Revision as of 08:28, 5 September 2017 by Argonel (talk | contribs) (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...")(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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 Retrieved from "https://community.kde.org/index.php?title=IM_Survey_Results&oldid=78404" Content is available under Creative Commons License SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted.