Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 77 posts

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#31

Post by dijit »

josteink wrote: post #23
dijit wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely. But we're talking about reasons people ended up choosing slack over something like IRC (or, really, any open protocol instant messaging specification). The grand-parent comment raises good points, people want these things, being connected and reachable while not being connected to the server with any client and having a context later on. These are problems that can be solved but nobody has put eff…

> nobody has put effort into making a sexy product Again we are comparing a product to a protocol . I’m just pointing out that this is not a reasonable comparison. There were multiple web-enabled IRC bouncers (closed products) which would be easy to use for anyone, including non-techsavy people. But evidently the majority of IRC-users were fine without that and preferred the traditional client-server-protocol realm.

IRC is more than a protocol, it’s an ecosystem. You cannot simply talk about IRC in complete isolation.

It’s akin to comparing SMTP with chrome.

You have to include the clients and surrounding infrastructure.

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#32

Post by ViViDboarder »

hashkb wrote: post #25
joeyguerra wrote: post #7

it was giphy. that's why.

Can we call it link unfurling in general? That's what really attracted me at first. (And emoji ofc)

The IRC client I use/d inlining of images and gifs.

“Reactions”, custom emoji, ease of integration (webhooks), and ease of signup are the things I hear quite often.

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#33

Post by stereolambda »

ryukafalz wrote: post #28
stereolambda wrote: post #21

I think the key deciding factor isn't even technical, but: if you want to enter Slack (or Zoom, or similar), it is streamlined, easy and clear what you need to do. Compare it to IRC, where you have to find a client, make the choice, and make many other small decisions. It's also about immediate benefit: the way many people try to start with IRC involves searching for rooms and trying to somehow fit in and enter the c…

> Dealing with Riot/Matrix system/client confusion. Most people don't care about such distinctions, I should probably just focus on talking about Riot. The thing I haven’t figured out is... why would people find this hard to understand for chat, but not for email? Everyone uses email, and everyone knows they can send an email to whatever email address they want no matter who their provider is.

I don't see it as a question of understanding as much as caring. It's not very realistic to do a "here's technical details of the protocol we'll be using" talk every time you invite someone.

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#34

Post by ryukafalz »

truckerbill wrote: post #30
ryukafalz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dealing with Riot/Matrix system/client confusion. Most people don't care about such distinctions, I should probably just focus on talking about Riot. The thing I haven’t figured out is... why would people find this hard to understand for chat, but not for email? Everyone uses email, and everyone knows they can send an email to whatever email address they want no matter who their provider is.

Most people are chained to a hotmail or gmail and don’t really understand the underlying architecture in my experience.

They may not understand the underlying architecture, but they definitely do understand it from a user perspective - they can send an email regardless of provider.

Telephones are the same way, too. You get a phone number from whatever company you want and can use it to call people no matter what provider they’re using.

I’m not convinced that open/federated protocols are inherently more difficult for people in general to understand.

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#35

Post by ryukafalz »

stereolambda wrote: post #33
ryukafalz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dealing with Riot/Matrix system/client confusion. Most people don't care about such distinctions, I should probably just focus on talking about Riot. The thing I haven’t figured out is... why would people find this hard to understand for chat, but not for email? Everyone uses email, and everyone knows they can send an email to whatever email address they want no matter who their provider is.

I don't see it as a question of understanding as much as caring. It's not very realistic to do a "here's technical details of the protocol we'll be using" talk every time you invite someone.

They probably don’t care that much in the case of email either. Would it be better to explain it by analogy? “This is like email, you pick a provider and you can talk to anyone from there.”

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#36

Post by ragebol »

ryukafalz wrote: post #34
truckerbill wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people are chained to a hotmail or gmail and don’t really understand the underlying architecture in my experience.

They may not understand the underlying architecture, but they definitely do understand it from a user perspective - they can send an email regardless of provider. Telephones are the same way, too. You get a phone number from whatever company you want and can use it to call people no matter what provider they’re using. I’m not convinced that open/federated protocols are inherently more difficult for people in general…

I think you are overestimating the level of understanding a lot of people have. For lots of people, IE == the internet. Start Firefox: "My internet looks different". Same for Outlook vs GMail. The average office worker (and home computer user?) has eg. Outlook installed and set up by the IT department.

But yes, the analogy with cell phone providers is useful. With this analogy, who would still tie their social media profile to a single provider?

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#38

Post by petepete »

alexandernst wrote: post #2

Because whenever somebody asked for: * 24/7 presence, the reply was "you can do that with a bouncer" * backlog, the reply was "you can do that with a bouncer" * full text search, the reply was "that's up to the client implementation" * file sharing, the reply was "it's already possible with XDCC" and so on and so forth. Basically, it's not that Slack is great, it's because IRC as a whole just refused to adapt to what…

The main problem is that the IRC standard wasn't kept up to date. It's barely changed in the last 25 years.

The things that IRC is missing, as listed above, could easily have been added.

Re: Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

#40

Post by stereolambda »

ryukafalz wrote: post #35
stereolambda wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as a question of understanding as much as caring. It's not very realistic to do a "here's technical details of the protocol we'll be using" talk every time you invite someone.

They probably don’t care that much in the case of email either. Would it be better to explain it by analogy? “This is like email, you pick a provider and you can talk to anyone from there.”

Okay, I can agree with your framing from the sibling:

> I’m not convinced that open/federated protocols are inherently more difficult for people in general to understand.

We may be disagreeing on the hierarchy of the goals. I think the priorities here are:

1. That the protocol is open and decentralized from the operator perspective (which is ensured in the case of Matrix).

2. That many people use it.

The #1 should be important for an opinionated minority pushing everyone else. The good thing is, non-technical people usually don't have much brand loyalty in these things. It's purely perceived convenience.

That the majority of people understand and care about #1 may or may not be realistic. I see it as partially another cause. Today, we have much of de facto centralization in email while the protocol is still decentralized. It would be nice to push chat to a more or less similar state and work from there. (I would also gladly see decentralization and inter-operation of many things enforced by law, but this is even more pie in the sky.)

Still, certainly your analogy can be used in communicating with people. But the main thing I'm trying to achieve is #2, getting them on board anyway.

Post reply on HN