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

IRCv3

ircv3.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: IRCv3

#71

Post by GekkePrutser »

Arathorn wrote: post #69
_abox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix seems to lack a good high density client. The only one that's really full featured is Element but it's very consumerish and uses lots of screen space. As soon as you bridge multiple IRC networks and have lots of other chats open, the chat list becomes really messy imo.

Element Web has various high density modes including a dedicated IRC style mode which looks and behaves like xchat?

Oh it does? I try Matrix on a yearly basis with all the bridges and I didn't see it last year. I'm giving it another try in the next month or so. Last time the bridges weren't stable enough yet. I didn't notice this feature that time. Thanks for pointing it out!

I'd prefer a light desktop client though. I didn't spend much time with the web version, perhaps this is why I missed it. But I will definitely give it a try!

By the way I understand the focus on consumer usability, as it's needed for wider adoption. I'd really love for matrix to become mainstream.

Re: IRCv3

#72

Post by ygra »

alekratz wrote: post #19
Yoric wrote: post #16

Given that Matrix seems to be quite successful these days, and afaict is basically a next-gen IRC, is there any compelling reason to push IRC?

It helps that IRC is extremely simple. Most servers you can connect to and chat using telnet if you're so inclined.

I've done that, but good luck joining a channel and writing a message before you have to answer your first PING and get disconnected again because you didn't respond in time.

Re: IRCv3

#73

Post by mech422 »

threeseed wrote: post #45
metroholografix wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let those who need it use existing HTTP IRC gateways or write their own. IRC is flexible enough to accommodate this which is testament to how resilient and extensible the protocol has proven to be over the decades. I see no reason whatsoever to make HTTP a core requirement.

Which is why everyone uses Slack, Teams etc and IRC is irrelevant. Because there wasn't enough focus on end user experience.

slack has to be the worst 'end user experience' I've had with messaging. The threading is horrible, the client is huge and regularly 'stalls' (garbage collection?), and the voice chat is laggy as all get out. Basically, for large international orgs - it seems to be more trouble then its worth...

about the only highlight is ease of creating bots for monitoring and automation.

Re: IRCv3

#74

Post by selfhoster11 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #36
gpanders wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because Matrix basically has one decent server implementation and one decent client, both provided by the same company, and even that client is some godawful Element thing This is a fair criticism, but IRC is decades old while Matrix is what, 3-5 years old? Give it time and choice of clients and servers will only improve.

And by "improve" everyone understands "get more complicated and bloated" :-P

Features desired by modern users have a minimum complexity to them. It's just unavoidable. Classic IRC has many drawbacks and missing features:

- messages sent to you while logged out are lost

- no support for videos, images and GIFs

- (usually) not great support for emoji

- no support for file attachments

- no useful mobile clients unless with support from the server

Yes, those can be considered frivolous features, but they are used by people to express themselves (which is, in essence, what a chat protocol is used for), they are expected because IRC's competition has them, and some of them are an objective usability improvement that I'm not willing to go back on.

Re: IRCv3

#75

Post by diragon »

floren wrote: post #18
Yoric wrote: post #16

Given that Matrix seems to be quite successful these days, and afaict is basically a next-gen IRC, is there any compelling reason to push IRC?

Because Matrix basically has one decent server implementation and one decent client, both provided by the same company, and even that client is some godawful Element thing. I run a Matrix homeserver and use it daily but frankly, I prefer IRC.

gomuks is pretty good these days.

Re: IRCv3

#76

Post by threeseed »

metroholografix wrote: post #50
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll take excellent SNR over the sort of focus on end user experience you're talking about The kind of SNR that causes an attempted takeover? As IRC has depopulated it's been increasingly inhabited by a particular type of person and has a particular culture. That's fine, but ascribing some technical superiority to it because of your cultural preferences doesn't make sense. IRC attracts a certain type of user who pe…

You're being disingenuous. IRC has been right at the center of the vast majority of non-enterprise technical communities and especially opensource for the last 25 years. Say what you will about culture but this is a fact and I don't see it changing. Slack and Teams are gimmicks at best. Matrix unusable for me, every single one of my peers and, apparently, the vast majority of said technical communities that keep thei…

Weird. I contribute to a lot of open source projects.

Never once used IRC. Discord, Slack, Gitter but never IRC.

And love the idea of Slack being a gimmick.

Re: IRCv3

#77

Post by nirvdrum »

arp242 wrote: post #68
nirvdrum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate having a streamlined chat application, but understand that others feel differently. IRC applications are much better on resource consumption and snappier in my experience, but aren't all that practical on a mobile device. Naturally, how each of us feels about that experience is subjective. So setting that aside, the part about IRC that I haven't seen handled with Slack is being a one-stop shop. With IRC,…

The big thing I miss in IRC is that I can't just open my IRC client, connect to a channel, type a few messages, close the client again, do other stuff, come back a few hours (or even days) later, and see if there are any replies to it. I know about IRC bouncers and all that, but I don't want to set up a server just for that, and managing them is a pain as well. I know about IRCCloud too, but I don't use chat often en…

That's fair. Async communication is not its forte. There are definitely times I wish I could communicate with someone that way. Some channels have a logger and that can be helpful. For the most part, I like the "inbox zero" approach. I can hop on and just start chatting and there's no cultural expectation that I've gone through pages of chat logs from the last time I left.

Re: IRCv3

#78

Post by kevincox »

rendaw wrote: post #63
Arathorn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix is pretty simple too; one HTTP hit to send a message; one HTTP hit to receive a message. c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20949477 As others have pointed out, there's also a pretty decent range of very usable "daily driver" clients these days (Element, weechat, FluffyChat, nheko, Quaternion, NeoChat all spring to mind). 2nd generation servers are also progressing well (Dendrite in Go & Conduit in Rust…

I've been interested in reading more about the Matrix client protocol, is there documentation anywhere? At least as far as sending/receiving text messages and maybe threading. That linked message has a lot of good information though.

https://matrix.org/docs/spec/client_server/latest

Re: IRCv3

#79

Post by null4bl3 »

azinman2 wrote: post #44
badsectoracula wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by "improve" everyone understands "get more complicated and bloated" :-P

Yes, by innovating and giving people the user experiences they want. IRC is a joke once you’re used to Slack, especially in an organization that uses it well.

IRC is a protocol

Slack is a product

There is a really big difference

Re: IRCv3

#80

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

arp242 wrote: post #68
nirvdrum wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate having a streamlined chat application, but understand that others feel differently. IRC applications are much better on resource consumption and snappier in my experience, but aren't all that practical on a mobile device. Naturally, how each of us feels about that experience is subjective. So setting that aside, the part about IRC that I haven't seen handled with Slack is being a one-stop shop. With IRC,…

The big thing I miss in IRC is that I can't just open my IRC client, connect to a channel, type a few messages, close the client again, do other stuff, come back a few hours (or even days) later, and see if there are any replies to it. I know about IRC bouncers and all that, but I don't want to set up a server just for that, and managing them is a pain as well. I know about IRCCloud too, but I don't use chat often en…

> I know about IRCCloud too, but I don't use chat often enough to justify $5/month (I'm poor, and I just want to chat occasionally).

I'd also add that I've often seen IRCCloud banned from many channels due to extreme amount of spam from their users.

Post reply on HN