Live data from Hacker News

Why did Slack win out over IRC? (2018)

vice.com

41–50 of 77 posts

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

#41
I consider one of the biggest deal-breakers being able to snip part of your screen with a keyboard shortcut and Ctrl-V it into the client for everyone to see it inline, seamlessly. You don't have to mess around with image uploaders or open image links externally in your browser.

Want to send a file to someone? Drag and drop, done. No hassle and it works for everyone, in the same way, without having to explain anything, use an external website, install a dependency, or change a setting.

Same as with Discord, these modern chat clients support richer content, have nicer looking UIs, better UX which draw more people in.

It's more fun to code bots for them because you can make them do amazing stuff, as the output doesn't just have to be plain text, but it can also be rich content like charts, embeds, propmts that can trigger multiple actions by selecting a reaction emoji, you get the idea.

Just overall a great, low friction and _modern_ experience.

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

#42
post #41

I consider one of the biggest deal-breakers being able to snip part of your screen with a keyboard shortcut and Ctrl-V it into the client for everyone to see it inline, seamlessly. You don't have to mess around with image uploaders or open image links externally in your browser. Want to send a file to someone? Drag and drop, done. No hassle and it works for everyone, in the same way, without having to explain anythin…

I remember we used tools that saved the snip to a specified directory, targeted it at Dropbox public folder, and then there was an app or maybe config option that pushed url of any new file in the public directory to clipboard. Was even better because you had the URL immediately, without waiting for upload.

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

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I think we largely agree. I'm mostly aiming for #2, because I'm hoping that if we can get enough people using something that's hard to centralize, network effects will take care of #1.

Consider email for example: I think the main reason it's stuck around with us for so long is that we're at the point where being reachable by email is just expected. With everyone using email, someone trying to replace it with a centralized option would need to get everyone on board, while someone who wants to interoperate with email in general doesn't have that issue.

ISPs and phone companies are similar; nobody's going to start one that can't interoperate with the others nowadays. The public wouldn't stand for it, even if they couldn't explain why in terms of the underlying protocols.

While I would certainly love it if we could get people to care about open protocols, I think getting enough adoption of an open protocol would really be sufficient, so long as it's not easy for one big player to lock it down. (Google Talk for example; it was XMPP, but Google was the only player that mattered then as far as the public was concerned. Matrix is in a better position than that now.)

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

#44
post #39

Because all you have to do is go to the website, follow a link, log in, and boom, easily accessible chat. Has nothing to do with the protocol.

I concur, a hosted thelounge client instance brought me back to IRC after a decade of absence, giving me Log history and recoverable state. If the expectation is to go on public record (vs. private p2p chat) only user experience decides for group chat, not the underlying technology. Though IRC can't replicate threads, that is the only nitpick. In high volume channels replies to old questions are fine and the dynamic caused by seemingly disjoint replies can be learned.

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

#45
Slack wasn't competing with IRC. By the time Slack launched, IRC usage within companies was a very tiny slice of the market, mainly by very technical people. Slack was competing with Microsoft Lync, Google Talk, HipChat, Campfire, and the various other "IM for businesses" software products that were available in 2013.

Yes, Slack borrowed some of the better features from IRC, which helped drive its popularity, but very, very few companies that are currently paying for Slack would have considered IRC to be a reasonable alternative.

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

#46
post #10

Wasn’t it because you can’t get notifications from IRC?

And I have those notifications turned off.

Regardless of that, Slack is a complete and easy to understand solution. IRC is a collection of unknowns where each user ends up with a different implementation and may not be satisfied with where they end up.

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

#47
post #18

I still kind of struggle to understand why Slack is so popular within the corporate world. It is a good choice when you have some public initiative and let people swarm in, yes. But when it comes to private entities(I'm talking about large corporations), I really don't get it. I've been using MatterMost for years and while it had a rough start, at this point I'd take it over Slack any day of the week. Functionality i…

In a lot of corporate environments, "self-hosted" is not an advantage if you're the one trying to set up something new. In order to self-host, you have to go through your corporate IT department to provision servers. This alone can take 6 or 12 months, and you still have to find someone to maintain the service.

And the kind of companies that value self-hosting will usually want this to be set up inside the company's internal network. So you'll have a bunch of firewall issues to get through, otherwise good luck getting your users to connect to some non-publicly-accessible server from their phones.

Other comments talk about how Slack nailed the UX for users to join a Slack workspace. But they also nailed the UX for getting a workspace set up in the first place.

(Well ok the whole idea of separate accounts per workspace thing is a bit of a mess, but they nailed everything else)

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

#48
post #29
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (although, that's not technically true since irccloud does all the things you just mentioned) Yes but then you're not using IRC, you're using IRCCloud. Its features are independent from the backend that is used; they could switch to Matrix or XMPP or a proprietary protocol for that matter, and the features would still be there. You can't expect the one you talk to to have IRCCloud and tell them "just search in the…

Weird distinction. There’s no difference from this over using weechat relay.

The client -> relay protocol for weechat relay is not the same as the client -> ircccloud protocol for irccloud, and both of those are _not_ IRC

All those clutches exist to support the deficiencies of IRC, which only proves the initial point: IRC in its current form doesn't do enough, and that's why Slack, with all of those features out-of-the-box, "won".

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

#49
post #9

This article is comparing apples to oranges. IRC is a protocol, Slack is a client/app that uses protocols (one of which used to be IRC). Many IRC clients, although beloved by some users, are rough around the edges. In my opinion, Slack has "won" over other clients because of UX: it's extremely easy to sign-up, understand, and use productively. Plus, even large orgs (ours included), can use the free version if they're…

Slack made the process easy, and with emojis and slash commands, fun and useful.

I think another benefit to slack is you can come back to it and see the history. IRC is ephemeral unless you stick to a single device and leave it running. That's impossible for a mobile phone.

It frustrates me that some large projects (ex Ansible) who insist on all discussions there, and explicitly ignore things like GitHub issues.

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

#50
post #48
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird distinction. There’s no difference from this over using weechat relay.

The client -> relay protocol for weechat relay is not the same as the client -> ircccloud protocol for irccloud, and both of those are _not_ IRC All those clutches exist to support the deficiencies of IRC, which only proves the initial point: IRC in its current form doesn't do enough, and that's why Slack, with all of those features out-of-the-box, "won".

What I was eluding to was that irc (as a server to server protocol) is fine. As a client it has deficits but those are quite literally smoothed over by websocket capable bouncers and weechat relay.

IRC The protocol is not competing with slack. The IRC ecosystem is. And yes, it lost.

Post reply on HN