Hacker News Reader

Comment by duskwuff | Hacker News Reader

> What's Wrong with IRC?

• No support for server-side history, and all that comes with that (usable mobile clients, offline messaging and push notifications to mobile clients, persistent presence in channels, search, editing/deleting messages, auditability, etc). Bouncers are a poor solution, as they aren't part of the IRC server and integrate awkwardly, if at all, with clients.

• No support for attachments. (DCC SEND isn't a solution; not only does it require direct IPv4 connection between users, but it doesn't work at all in groups.)

• Poor user authentication. Connection-time auth solutions like SASL are poorly supported; after-connection auth like NickServ is hokey. Support for federated (non-password) authentication is practically nonexistent.

• Short - and unpredictable - message length limits (typically around 500 bytes).

• Crude permissions system.

View on HN

Ergo (formerly Oragono) covers some of that. I can't say if it provides a server based search.

> https://ergo.chat/about - Combining the features of an ircd, a services framework, and a bouncer (integrated account management, history storage, and bouncer functionality).

Putting it into SASL-only mode is a couple lines in the config. I'm not sure if you meant poorly supported in clients.

Are there any clients that don't split long messages when sending?

Upvoted, this looks better than most IRC solutions I've seen.

> No support for server-side history

That's a feature, not a bug. If you want conversations to be searchable, use email. Instant messaging is like phone calls or in person communication: transient (if potentially async).

> No support for attachments.

Good, no silly gifs cluttering up the chat. But this is a feature that's easily added.

> Poor user authentication

This one probably has the most merit. But probably easy to implement with a few server tweaks.

> Short - and unpredictable - message length limits

Brevity is a feature. It's a chat, no one wants to listen to a monologue in conversation. The unpredictability is a bit annoying.

> Crude permissions system

How fine grained do you need it to be? Read and write access for channels exist. There are plenty of bots which can grant additional permissions based on whatever criteria you set out.

But hey, I'm also that stubborn bastard who still likes text-only email.

> [server-side history] That's a feature, not a bug.

Whatever your personal feelings on message history are, people and businesses need functionality like usable mobile clients they can receive messages in without keeping the client open continuously, or the ability for administrators to delete messages which have been sent by other users. IRC doesn't, and cannot, provide those features.

> [no attachments] Good, no silly gifs cluttering up the chat.

Also means it's difficult to discuss inherently audiovisual content like graphical designs, or to transfer files -- all things that come up in business contexts.

> [permissions] How fine grained do you need it to be?

It's not that the permissions aren't fine-grained so much as that the entire system is crudely designed. Users' permissions in a channel are mostly tied to their presence in the channel; if you leave and rejoin (or disconnect and reconnect to IRC), any permissions are lost and have to be regranted by another user in the channel. Bans are tied to nicknames (which are volatile) or connection hostnames (which are differently volatile). Invite-only channels use passwords. And so on. It's a mess.

Yes, you can add bots to handle some of that for you -- but having to rely on bolt-on components for basic functionality is a sign of a badly designed service.

> people and businesses need functionality like usable mobile clients they can receive messages in without keeping the client open continuously

Do they really, though? If Jim isn't at his desk and I still need to talk to him, I can just send him an email, or try again later. That is the part of communication that IRC excels at: fleeting conversations.

IRC chat history is old-school FOMO.

> Do they really, though?

Yes. Usable mobile clients are table stakes for a modern messaging service. Caveats like "if you put your phone down for a few minutes you fall offline and any messages sent during that time are lost to you forever" are, quite simply, not acceptable.

It's not the year 2000 anymore. Not everyone is sitting at a desk in front of their computer eight hours a day. Software needs to adapt.

I do not know why you were down voted, but I fully agree with you.

I do not want to see pictures in IRC at all, you want pictures, movies etc, got to one of the many pointy-clicky apps. Or you can PM and send the pic to the person who wants it via email.

No history, good for me, but you want history enable logging in your client.

User authentication - maybe a bit harder for new people, but you also have the option of turning on encryption if you want.

One missing item, with cloaking, you can have anonymity which is lacking in all the other "apps".

I see no need to change IRC at all, and I think the Freenode "owner" tried to change it and a revolt happened. Just about everyone moved to Libera chat.

The solution to these issues isn't to simply not have those features, but to make it possible to toggle those features on/off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com