Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

I used command line IRC clients in the 1990s. I wrote IRC clients in the 1990s. I'm not interested in going back to IRC, an "open" 7-bit effectively-centralized protocol with line-length limits and lowest-common-denominator clients that can't even show an image.

I don't use Mutt to get access to my email, anymore, either.

I guess that makes me "average".

IRC, FTP, and, yes, SMTP are all bad protocols from the 1980s era of protocol design. All are on their way out, some more gradually than others. Good riddance. How sad it would be if the Internet of 2020 looked the same as it did in 1995.

View on HN

I don't think people want IRC for the lack of functionality. I think they miss IRC because they see in Slack a real threat to decentralization, privacy and openness.

I don't use IRC. But I'd never use Slack either in a project I maintain/lead. We need a better alternative.

Matrix?

Certainly a huge improvement over Slack in that it's federated. It's not quite there yet, but certainly usable today - it needs to mature a little yet.

Also, slack is like a dumbed down version of IRC. As an example, on IRC you could run an auction or a 10000 person university lecture because there is a +m channel mode (moderation).

+m quiets all users in the channel and only allows you to speak if you receive the channel-user mode +v (voice) or have +o (operator status). Some ircds also have a +h etc.

You can setup bots like “RaiseYourHand” for people who want to ask questions and need temporary voice (+v).

Try that on slack, telegram, signal, etc. Its impossible.

IRC was ACTUALLY built for collaboration and communication. Slack was built to make money.

The difference in goals causes a different outcome.

While I get where you're coming at, but it is indeed possible in Telegram, not sure regarding Slack.

Actually, Discord does this pretty well. I honestly consider it a 21st century successor to IRC. The unfortunate fact is that Discord is still a closed system, with not even the ability to run your own instance, instead with the owners insisting on a cloud-run infrastructure.

Just imagine how much better Discord, Slack, et al. could be if you could host your own instances with your own rules and with your own extensions.

If it is closed (and nominally 'free' for the average user), you have to assume everything you say and do is being mined and sold to the highest bidder. How can something like that be the successor to anything?

> I don't think people want IRC for the lack of functionality.

I do, and I think it's a good constraint (better than the 140/280 char Tweet restriction). No excessive notifications by default, no impatient people (at least largely not because they don't tend to hang around anyway). The pace is more predictable and consistent, and it's easier than ever to have a 24/7 detached client/bouncer.

For some years, fancier services like Facebook robbed creativity and time from me but lately I've returned to a more simple flow that isn't affected by Eternal September.

IRC has a certain barrier of entry, so that tends to keep a lot of the low quality noise away (where it remains on other platforms such as Discord and YouTube).

I recognise that Slack and Discord have their own objectives, but IRC covers its own niche well.

IRC is centralised as well, but the protocol is documented. So it is possible to apply encryption on top of it within your client with a plugin or whatever. I'm not sure if that's possible with Slack? Look at it from this angle: would you want a for-profit entity to have access to your internal debates about development? Including the potential security implications? Things like these are a goldmine of data, and a time bomb waiting to explode.

You might have missed it, but in 2015, someone replied to you to explain that IRC of the 90s wasn't 7-bit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490691

What functional improvements are fundamentally incompatible with the "old" protocols? Longer lines could have been supported with a minor protocol revision. Giving customers the freedom to use clients that don't render images, or markup, is actually a positive.

I setup Mattermost for my company. The deciding factor between Mattermost and IRC was effort to get non-technical users a nice GUI. Functionally, IRC would have won.

it feel a bit biased when you say that IRC could have a protocol bump, but you wouldn't make the same modifications to hide pictures in Mattermost.

Additionally not being able to share images as a feature? I guess everyone will do the three step upload to imgur first.

In my world - if I could get away with less different clients I would. It makes it a nightmare to support.

The protocol itself doesn't bar you from implementing image sharing.

