and to be able to receive messages while away. The former is solved by the same server-side logging mentioned above and the latter is really the same idea. The thing is, most IRC servers don't want to buffer messages indefinitely for everyone that makes an account then never logs in again. >Web client There are lots of IRC web clients, and all you need for this is a simple protocol. >So for that, there's obviously going to be more complexity compared to IRC. And IRC feels so hacked on when fit it with the modern features one wants today. IRC has lots of features that are much, much more complicated than what you mention above, like DCC file transfer.

ktta 10y ago
>>Emojis Unless you have a mobile keyboard you'll have to search for emojis yourself and paste them. Emoji's will always be an after thought unlike in Matrix[1] and riot[2]. >>Search You're right, it has nothing to do with the protocol. It was never about if it was possible or not. I'm talking about if it is available right now. Try riot.im and then please show a mainstream IRC client with has the same search features. >>Session persistence >No, nobody wants this. Really? Are you sure? > The former is solved by the same server-side logging mentioned above and the latter is really the same idea. The thing is, most IRC servers don't want to buffer messages indefinitely for everyone that makes an account then never logs in again. Again, this isn't about if it is possible. It is about if it is available right now. You seem to be a big fan of writing code by yourself for features. Please link me to the cool IRC client you use which has all these features. >>> Web Client IRC was never intended to be run in the web browser. But matrix was built with that in mind. This is what my ' And IRC feels so hacked on when fit it with the modern features one wants today' comment was all about. >IRC has lots of features that are much, much more complicated than what you mention above, like DCC file transfer. Honestly, I might sound ignorant, but I've never ever heard of DCC file transfer. And matrix has implemented E2E encryption in some of their clients(all the major ones), and implementing them in the rest is a priority. I don't ever thing IRC will have this. I'd be glad if I was wrong. Also, why the boast about 'much, much more complicated'? What features require so much complexity, and if they did require high level of complexity, how useful are they? Also IRC doesn't think a lot about the UX/UI part which is what I often am frustrated about. One thing I find interesting about your reply is that you seem to assume the user is an experienced programmer. You make suggestions about extending an IRC server feature like it's changing a setting. But most people who are in OSS wouldn't bother with that. And what about non-technical users? Shouldn't this be easy to use for them to? Or do you want to ignore them so that they continue using a closed messenger and wonder why they're dominating the mindshare today? Have you wondered why a lot of OSS projects moved to slack? I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. [1]:https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk/pull/296 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk/pull/296 [2]:https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20emoji https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&...
- milesrout 10y ago
  >Unless you have a mobile keyboard you'll have to search for emojis yourself and paste them. Emoji's will always be an after thought unlike in Matrix[1] and riot[2]. What a load of crap. Emojis are simply sequences of Unicode code points. IRC supports UTF-8. A client with a button that brings up a big list of emoji is trivial to build. >You're right, it has nothing to do with the protocol. It was never about if it was possible or not. I'm talking about if it is available right now. Try riot.im and then please show a mainstream IRC client with has the same search features. That's irrelevant. You claimed that the simplicity of the IRC protocol was something unobtainable with those features. That's what I am disputing. >Again, this isn't about if it is possible. It is about if it is available right now. You seem to be a big fan of writing code by yourself for features. Please link me to the cool IRC client you use which has all these features. It's precisely about whether it's possible. You claimed that simple protocols for chat were not compatible with the features you listed. >IRC was never intended to be run in the web browser. But matrix was built with that in mind. This is what my ' And IRC feels so hacked on when fit it with the modern features one wants today' comment was all about. I agree that IRC was never intended to be run in a browser and doesn't run in a browser well. But that is irrelevant. >Also, why the boast about 'much, much more complicated'? What features require so much complexity, and if they did require high level of complexity, how useful are they? Also IRC doesn't think a lot about the UX/UI part which is what I often am frustrated about. Nobody is fucking boasting about anything. The point is that all of what you mention is easily possible with a simple protocol. "We should all use slack because simple standardised protocols can't do X, Y and Z" is FUD. IRC has really complicated features like file transfer. So I don't think that IRC is being held back by an inability to implement things that require a complex protocol anyway. But even if it were, what you mention does not require one. >One thing I find interesting about your reply is that you seem to assume the user is an experienced programmer. You make suggestions about extending an IRC server feature like it's changing a setting. But most people who are in OSS wouldn't bother with that. And what about non-technical users? Shouldn't this be easy to use for them to? What are you talking about? I haven't said anything of the sort. >Have you wondered why a lot of OSS projects moved to slack? I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. Very, very few OSS projects have moved to slack. The vast, vast majority use mailing lists, forums, IRC if they use anything other than GitHub. Most people just use GitHub issues and email, not even mailing lists but plain email. >I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. The vast majority of this thread, as I see it, is the opposite: bashing IRC, a protocol that has been successful for a long time, is open, is inherently distributed and which there are many clients on many platforms for, while going 'look at how awesome [thing nobody uses] is!!' Also the majority of IRC users aren't using freenode and the use of IRC by OSS is a tiny portion of the total use of IRC.
jrochkind1 10y ago
>>Session persistence > No, nobody wants this Are you serious? I think lots of people do. I think it's one of the draws of Slack. > The thing is, most IRC servers don't want to buffer messages indefinitely for everyone that makes an account then never logs in again. Is that what Slack does? Whatever they do, I think it's what people want. Indeed it is not an experience offered by IRC, perhaps because "most IRC servers don't want" to, sure.
- milesrout 10y ago
  >Are you serious? I think lots of people do. I think it's one of the draws of Slack. No it isn't. What it implies is what people want: persistent logs, signing in from their phone logging them into the same session as signing in from their desktop, etc. >Is that what Slack does? Whatever they do, I think it's what people want. Indeed it is not an experience offered by IRC, perhaps because "most IRC servers don't want" to, sure. Slack has a much higher barrier to entry than IRC and most people using it are private companies. IRC servers are publicly accessible and publicly accessed. They have existed for much longer. If Freenode stored every message ever sent on Freenode that would be a nightmare.
  - photojosh 10y ago
    > Slack has a much higher barrier to entry than IRC and most people using it are private companies. Only if you're a nerd. Took me 5 minutes to get started with Slack for our company and managing it is a piece of cake. Mind you, I haven't used IRC for a decade, maybe it's become a whole lot easier since then...
    - milesrout 10y ago
      >Only if you're a nerd. Took me 5 minutes to get started with Slack for our company and managing it is a piece of cake. Slack requires you to make an account on their website, a new account for every Slack group. IRC you can just join - pick a nickname and type the server's address and you're in. IRC is completely trivially easy to use, Slack is not.

