IM Survey Results

From KDE Community Wiki
Revision as of 09:33, 5 September 2017 by Fuchs (talk | contribs) (Minor updates, mostly on Tor and bots and freenode)

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
Low bandwidth Yes
Widely legal uh?
Away Yes
Mute standard client feature
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
Plasma Integration Konversation
Client accessibility Konversation
High volume performance Yes
High channel count performance Yes
Low client overhead Yes
Federation freenode
Persistant public logging possible via bots, other channels do this, has to be communicated, opt-in
Firewall friendly tunnels available
IRC-like GUI Yes
Multiple accounts per app instance Yes
No sign-up some channels (opt-in), some features and Tor require it
Migration Path n/a
Tor support on freenode, requires a registration and using an .onion service
Dev system messages provided by a bot
Web client Various availabie, 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, could be improved client-side
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 Can be done via bots and amessage
Sharable content markup Client feature