3 ms·

It's not? How about: * passwords required to connect to the IRC server, * passwords required to use given nickname (enforced via NickServ), * SSL.

bri3d 15y ago
NickServ and "IRC services" in general are shoehorned extensions to IRC. Most clients support them in some automated fashion now, but there's no guarantee, and usage differs depending on "IRC services" package. At any rate, my original comment came off a bit the wrong way. I'm not trying to say that IRC isn't a workable solution for this kind of group chat system, as it clearly is. I just don't see why using IRC over Jabber (which seems more technically suited to this domain) is a selling point, especially in a marketplace crowded with group chat solutions.
- leahculver 15y ago
  I think it's actually an issue of perception. When I hear Jabber or XMPP, I think of one-to-one chat and when I hear IRC I definitely think of group chat. In general, IRC clients seem more tailored towards groups. That said, there's definitely room for both protocols and I could see supporting XMPP as well at some point.
  - tilgovi 15y ago
    XMPP MUC is not fun, nor fun to scale. IRC has netsplits, but it does work reliably for tons of people all day every day.
    - gwillen 15y ago
      XMPP MUC also has the problem that the largest XMPP client, Google Talk in Gmail, afaik does not support it. It handles multi-user chats via some proprietary method that only works for Gtalk clients.
    - mweibel 15y ago
      I don't really think that's true. Look at Jabber.org which is probably the biggest jabber network out there and it seems they're scaling pretty well. Edit: Also XMPP supports UTF-8 for everyhting out of the box and as far as I know it's not really possible with IRC (or did that change over the last years?). E.g. nicks with non-ascii chars are no problem to have.. Why do you think it's not fun?

bri3d 15y ago

NickServ and "IRC services" in general are shoehorned extensions to IRC. Most clients support them in some automated fashion now, but there's no guarantee, and usage differs depending on "IRC services" package. At any rate, my original comment came off a bit the wrong way. I'm not trying to say that IRC isn't a workable solution for this kind of group chat system, as it clearly is. I just don't see why using IRC over Jabber (which seems more technically suited to this domain) is a selling point, especially in a marketplace crowded with group chat solutions.

leahculver 15y ago
I think it's actually an issue of perception. When I hear Jabber or XMPP, I think of one-to-one chat and when I hear IRC I definitely think of group chat. In general, IRC clients seem more tailored towards groups. That said, there's definitely room for both protocols and I could see supporting XMPP as well at some point.
- tilgovi 15y ago
  XMPP MUC is not fun, nor fun to scale. IRC has netsplits, but it does work reliably for tons of people all day every day.
  - gwillen 15y ago
    XMPP MUC also has the problem that the largest XMPP client, Google Talk in Gmail, afaik does not support it. It handles multi-user chats via some proprietary method that only works for Gtalk clients.
  - mweibel 15y ago
    I don't really think that's true. Look at Jabber.org which is probably the biggest jabber network out there and it seems they're scaling pretty well. Edit: Also XMPP supports UTF-8 for everyhting out of the box and as far as I know it's not really possible with IRC (or did that change over the last years?). E.g. nicks with non-ascii chars are no problem to have.. Why do you think it's not fun?