Imagine this:

You have a bot in your channel that accepts an "upload-image" command followed by a base64-encoded string representing an image (or a series of these commands if line-lenght is limited, I'm not sure about this part of the IRC protocol). The bot checks that the image is actually an image (to avoid weird injection tricks), saves it on the server and returns a link you can share or sends the link directly to the user/channel of your choosing.

This can be automated with a irc client, of course. Users using old clients will receive an actual link, users of this supposed new client see a clickable preview of the actual image inline.

Sounds like you're describing a new protocol.

Would you consider adding a new HTML element to be describing a new protocol instead of http? w3m still speaks http but is unable to render the IMG tag (and instead substitutes that with a descriptive text, if available), while, e.g. Firefox shows an actual picture.

I mean, this proposal is to build it on top of IRC, it doesn't need to change how the IRC protocol works. We're speaking a level above that.

IRC protocol is actually really simple, you just have commands and parameters. AFAIK it is not unusual for IRC servers to implement extra functionalities through bots.

For example to provide authentication many servers provide a bot called NickServ. There could also be a mechanism called ProfileServ that implements these functionalities.

The beauty of IRC is that you can open telnet, connect to an IRC server and actually be able to chat by typing raw commands.

The problem with IRC is that there is no standard specification, and there are many many edge cases. Therefore in my experience most IRC clients implement a small subset of the IRC protocol.

I've been trying to write an irc client in Go for quite some time (https://github.com/terminalcommand/irc-v2). It's been a fun experience, but there is still a lot to cover.

> standard specification

RFC 1459

Unfortunately RFC 1459 is just the shallow end. It both includes features that no-one uses anymore, and excludes widely-deployed features that everyone relies on. Lots of the de-facto IRC protocol isn't written down anywhere outside various client and server codebases.

The situation is not unlike that of terminal control sequences. The core VT10x functionality is more-or-less mostly in place, ish, in every terminal emulator, but some of the VT10x functionality is no longer implemented, and lots of subsequent useful functionality isn't well documented, so implementors are left to crib from other implementations.

I believe that https://modern.ircdocs.horse/ documents how the IRC protocol is currently used (and I'm not sure why they chose that particular tld).

Ircdocs.horse is an excellent resource but it is unfortunately not complete.

Irc also has a lot of -to me at least- obscure specifications for example involving channel modes. The functionality differs from server to server.

I have the impression that most irc servers are operated by programs with old codebases coded in C. New client implementations are continuing to get written, but I do not see a lot of server implementations around, probably because it is complicated to write.

I think the beauty of IRC and the previous way of thinking when we built the internet was just this - we could hack any change or additional layer into the software that we used.

IRC was, with the exception of simple clients, codable, scriptable, extensible.*

Software today is “what you get is all you get.” It’s pretty sad.

* It was a human body script that caused you to look at this “*”. Scripting is powerful.

> This can be automated with a irc client, of course.

And of course it was automated. There are any number of such clients. Slack. Facebook Messenger. WeChat. Viber. Dozens of them. Of course they don't use IRC. But they automate file delivery. And media inlining. And dozens, if not hundreds of other things.

Meanwhile the "nothing stops you from implementing" crowd implements nothing and keeps wondering why basically no one uses these wonderful open protocols.

> Additionally not being able to share images as a feature? I guess everyone will do the three step upload to imgur first.

Maybe I'm missing the point here: But IRC does have a file transfer feature, so what would stop people from sharing images just the same way like plenty of "content" has been shared over IRC?

Have you ever tried it? 90% of the time I tried it didn't work, in mirc or irssi.

dcc sends and xdcc bots were pretty influential in the early internet. It definitely works.

It does require that one open a port in their firewall for it to actually work. xdcc bots usually would indicate which port one needed to open.

Having open ports directly to the internet (by default) with dial up modems (before routers and NAT) used to be such a common practice. Things have changed, haven't they?

That's a pretty good point I totally forgot about. Tho couldn't that problem "simply" be solved by updating the protocol to account for these changes?

