4 ms·

Technically, it did: Internet Relay Chat (IRC) has been an RFC for over a quarter of a century. To me, at least, it's an interesting question why IRC never real

Technically, it did: Internet Relay Chat (IRC) has been an RFC for over a quarter of a century. To me, at least, it's an interesting question why IRC never really broke out of "only nerds need apply" status.

lucb1e 8y ago
IRC is about as featureful as the telegraph, I'm pretty sure that's why so few people bother with it and while interfaces (bots that relay messages to other platforms and back) exist plenty, pretty much everyone would rather use something with at least scrollback without bouncer. Probably also file transfer, (video) calling, screen sharing, typing notifications, read receipts, etc.
- z3t4 8y ago
  There are clients that does file transfer etc, for example Mirc. IRC can be extended with just about anything, using a direct connection (P2P), although you might need to use the same client.
  - ge0rg 8y ago
    Direct Client Connections (DCC) became infeasible about 20 years ago with the proliferation of NAT routers. The workarounds (connection tracking and rewriting) never arrived for the masses.
    - z3t4 8y ago
      I think IPv6 was designed to not need NAT, so once we get IPv6 we will see cool new protocols again. Only problem is we developers make software insecure by listening on all IP's instead of just private. And without a password! Having your security camera or what not accessible from the Internet should really be opt-in. It's our own fault that everything is NAT:ed, and that the only open ports in the firewall are 80,443. We need more peer pressure between developers in order to make things secure by default, and not allow insecure by convenience.
      - sliken 8y ago
        Default IPv4 (for consumers) is a single IP with masq/NAT. Then with user authorization add port forwarding as needed. Default IPv6 (for consumers) is block all incoming (except for traffic related to outgoing). Then with user authorization add allow rules as needed. So basically no difference between IPv4 vs IPv6. If you default firewall on IPv6 is allow all... buy a better router/firewall.
        z3t4 8y ago
        We would not need a router or firewall. Probably not a wifi either. All stationary devices will be wired in. And mobiles would use 6G or 7G. Where I live (sweden) you can already get 10Gbe. Now imagine the possibilities. For example VR with less then a ms latency to closest datacenter. Where your device is just a thin client. Microsoft are already planning to build a DC near major cities, hopefully they are up to something cool.
dcbadacd 8y ago
Because: * No clients support multimedia - animated GIFs, videos, audio, images, video/audio calls - only Quassel has web previews and that's about it * E2E encryption doesn't exist properly * Signing up to protect usernames is a pain in the ass, especially if people span networks and assuming networks even have something like NickServ * Users are require to have a bouncer to have some chat persistence * No clients offer convenience features such as search * It's a pain in the ass to manage channels to just chat * Clients can't handle mobile connections well I'm sure I've forgotten other problems the protocol has.
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  I'm not sure any of those are issues that couldn't have been addressed by now through a new version of the protocol, though; what I'm trying to get it is that it's sort of weird to me that IRC in 2019 isn't materially different than IRC in 1994. IRCv3 addresses a whole lot of those problems, for instance, and there's nothing that technically could have prevented it from addressing them 10 years ago.
  - dcbadacd 8y ago
    IRCv3 brings a bunch of really nice features I'm so happy to have, but it's really the clients that need a lot of work in addition to just IRCv3 features. Image, video and audio inlining is still something that no client does and the standard can't help with and that's a huge con for most users. What the standard could help with is standardizing markdown formatting, some method of E2E encryption, better SASL (with registration, key rollover/update and distribution between your clients).
- Marsymars 8y ago
  > * No clients support multimedia - animated GIFs, videos, audio, images, video/audio calls - only Quassel has web previews and that's about it Textual supports a bunch of inline media: https://help.codeux.com/textual/release-notes/Release-Notes%3A-Version-7.0.7.kb https://help.codeux.com/textual/release-notes/Release-Notes%...
dharma1 8y ago
I've often wondered about this too. IRC was amazing and then it stagnated. Perhaps not ambitious enough governance / leadership over the project? Lack of (financial) incentives? I don't really know the structure/contributors of the project except for the beginning (not when it stagnated later on), but perhaps if Jarkko Oikarinen had been as driven as Linus Torvalds, we would live in a different reality when it comes to instant messaging
icebraining 8y ago
If you think about it, nothing really like IRC exists nowadays. Slack is similar, but it's more of a work tool, and it has a much smaller userbase than any of the other mass communication tools (~10M). I'd say there's simply no great demand for real-time chatting with large groups of people.

