3 ms·

So it wouldn't be IRC anymore, it would be MozillaChat whose backend happens to be IRC, but that is irrelevant. If the functionality is only available in a sing

by rakoo 7y ago

So it wouldn't be IRC anymore, it would be MozillaChat whose backend happens to be IRC, but that is irrelevant. If the functionality is only available in a single client, might as well use a proprietary protocol and client. What matrix is providing on chat.mozilla.org is an easy to use interface for people who want simple access, but I'm pretty sure it's expected that in the longer term people use their own client on their own homeserver and just connect to mozilla.

detaro 7y ago
Mozilla hosting a client or a bouncer for people that do not run their own does not mean not allowing other people to use their own ...
- rakoo 7y ago
  But then you lose _all_ the features we're talking about, because they're all implemented in the client. Back to square one.
tapland 7y ago
It wouldn't be single client. I don't see Matrix really solving anything. If anything, the non technical user will sign in and ge greeted with > Welcome to the Mozilla community Matrix instance. You can sign in to connect directly to this server, or connect from other Matrix instances through federation. Maybe they select a chat and have to read through the ToS as well? This is a lot more convoluted than any IRC web-client I've seen the last decade. And their 1k user chat room has as much activity as the 30 people IRC ones I'm connected to, and is the sahara desert compared to the larger ones. IT doesn't help to have a user list of 1k and no way to show the active users you actually interact with.
- detaro 7y ago
  You'd have some of that either way, since required accounts and people acknowledging terms is something Mozilla explicitly wanted here.
- rakoo 7y ago
  It is amazing that we are still having this conversation, after all the posts about IM softwares and protocols. I'll just post an older comment I made because I believe the arguments are still valid (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17833409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17833409): > The UI is the easiest thing to fix and as you have shown already has been for some time. What separates IRC and the rest is all the features you would expect by default in a messenger of the 21st century: - history - with search - logins - simple bots - automatic content fetching (wiki/youtube Links, pics and gifs) - file transfers that just work - image pasting - message editing And probably others. Yes, those features exist in one way or another in IRC. The point is not whether you can or not; the point is how much time and energy do I want to spend to install and maintain those. I may have had the patience to do it a few years back, but I value other things now.

by rakoo 7y ago

detaro 7y ago

Mozilla hosting a client or a bouncer for people that do not run their own does not mean not allowing other people to use their own ...

rakoo 7y ago
But then you lose _all_ the features we're talking about, because they're all implemented in the client. Back to square one.

tapland 7y ago

It wouldn't be single client. I don't see Matrix really solving anything. If anything, the non technical user will sign in and ge greeted with > Welcome to the Mozilla community Matrix instance. You can sign in to connect directly to this server, or connect from other Matrix instances through federation. Maybe they select a chat and have to read through the ToS as well? This is a lot more convoluted than any IRC web-client I've seen the last decade. And their 1k user chat room has as much activity as the 30 people IRC ones I'm connected to, and is the sahara desert compared to the larger ones. IT doesn't help to have a user list of 1k and no way to show the active users you actually interact with.

detaro 7y ago
You'd have some of that either way, since required accounts and people acknowledging terms is something Mozilla explicitly wanted here.
rakoo 7y ago
It is amazing that we are still having this conversation, after all the posts about IM softwares and protocols. I'll just post an older comment I made because I believe the arguments are still valid (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17833409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17833409): > The UI is the easiest thing to fix and as you have shown already has been for some time. What separates IRC and the rest is all the features you would expect by default in a messenger of the 21st century: - history - with search - logins - simple bots - automatic content fetching (wiki/youtube Links, pics and gifs) - file transfers that just work - image pasting - message editing And probably others. Yes, those features exist in one way or another in IRC. The point is not whether you can or not; the point is how much time and energy do I want to spend to install and maintain those. I may have had the patience to do it a few years back, but I value other things now.