IM Survey Results
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 | ||||
| Anonimity | feature loss | ||||
| Low bandwidth | Yes | ||||
| Widely legal | uh? | ||||
| Away | Yes | ||||
| Mute | standard client feature | ||||
| Channel list with search | freenode | ||||
| 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 | ||||
| Plasma Integration | Maybe | ||||
| Client accessibility | konvi? | ||||
| High volume performance | Yes | ||||
| High channel count performance | Yes | ||||
| Low client overhead | Yes | ||||
| Federation | freenode | ||||
| Persistant public logging | opt-in | ||||
| Firewall friendly | tunnels available | ||||
| IRC-like GUI | Yes | ||||
| Multiple accounts per app instance | Yes | ||||
| No sign-up | some features require | ||||
| Migration Path | n/a | ||||
| Tor support | freenode? | ||||
| Dev system messages | provided by a bot | ||||
| Web client | 3pty | ||||
| Message quoting | editable text | ||||
| Text mode client | 3rd party | ||||
| Low sysadmin requirements | Freenode | ||||
| Remembers last-read position | needs 3pty support | ||||
| Popular bridges | n/a | ||||
| User search | primitive | ||||
| 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 | konvi | ||||
| Broadcast messages | bot? | ||||
| Sharable content markup | Client feature |