IRC used to be a pretty popular distribution channel for Warez, tho it's been like 20 years ago I used it for anything like that.

dcc and xdcc can only be used to send an image to a single client, so sending an image to a channel is a no-go.

> Additionally not being able to share images as a feature? I guess everyone will do the three step upload to imgur first.

That's a feature for me. If I wanted to be constantly barraged with images, I would have stayed using Facebook and Twitter. People on IRC posting imgur links gives me the opportunity to accept or decline (usually based on their reputation, the channel's response, or my boredom). With other social networks, images are almost always unsolicited and often only waste scroll space (good luck to those still on limited data plans and want to know the context of the latest notification).

Besides, text often can have more substance and precise meaning (even if it's not perfect all the time). After all, we're all communicating with mostly just text right here. Another example of something else that features mostly text are books, so it's certainly not deprecated.

Give me all the text please - in fact, if you give me an image with a caption, I'll read the caption first. I can happily find images through other mediums so IRC without embedded images isn't a problem at all here.

What's the problem? Just setup client to hide images unless you click the link provided - Slack have it, Discord have it. Works exactly the same way, no 3rd party involved. I'm sick when I have to go to imgur to open image and load tons of scripts and see other stuff completely unrelevant. You think imgur doesn't live for profit?

I use mutt. It's a big increase in security compared to the typical email client exactly because it's below the common denominator. And yet it does what a startup executive needs, except for the occasional message I forward to Other Devices to view. With one keystroke.

Then again, if you want to equate the badness of IRC and FTP, which is much earlier than IRC and much more of a security problem, you're making a poor quality argument anyway. Dumpster fires and garbage dump fires are different orders of magnitude.

I would be happy if it looked like 1995. It was actually decentralized.

IRC, FTP, and SMTP are all decentralized. That's the good part about them.

If IRC is decentralised, then so is Slack and all it's clones. Except they're not.

Cool, I look forward to connecting to your Slack server.

Self hosted and centralised are two separate concepts. IRC is very much a centralised service even if you can host your own servers. Matrix would be a better example of a decentralised protocol.

> IRC is very much a centralised service even if you can host your own servers

IRC being an open protocol and having the option to run your own servers is what makes it decentralized. The various "major" IRC networks (EFnet, Freenode etc) are decentralized too, since they are isolated networks.

Slack offer neither of these - they own all servers, the protocol and controls the API (which is not the same as an open protocol).

Not only that, but it didn't require nearly as much bandwidth. AFAIK, most "modern" web services today would not be usable over a dial-up speed connection.

A protocol existing is better than no protocol at all.

In the modern age of surveillance some protocols could be actively worse. Sad times, but IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy.

Are you implying that discord, slack, et al have a better privacy model?

Signal, keybase, iMessage all have a better privacy model.

Signal requires a phone number. Keybase is an identity service. iMessage requires a phone number and is not verifiable.

IRC on the other hand allows ephemeral usernames, you have the option to use e2e encryption if you choose, etc.

iMessage doesn't require a phone number. You can use it with just an email address.

I mean, you do need an Apple ID to do it that way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you from creating throwaway Apple IDs.

> "... IRC has no real place in the world of someone hoping to preserve their privacy."

Why is that? IRC supports SSL, of course, and many IRC networks offer "cloaks" (to hide your IP address from other users) and/or permit connections via Tor.

“Supports” is the real non starter. “Requires” is what we are looking for.

Most networks support a channel mode that only lets people connected to the server via SSL join the channel.

Some networks only let people connect via SSL.

The privacy story for SSL is no better than the privacy story that Slack offers. Basically, you're proposing a level of privacy that only asymptotically approaches the most popular unencrypted web chat program in the world.

Cloaks aren't reliable and there are a few tricks to uncloak a user anyway.

Tricks? Can you elaborate?

