Difference between revisions of "IM Survey Results"

Jump to: navigation, search
(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...")
Line 150: Line 150:
| Plasma Integration
| Plasma Integration
Line 157: Line 157:
| Client accessibility
| Client accessibility

Revision as of 08:29, 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
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 Konversation
Client accessibility Konversation
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

Content is available under Creative Commons License SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.