[HN Gopher] IRCv3 2022 Spec round-up
___________________________________________________________________
IRCv3 2022 Spec round-up
Author : buovjaga
Score : 138 points
Date : 2022-11-20 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ircv3.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (ircv3.net)
| TheBrokenRail wrote:
| The issue I have with Matrix/IRC/IRCv3 compared to Discord is
| that they don't really work well with public communities.
|
| Discord's server/channel/role system is amazing, and I don't know
| why everyone else isn't replicating it.
|
| For instance, let's take the Pine64 Discord server. It has a
| grand total of 27 channels split into 10 categories (including
| top-level). Using Discord's permissions system, some of those
| channels are read-only like #announcements.
|
| Pine64's server is also bridged to Matrix. Matrix requires every
| single channel to be bridged individually into their own Matrix
| chat, just look at this table
| (https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/Main_Page#Chat_Platforms)! In fact,
| some of the channels aren't even bridged at all! Meanwhile on
| Discord, everything's all in one easy to use place. You just join
| the server, and that's it.
|
| But what about Matrix spaces? Aren't those the equivalent of
| Discord servers? The issue is that rather than an integrated
| experience, Matrix servers are just a built-in version of the
| table I listed above. You still have to leave/join chats
| individually and it doesn't even have categories!
|
| But that's all from a user's perspective, what about from a
| server admin's perspective? Discord's permission system is great
| and flexible, and Matrix's system is just kind of bad. In case
| you don't know Matrix's system from what i understand is
| basically: every user gets a permission level number, and users
| with certain levels can do certain things. That's it, no
| flexibility whatsoever.
|
| Meanwhile on Discord, you can create roles which when given to
| users allow them to do certain things. Like anyone with a
| "Moderator" role can delete messages or ban people. But you could
| also make it so "moderators" can't delete messages, only ban
| people. And you can also make roles behave different on per-
| channel or per-category basis. You can even make it so users
| can't see a channel at all without a role (for instance, a server
| I'm an admin on has a #mod-chat channel and a #admin-chat
| channel).
|
| Matrix's system just can't do that. And it really doesn't
| integrate with their Spaces system. There's no way to make it so
| only certain people can see certain channels in a Matrix Space.
| In fact, there's no way to manage permissions for an entire
| Matrix Space at all! It's limited to a per-chat basis.
|
| And that long-winded rant is why I will stick with Discord.
| qudat wrote:
| Ya but there's little client diversity. I can't have discord
| running on a headless dev box and remote in to catch up. This
| is what irc better for terminal enthusiasts
| p1necone wrote:
| The only reason you need to do that in the first place is
| that IRC servers don't save chat history/dms when you're
| offline. You'd gain no benefit from doing that with Discord.
| qudat wrote:
| I use all sorts of computers for personal and professional
| use. I don't want to install discord on all those clients.
|
| The point is more about the possibilities which have been
| severely muted with chat apps like discord.
| bawolff wrote:
| For irc that just seems like a UI difference. Of course you can
| have announce only channels in irc, people have been doing that
| forever.
|
| The big thing is that discord shows you all related channels on
| the project. If you are on libera, there isn't the same
| discoverability. So in a sense announcement only channels are
| much less useful because users cant find them (not to mention
| lack of history if you dont have a bouncer).
| progval wrote:
| When hosting your own IRC server, you can "force-join" users
| to arbitrary channels to replicate what it's like to join a
| discord guild. Pine64 does it, for example.
| ilyt wrote:
| It goes much farther than that I think the most interesting
| use of its API i've seen was using the dumb little reaction
| "press icon to add to the counter thing" as a way to opt in
| or confirm stuff.
|
| I remember one server where the #welcome channel just have a
| bunch of "categories" to choose from and depending on which
| one you clicked you got assigned a role that unlocked a bunch
| of channels related to the topic. Some also used it to the
| new user onboarding where you got access once you read the
| rules and accepted it by clicking the reaction.
|
| > So in a sense announcement only channels are much less
| useful because users cant find them (not to mention lack of
| history if you dont have a bouncer).
|
| That's my issue with projects or corporations using discord
| for generic chat - it is entirely undiscoverable to outside
| world, can't just google a question.
| adenozine wrote:
| Insomuch as this may be an adequate design, for many cases the
| fact that it's not open source is a nonstarter. I'd certainly
| never touch it for my teams and workgroups at work, because we
| need to be able to host it and isolate and harden.
|
| Discord is also sorta prone to this weird and cringy sort of
| internet culture which regular people find a little gross, I'd
| think.
|
| I'm old enough to distinctly remember the rise of IRC and I
| can't see a reason aside from better security for it to be
| reinvented rather than just updating the standard. Emojis and
| attachments and whatnot.
| dopa42365 wrote:
| See, you can decide to stick with discord, and discord can
| decide to not stick with you.
|
| That's the difference.
|
| "Your" discord "server" turns out to be neither of those.
| stonogo wrote:
| Discord and IRC are not competitors. Discord is just a product
| you choose to use or not. Discord Inc. runs the servers, and
| you use whatever software they approve to connect. Using
| unapproved software could result in a ban from the service.
|
| IRC is a set of protocols to enable a federated service. You
| choose which server implementation you want to host, and your
| users choose from dozens of available clients, which all work
| together because of the relevant standards, to which everyone
| has access.
|
| The rest of your comment seems to be a comparison of Matrix,
| which is not IRC, and Discord. It's great that you've found a
| product you like, which suits your needs. Don't make the
| mistake of thinking IRC is competing with it, though. IRC will
| still be here long after Discord Inc. exits.
| ilyt wrote:
| Those 3 product fill same function, chatting between people.
| Of course they are competitors, it's just IRC isn't
| competitive in normal people space.
|
| The fact IRC might or might not choose to compete doesn't
| mean it isn't one of choices people wanting chatting app
| consider.
| andrewshadura wrote:
| In fact, the Matrix permission system allows for what you
| describe. For each room, you can define what actions a certain
| access level can perform.
| Daunk wrote:
| Is there a modern client and server that supports all of these
| recent additions?
| slingamn wrote:
| Here are my biased recommendations ;-)
|
| a. Ergo [1] as the server for a greenfield setup
|
| b. Gamja [2] and Goguma [3] ) as clients
|
| c. Soju [4] as a bouncer for non-Ergo networks
|
| [1] https://github.com/ergochat/ergo [2]
| https://sr.ht/~emersion/gamja/ [3]
| https://sr.ht/~emersion/goguma/ [4]
| https://sr.ht/~emersion/soju/
| qudat wrote:
| Also throwing a great terminal client in the mix:
| https://git.sr.ht/~taiite/senpai
| donio wrote:
| In Emacs-land rcirc supports a bunch of them:
|
| https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/lisp/net/rc...
| lzooz wrote:
| How's rcirc compared to erc?
| donio wrote:
| I think it comes down to personal preferences. rcirc is a
| single file. ERC is more modular, it has the core
| functionality in one file and a bunch of modules can be
| pulled in for extra functionality.
|
| I originally went with rcirc because I preferred the way it
| handles logging: it maintains a separate log buffer and you
| can format the local logs separate from the display format.
| ERC logging works by writing out the recent portions the
| buffer itself. Both are very customizable though, lots of
| variables and hooks so it should be possible to tweak
| either one to your taste.
| lzooz wrote:
| Great, cheers
| pandastronaut wrote:
| You will find a supported features matrix here for clients :
| https://ircv3.net/software/clients and here for servers :
| https://ircv3.net/software/servers
| ilyt wrote:
| I firmly believe support feature matrix is what ultimately
| killed XMPP for masses - it always felt like you don't know
| what you get with given client or server and never quite
| worked fine.
|
| That and advent of zero-fuss web clients
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| They do have pages listing client[1] and server[2] support.
| (Behind the "Support" button in the navigation bar, which is
| perfectly logical, but I needed a couple of seconds to overcome
| my conditioning and convince myself this may really be the kind
| of "support" they are talking about.)
|
| [1] https://ircv3.net/software/clients
|
| [2] https://ircv3.net/software/servers
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Unfortunately, it's still stuck in the dinosaur era.
| Dah00n wrote:
| That wasn't necessary.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| Where's the streaming media?
| jenscow wrote:
| Not on IRC. Some would call that a feature.
| gsich wrote:
| Links work.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| not without ssl
| cassianoleal wrote:
| What does this even mean? If a link has TLS, it will have
| TLS. If it doesn't, it won't. Like anything on the web.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| If I have a website that does not require SSL, I don't
| need an SSL cert. I don't need a screaming firefox window
| blaring "ThIs SiTe MaY Be InSecUrE" because IRC back in
| the days you shared links without https. Why does a .jpg
| need SSL?
|
| IRC is a dead feature. Until someone creates a drag-
| dropable image uploader to the client, IRC is dead. You
| can add as many features as you wish to the server, but
| without a client, there is no connection to hyperspace.
| [deleted]
| gsich wrote:
| There is no such screaming window. Please test.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _IRC is a dead feature._
|
| I think all the people who use IRC daily would disagree
| with you on that.
|
| I do agree that IRC is stuck in the dark ages when it
| comes to feature support, and even just features in the
| spec. I dislike Slack, but whenever I use Slack for a
| while, and then switch to IRC for something else, I miss
| seemingly-simple things like being able to easily share
| images, react to messages with emoji, start subthreads in
| messages (a feature of Slack's I initially hated, but
| eventually came to appreciate).
|
| I get that it's difficult to add these sorts of things to
| IRC in a reasonable way, especially when we're talking
| about degrading gracefully for clients that don't support
| newer features. But IRC is pretty much the definition of
| an open, federated protocol failing to avoid
| ossification.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > I think all the people who use IRC daily would disagree
| with you on that.
|
| What people? I've used IRC for the past 15 years. It is
| dead. I was the generation to make it alive. You have
| stale, and chaos. It's old, musky and old.
