IM Survey Results: Difference between revisions

From KDE Community Wiki
(Created page with "The [https://sessellift.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/results-of-the-requirements-survey-for-a-kde-wide-chat-solution/ IM Survey] results are in. Below is a table for comparison of...")
 
(more footnotes)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 59: Line 59:
|
|
|-
|-
| Anonimity
| Anonymity
|{{Maybe|feature loss}}
|{{Maybe|feature loss<ref>if you don't have an account, you can't join some channels (opt-in) and use memoserv. You can use Tor though, which comes with no feature loss but requires registration (with a random e-mail address, no personal details)</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 74: Line 74:
|-
|-
| Widely legal
| Widely legal
|{{Maybe|uh?}}
|{{Maybe|heard anything?}}
|
|
|
|
Line 88: Line 88:
|-
|-
| Mute
| Mute
|{{Yes|standard client feature}}
|{{Yes|/ignore, Konversation}}
|
|
|
|
Line 95: Line 95:
|-
|-
| Channel list with search
| Channel list with search
|{{Yes|freenode}}
|{{Yes|freenode /alis}}
|
|
|
|
Line 143: Line 143:
|-
|-
| Encrypted communication
| Encrypted communication
|{{Maybe|HTTPS}}
|{{Yes|HTTPS / IRC with TLS / Tor / encrypted messages <ref> encryption with OTR etc. doesn't work well in groups</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 150: Line 150:
|-
|-
| Plasma Integration
| Plasma Integration
|{{Maybe}}
|{{Yes|Konversation}}
|
|
|
|
Line 157: Line 157:
|-
|-
| Client accessibility
| Client accessibility
|{{Maybe|konvi?}}
|{{Yes|Konversation}}
|
|
|
|
Line 185: Line 185:
|-
|-
| Federation
| Federation
|{{Yes|freenode}}
|{{Yes|freenode network}}
|
|
|
|
Line 192: Line 192:
|-
|-
| Persistant public logging
| Persistant public logging
|{{Maybe|opt-in}}
|{{Maybe|possible<ref>via bots, other channels do this, has to be communicated, opt-in</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 220: Line 220:
|-
|-
| No sign-up
| No sign-up
|{{Maybe|some features require}}
|{{Maybe|possible with caveats <ref> some channels (opt-in), some features like sending memos and Tor require it</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 234: Line 234:
|-
|-
| Tor support
| Tor support
|{{Maybe|freenode?}}
|{{Yes|freenode <ref>requires a registration, SASL external and using an .onion service</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 248: Line 248:
|-
|-
| Web client
| Web client
|{{Maybe|3pty}}
|{{Yes|Various available, qwebirc, irccloud, kiwiirc, ...}}
|
|
|
|
Line 262: Line 262:
|-
|-
| Text mode client
| Text mode client
|{{Maybe|3rd party}}
|{{Yes|3rd party (irssi, weechat, ...)}}
|
|
|
|
Line 269: Line 269:
|-
|-
| Low sysadmin requirements
| Low sysadmin requirements
|{{Yes|Freenode}}
|{{Yes|freenode}}
|
|
|
|
Line 276: Line 276:
|-
|-
| Remembers last-read position
| Remembers last-read position
|{{Maybe|needs 3pty support}}
|{{Yes|needs 3pty support, Konversation does it}}
|
|
|
|
Line 290: Line 290:
|-
|-
| User search
| User search
|{{Maybe|primitive}}
|{{Maybe|primitive<ref>could be improved client-side</ref>}}
|
|
|
|
Line 311: Line 311:
|-
|-
| Mass messaging
| Mass messaging
|{{Maybe|considered impolite}}
|{{Yes|considered impolite}}
|
|
|
|
Line 332: Line 332:
|-
|-
| Unicode character picker
| Unicode character picker
|{{Yes|konvi}}
|{{Yes|Konversation}}
|
|
|
|
Line 339: Line 339:
|-
|-
| Broadcast messages
| Broadcast messages
|{{Maybe|bot?}}
|{{Yes|Can be done via bots and /amessage}}
|
|
|
|
Line 353: Line 353:
|-
|-
|}
|}
<references />

Latest revision as of 10:07, 5 September 2017

The IM Survey results are in. Below is a table for comparison of features:

Requirement IRC Matrix
FOSS server Yes
Can self-host Yes
FOSS Clients Yes
Open API Yes
Open Governance #ircv3?
No monetary cost Yes
Defined protocol Yes
Anonymity feature loss[1]
Low bandwidth Yes
Widely legal heard anything?
Away Yes
Mute /ignore, Konversation
Channel list with search freenode /alis
IRC Bridge n/a
File Sharing DCC or external
Private channels Yes
Access control freenode
Channel topics Yes
Permanent channels freenode_GC
Encrypted communication HTTPS / IRC with TLS / Tor / encrypted messages [2]
Plasma Integration Konversation
Client accessibility Konversation
High volume performance Yes
High channel count performance Yes
Low client overhead Yes
Federation freenode network
Persistant public logging possible[3]
Firewall friendly tunnels available
IRC-like GUI Yes
Multiple accounts per app instance Yes
No sign-up possible with caveats [4]
Migration Path n/a
Tor support freenode [5]
Dev system messages provided by a bot
Web client Various available, qwebirc, irccloud, kiwiirc, ...
Message quoting editable text
Text mode client 3rd party (irssi, weechat, ...)
Low sysadmin requirements freenode
Remembers last-read position needs 3pty support, Konversation does it
Popular bridges n/a
User search primitive[6]
File share search No
Avatars client feature
Mass messaging considered impolite
Dev service bots Yes
Spacious, low contrast flat ui see wip/qtquick
Unicode character picker Konversation
Broadcast messages Can be done via bots and /amessage
Sharable content markup Client feature
  1. ↑ if you don't have an account, you can't join some channels (opt-in) and use memoserv. You can use Tor though, which comes with no feature loss but requires registration (with a random e-mail address, no personal details)
  2. ↑ encryption with OTR etc. doesn't work well in groups
  3. ↑ via bots, other channels do this, has to be communicated, opt-in
  4. ↑ some channels (opt-in), some features like sending memos and Tor require it
  5. ↑ requires a registration, SASL external and using an .onion service
  6. ↑ could be improved client-side
Retrieved from "https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=IM_Survey_Results&oldid=78409"