Like what outside of taking the scope outside of the IRC client (external link, etc)

An IRC cloak is programmed into the ircd itself ensuring that ones IP address is not exposed. I don’t think you can just hack that. If you use the external link trick, everyone is susceptible to that no matter what app/platform they use unless you use a VPN or Tor.

That depends on the ircd, but on Freenode you could decloak using the services to ban the user from channel using IP ranges and see if they trigger (I think. It has been a few years since I this trick used, and it might've not even been bans). Extremely inefficient, but if you have a bouncer with auto rejoin on...

In any case there are some really obsessed people who probably know a hundred ways to take over your channels at the very least. Seeing some of these people do their thing is one of the reasons why I steer clear of IRC these days.

Channel takeovers aren't really a thing on modern networks with good services.

The Freenode decloak trick still works, though.

Speaking as a freenode staffer:

1) There are a number of ways to decloak somebody purely via irc/ircd fuckery - though it's liable to require several minutes of dedicated effort to do so.

2) There's a non-zero likelihood that if you try any of those ways we will spot you and k-line you.

3) That likelihood is not a guarantee, so when cloaking people we always make sure to warn them first that cloaks aren't 100% reliable and if users really want to protect their IP address they want a VPS, a VPN, or tor.

4) No, I'm not going to be any less vague about 1, just because it's not actually hard doesn't mean I want to encourage it.

I think this is getting aside of the topic of what privacy really is for most people. IRC by default does not encourage endless selfies or oversharing that the modern social networks promote.

I've never seen an ircd cloak instruction page misrepresent what they can and cannot do. While protecting IP addresses is important (which the GDPR also believes in), I think it's also important to not lose perspective of the bigger dangers out there right now such as default user behaviour and conditioning. For example, IRC has never led to huge numbers of people publicly humiliating themselves by bitching about their employers, etc.

The flaws you listed are qualities in the eyes of some. Still no better place to meet cool people where the face and name are an afterthought and at the end of the day, to me, that wins over technical merit.

Do you know of a good archive/paper/article that summarizes the bad design characteristics of the early protocol designs? Is it safe to try to get familiar with new designs and compare with the old to extract the bad lessons learned?

IRC has changed from the 90s, it's certainly not 7 bit.

I agree that IRC is an obsolete protocol, but it's still sad that open standards lost the chat wars. XMPP improves on all of the things you mentioned but it looks like its moment in the sun has passed, and was never really used to its potential in the first place.

I wish open standards, and the tools that facilitated them, were more welcoming to the 'average' crowd. I used to use IRC in the past. I still do but it's just couple of logins a month. Even many of the support channels I used to frequent from OSS have moved to other platforms. Hobby channels etc have moved elsewhere long back.

I faced the same problem with IRC that I am facing with Signal today. Though this analogy doesn't really seem that coherent but I hope you see where I am coming from. No one I would like to communicate with via such apps/platforms seems to use it. IRC is great but I would like to connect it with people I know, are part of something I like or do, or are from the place I belong to. They don't. They have moved to other platforms, long back, or never really used IRC.

I believe a lot of existing IRC users, including me, are still around just because of the nostalgia.

They're not welcoming because they're fundamentally bound by the lowest common denominator of the platform. You can't provide any feature every client doesn't offer, or the feature just generates immense confusion and frustration.

No frelling way you'll get rid of it (https://xkcd.com/1782/).

For the last 10 years, been working on open source software for a living. Been an IRC user for equally long; `mutt` for the last five years. Thank goodness I do that. Nothing comes close to its effectiveness.

Lack of images on IRC is a feature; not a bug, dammit. It keeps me productive and removes utterly distracting crap. I'd be loathe to see IRC showing images and animated poop emojis (although the unicode 'pile-of-poo' renders just alright on my command-line IRC client, `irssi`).

I can handle video chat and in-person communication equally fine. But I prefer the clarity and vigor of the text-only approach.

"Clear writing is a sign of clear thinking."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com