|
| I have no issue with IRC its a robust, reliable protocol.
| But it's just stale. Its old. "We will invent this" where
| is it?
|
| Who recently has made an attempt at a half-good browser?
| progval wrote:
| > easily share images, react to messages with emoji,
| start subthreads in messages
|
| You can do all this on IRCCloud (which is currently the
| only IRC client to support them, sadly). However, like
| you mentioned, other clients won't see reactions or
| threading.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > I don't need a screaming firefox window blaring "ThIs
| SiTe MaY Be InSecUrE"
|
| So your problem is with your own choice of browser? This
| is not related to IRC or web links.
|
| > Until someone creates a drag-dropable image uploader to
| the client
|
| Create one yourself, then? IDK, I don't feel the need for
| it. I use IRC with a web client and it satisfies my
| needs.
|
| > IRC is dead.
|
| It's definitely not dead. I use it daily, as do lots of
| other people. Just because it doesn't have certain
| features that you want, it doesn't mean it's dead. It
| just means it's not for you.
|
| > there is no connection to hyperspace.
|
| I think you're mistaking Star Wars for the Internet.
| doublerabbit wrote:
| > I think you're mistaking Star Wars for the Internet.
|
| Never seen the movie. Take a joke.
|
| > IRC is dead.
|
| What Network #Channel have you been in that has active
| conversation? Please let me know the last 95% of channels
| are unattractive.
|
| > Just because it doesn't have certain features that you
| want, it doesn't mean it's dead. It just means it's not
| for you.
|
| You just don't get it.
|
| > So your problem is with your own choice of browser?
| This is not related to IRC or web links.
|
| No. My problem is how corporate entities are shoving web
| standards in to our faces and your too blind to care.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| > What Network #Channel have you been in that has active
| conversation?
|
| Just a few examples. On Libera.chat:
|
| #proxmox, #btrfs, #docker, #go-nuts, #homeassistant,
| #linux, #networking, #openwrt, others
|
| On OFTC:
|
| #asahi and its ancillary -dev and -gpu, #openwrt,
| #turris, ...
|
| I also have friends who I talk to in servers and channels
| outside of these.
|
| > You just don't get it.
|
| I don't get what? Your arguments are all over the place,
| it's kinda funny really...
|
| > My problem is how corporate entities are shoving web
| standards in to our faces and your too blind to care.
|
| You were complaining about Firefox's dislike of websites
| without TLS. This has nothing to do with IRC, which is
| what this whole discussion is about.
| kuroguro wrote:
| HN is also text only and it's the way I like it.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| I played around with Ergo and Kiwi IRC some months ago.
|
| https://github.com/ergochat/ergo
|
| https://github.com/kiwiirc/kiwiirc
| Avamander wrote:
| I don't think any client supports them all, but mIRC and
| Quassel make the best use of them so far in my opinion.
| [deleted]
| jacooper wrote:
| Too late. Matrix ate IRC's lunch, its the future of federated
| chats.
| bgitarts wrote:
| Unfortunately IRC has failed to keep up with the U/X of
| centralized chat services like discord which is a shame because
| an open protocol chat seems needed for the internet.
|
| Why does open protocol usually mean crippled U/X?
| chungy wrote:
| I would say the opposite rather, the UX of IRC clients (eg,
| HexChat) is so polished and refined, it puts all the
| proprietary chat services (and their clients) to shame.
| eurasiantiger wrote:
| Which alternatives have you tried?
| ilyt wrote:
| > Why does open protocol usually mean crippled U/X?
|
| Open is entirely unrelated to that, but optional features means
| crippled UI/UX in the long run. Some server won't support it so
| users can't use it, or some client won't support it so they
| will see garbage/nothing when others use that feature.
|
| XMMP showed that well enough and it seems IRCv3 follows suit.
| [deleted]
| 323 wrote:
| Because extremely few programmers which are attracted by
| creating protocols have U/X design skills.
|
| In fact, they will probably say something like "just use the
| CLI, it's a superior way anyway".
| unknownaccount wrote:
| There should be a way to decouple the UX from the program and
| if people want a Discord "skin" for IRC that looks nearly 1:1
| they should be able to have that.
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think that would help. The IRC protocol is missing so
| many messaging features that platforms like Discord have.
| Just looking like Discord wouldn't fix that.
| arka2147483647 wrote:
| Who pays for the UI to be developed?
|
| If open source/community, then chronically starved for
| resources and contributors have divided directions.
|
| If commercial, then they want to differentiate and do embrace,
| extend, extinguish, in order to drive everybody to their
| client.
|
| I have come to believe, that the protocol spec and servers, is
| just the easy part of chat apps.
| BonitaPersona wrote:
| In an ideal (and therefore unrealistic) world, it would be
| done by the UX designer/dev equivalent counterparts of the
| ones developing these open source softwares.
|
| Why do low level engineers work freely on FOSS but designers
| or UX devs don't is the question.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-20 23:00 UTC)