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

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: IRCv3

#91

Post by SilverRed »

Nasreddin_Hodja wrote: post #85
SilverRed wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using HTTP would be an absolutely massive improvement for IRC. IRC is essentially useless on mobile without having some man in the middle server to convert IRC to http. It's even pretty useless on laptops or desktops that aren't always running.

> IRC is essentially useless on mobile without having some man in the middle server to convert IRC to http. That's not true. I used HoloIRC client on Android with no problem. > It's even pretty useless on laptops or desktops that aren't always running. There is no need to. If it's about talks history, chats are not right tool then, forums are more convenient. Chats are suitable for casual or urgent instant discussion…

>There is no need to. If it's about talks history, chats are not right tool then, forums are more convenient.

This sounds like a fox and the grapes situation. You can't see history on IRC so rather than noting the deficiency, you list it as a feature.

As a modern IM user, I am part of many low volume groups and the history is essential as there will usually only be 5 or so messages in the day which I would have just missed if I had used IRC. I agree that history on a fast pace 100 member chat is not so useful but not having it isn't a benefit either.

Re: IRCv3

#92

Post by hultner »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #15
disposekinetics wrote: post #11

One of the things I really appreciate about IRC is the raw simplicity of the protocol. I hope that does not get lost in an effort to modernize.

I don't really care much about the protocol myself. I'm never going to be speaking "raw IRC" at any point, so why does it matter? I understand that you want to keep protocol simplicity high to make it easier on implementers, but other than just enough to encourage implementation, I don't see the need. We're talking about human chat applications here. Machine chat can use simpler protocols of course, like a light laye…

Actually, I have in fact been speaking "raw IRC" quite a few times. Not much anymore but back in the days when working on a new servers it was quite convenient to just telnet irc.x.yz 6667, NICK Hultner, USER Hultner * * * * (don't care for quick sess), JOIN #xyz-help, PRIVMSG #xyz-help Hello, anyone familiar with error Z1 on XYZ?, pong.

That's basically everything you need to know for some basic chat.

Re: IRCv3

#93

Post by networkimprov »

VectorLock wrote: post #25
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care much about the protocol myself. I'm never going to be speaking "raw IRC" at any point, so why does it matter? I understand that you want to keep protocol simplicity high to make it easier on implementers, but other than just enough to encourage implementation, I don't see the need. We're talking about human chat applications here. Machine chat can use simpler protocols of course, like a light laye…

I've interacted with IRC servers via telnet a ton of times. But overall I think that era of protocol design is unfortunately long passed (looking at you SMTP)

Not yet! See TMTP from the "mnm" project (my work).

Re: IRCv3

#94

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?

Thanks Arathorn, I've now given this a try. However it's not nearly as compact as I would want. Especially the room list on the left, as it still uses the room avatars in this mode it will only show a pretty small number of rooms there. Making the font smaller won't fix that. When I move everything to Matrix I will have at least 50 rooms open at any one time (different IRC servers, whatsapp bridged, telegram etc etc) and I don't want to scroll too much.

Also, every time I have to expand the "Show xxx more" ones for each section, I can't just scroll to the bottom of the list. So that's an extra click.

When I mean a high density look I mean without avatars etc :)

Re: IRCv3

#95

Post by xvilka »

it33 wrote: post #83
xvilka wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We recently switched to use self-hosted Mattermost plus Matterbridge[1] to connect with IRC, Telegram, Discord, etc. There is also an amazing console client - Matterhorn[2]. [1] https://github.com/42wim/matterbridge [2] https://github.com/matterhorn-chat/matterhorn

Mattermost CEO here, thanks for the share out! We're big fans of Matterbridge and Matterhorn as well!

I hope the categories that are already available in the Web client will be available in the mobile [1] and Matterhorn [2] clients too.

[1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-mobile/issues/5387

[2] https://github.com/matterhorn-chat/matterhorn/issues/711

Re: IRCv3

#96

Post by Arathorn »

rendaw wrote: post #70
gangohango wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://matrix.org/docs/guides/client-server-api

Thanks! I did look around the site quite extensively. That page says > this is specific to a homeserver implementation which suggests that it's not documenting a Matrix protocol. Unless Matrix has no standardized client protocol? Are all clients going to be homeserver-specific? Even so I'd hope there's some document that says "Matrix standardizes server-server communication, client-server communication is out of the…

no idea who was smoking what when they wrote that paragraph; i've deleted it.

Re: IRCv3

#97

Post by [deleted] »

networkimprov wrote: post #93
VectorLock wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've interacted with IRC servers via telnet a ton of times. But overall I think that era of protocol design is unfortunately long passed (looking at you SMTP)

Not yet! See TMTP from the "mnm" project (my work).

[deleted]
Post reply on HN