IM Survey Results
Appearance
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 |