lucb1e 8y ago

IRC is about as featureful as the telegraph, I'm pretty sure that's why so few people bother with it and while interfaces (bots that relay messages to other platforms and back) exist plenty, pretty much everyone would rather use something with at least scrollback without bouncer. Probably also file transfer, (video) calling, screen sharing, typing notifications, read receipts, etc.

z3t4 8y ago
There are clients that does file transfer etc, for example Mirc. IRC can be extended with just about anything, using a direct connection (P2P), although you might need to use the same client.
- ge0rg 8y ago
  Direct Client Connections (DCC) became infeasible about 20 years ago with the proliferation of NAT routers. The workarounds (connection tracking and rewriting) never arrived for the masses.
  - z3t4 8y ago
    I think IPv6 was designed to not need NAT, so once we get IPv6 we will see cool new protocols again. Only problem is we developers make software insecure by listening on all IP's instead of just private. And without a password! Having your security camera or what not accessible from the Internet should really be opt-in. It's our own fault that everything is NAT:ed, and that the only open ports in the firewall are 80,443. We need more peer pressure between developers in order to make things secure by default, and not allow insecure by convenience.
    - sliken 8y ago
      Default IPv4 (for consumers) is a single IP with masq/NAT. Then with user authorization add port forwarding as needed. Default IPv6 (for consumers) is block all incoming (except for traffic related to outgoing). Then with user authorization add allow rules as needed. So basically no difference between IPv4 vs IPv6. If you default firewall on IPv6 is allow all... buy a better router/firewall.
      - z3t4 8y ago
        We would not need a router or firewall. Probably not a wifi either. All stationary devices will be wired in. And mobiles would use 6G or 7G. Where I live (sweden) you can already get 10Gbe. Now imagine the possibilities. For example VR with less then a ms latency to closest datacenter. Where your device is just a thin client. Microsoft are already planning to build a DC near major cities, hopefully they are up to something cool.

dcbadacd 8y ago

Because: * No clients support multimedia - animated GIFs, videos, audio, images, video/audio calls - only Quassel has web previews and that's about it * E2E encryption doesn't exist properly * Signing up to protect usernames is a pain in the ass, especially if people span networks and assuming networks even have something like NickServ * Users are require to have a bouncer to have some chat persistence * No clients offer convenience features such as search * It's a pain in the ass to manage channels to just chat * Clients can't handle mobile connections well I'm sure I've forgotten other problems the protocol has.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago
I'm not sure any of those are issues that couldn't have been addressed by now through a new version of the protocol, though; what I'm trying to get it is that it's sort of weird to me that IRC in 2019 isn't materially different than IRC in 1994. IRCv3 addresses a whole lot of those problems, for instance, and there's nothing that technically could have prevented it from addressing them 10 years ago.
- dcbadacd 8y ago
  IRCv3 brings a bunch of really nice features I'm so happy to have, but it's really the clients that need a lot of work in addition to just IRCv3 features. Image, video and audio inlining is still something that no client does and the standard can't help with and that's a huge con for most users. What the standard could help with is standardizing markdown formatting, some method of E2E encryption, better SASL (with registration, key rollover/update and distribution between your clients).
Marsymars 8y ago
> * No clients support multimedia - animated GIFs, videos, audio, images, video/audio calls - only Quassel has web previews and that's about it Textual supports a bunch of inline media: https://help.codeux.com/textual/release-notes/Release-Notes%3A-Version-7.0.7.kb https://help.codeux.com/textual/release-notes/Release-Notes%...

dharma1 8y ago

I've often wondered about this too. IRC was amazing and then it stagnated. Perhaps not ambitious enough governance / leadership over the project? Lack of (financial) incentives? I don't really know the structure/contributors of the project except for the beginning (not when it stagnated later on), but perhaps if Jarkko Oikarinen had been as driven as Linus Torvalds, we would live in a different reality when it comes to instant messaging

icebraining 8y ago

If you think about it, nothing really like IRC exists nowadays. Slack is similar, but it's more of a work tool, and it has a much smaller userbase than any of the other mass communication tools (~10M). I'd say there's simply no great demand for real-time chatting with large groups of people.