IM Survey Results

Revision as of 09:54, 5 September 2017 by Argonel (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

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 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
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[1]
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 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[2]
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. via bots, other channels do this, has to be communicated, opt-in
  2. could be improved client-side

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