ktta 10y ago

>>Emojis Unless you have a mobile keyboard you'll have to search for emojis yourself and paste them. Emoji's will always be an after thought unlike in Matrix[1] and riot[2]. >>Search You're right, it has nothing to do with the protocol. It was never about if it was possible or not. I'm talking about if it is available right now. Try riot.im and then please show a mainstream IRC client with has the same search features. >>Session persistence >No, nobody wants this. Really? Are you sure? > The former is solved by the same server-side logging mentioned above and the latter is really the same idea. The thing is, most IRC servers don't want to buffer messages indefinitely for everyone that makes an account then never logs in again. Again, this isn't about if it is possible. It is about if it is available right now. You seem to be a big fan of writing code by yourself for features. Please link me to the cool IRC client you use which has all these features. >>> Web Client IRC was never intended to be run in the web browser. But matrix was built with that in mind. This is what my ' And IRC feels so hacked on when fit it with the modern features one wants today' comment was all about. >IRC has lots of features that are much, much more complicated than what you mention above, like DCC file transfer. Honestly, I might sound ignorant, but I've never ever heard of DCC file transfer. And matrix has implemented E2E encryption in some of their clients(all the major ones), and implementing them in the rest is a priority. I don't ever thing IRC will have this. I'd be glad if I was wrong. Also, why the boast about 'much, much more complicated'? What features require so much complexity, and if they did require high level of complexity, how useful are they? Also IRC doesn't think a lot about the UX/UI part which is what I often am frustrated about. One thing I find interesting about your reply is that you seem to assume the user is an experienced programmer. You make suggestions about extending an IRC server feature like it's changing a setting. But most people who are in OSS wouldn't bother with that. And what about non-technical users? Shouldn't this be easy to use for them to? Or do you want to ignore them so that they continue using a closed messenger and wonder why they're dominating the mindshare today? Have you wondered why a lot of OSS projects moved to slack? I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. [1]:https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk/pull/296 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-react-sdk/pull/296 [2]:https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue%20emoji https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&...

milesrout 10y ago
>Unless you have a mobile keyboard you'll have to search for emojis yourself and paste them. Emoji's will always be an after thought unlike in Matrix[1] and riot[2]. What a load of crap. Emojis are simply sequences of Unicode code points. IRC supports UTF-8. A client with a button that brings up a big list of emoji is trivial to build. >You're right, it has nothing to do with the protocol. It was never about if it was possible or not. I'm talking about if it is available right now. Try riot.im and then please show a mainstream IRC client with has the same search features. That's irrelevant. You claimed that the simplicity of the IRC protocol was something unobtainable with those features. That's what I am disputing. >Again, this isn't about if it is possible. It is about if it is available right now. You seem to be a big fan of writing code by yourself for features. Please link me to the cool IRC client you use which has all these features. It's precisely about whether it's possible. You claimed that simple protocols for chat were not compatible with the features you listed. >IRC was never intended to be run in the web browser. But matrix was built with that in mind. This is what my ' And IRC feels so hacked on when fit it with the modern features one wants today' comment was all about. I agree that IRC was never intended to be run in a browser and doesn't run in a browser well. But that is irrelevant. >Also, why the boast about 'much, much more complicated'? What features require so much complexity, and if they did require high level of complexity, how useful are they? Also IRC doesn't think a lot about the UX/UI part which is what I often am frustrated about. Nobody is fucking boasting about anything. The point is that all of what you mention is easily possible with a simple protocol. "We should all use slack because simple standardised protocols can't do X, Y and Z" is FUD. IRC has really complicated features like file transfer. So I don't think that IRC is being held back by an inability to implement things that require a complex protocol anyway. But even if it were, what you mention does not require one. >One thing I find interesting about your reply is that you seem to assume the user is an experienced programmer. You make suggestions about extending an IRC server feature like it's changing a setting. But most people who are in OSS wouldn't bother with that. And what about non-technical users? Shouldn't this be easy to use for them to? What are you talking about? I haven't said anything of the sort. >Have you wondered why a lot of OSS projects moved to slack? I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. Very, very few OSS projects have moved to slack. The vast, vast majority use mailing lists, forums, IRC if they use anything other than GitHub. Most people just use GitHub issues and email, not even mailing lists but plain email. >I'm surprised no one in this thread is trying to find out why IRC doesn't seem to be the choice of OSS projects. Rather it seems to be about bashing matrix and one-upping IRC over matrix. Which solves nothing. The vast majority of this thread, as I see it, is the opposite: bashing IRC, a protocol that has been successful for a long time, is open, is inherently distributed and which there are many clients on many platforms for, while going 'look at how awesome [thing nobody uses] is!!' Also the majority of IRC users aren't using freenode and the use of IRC by OSS is a tiny portion of the total use of IRC.

jrochkind1 10y ago

>>Session persistence > No, nobody wants this Are you serious? I think lots of people do. I think it's one of the draws of Slack. > The thing is, most IRC servers don't want to buffer messages indefinitely for everyone that makes an account then never logs in again. Is that what Slack does? Whatever they do, I think it's what people want. Indeed it is not an experience offered by IRC, perhaps because "most IRC servers don't want" to, sure.

milesrout 10y ago
>Are you serious? I think lots of people do. I think it's one of the draws of Slack. No it isn't. What it implies is what people want: persistent logs, signing in from their phone logging them into the same session as signing in from their desktop, etc. >Is that what Slack does? Whatever they do, I think it's what people want. Indeed it is not an experience offered by IRC, perhaps because "most IRC servers don't want" to, sure. Slack has a much higher barrier to entry than IRC and most people using it are private companies. IRC servers are publicly accessible and publicly accessed. They have existed for much longer. If Freenode stored every message ever sent on Freenode that would be a nightmare.
- photojosh 10y ago
  > Slack has a much higher barrier to entry than IRC and most people using it are private companies. Only if you're a nerd. Took me 5 minutes to get started with Slack for our company and managing it is a piece of cake. Mind you, I haven't used IRC for a decade, maybe it's become a whole lot easier since then...
  - milesrout 10y ago
    >Only if you're a nerd. Took me 5 minutes to get started with Slack for our company and managing it is a piece of cake. Slack requires you to make an account on their website, a new account for every Slack group. IRC you can just join - pick a nickname and type the server's address and you're in. IRC is completely trivially easy to use, Slack is not.