All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
- 0 users online
- 3 users / day
- 9 users / week
- 41 users / month
- 192 users / 6 months
- 17 subscribers
- 1.67K Posts
- 5.56K Comments
I mean… when it comes to public chatrooms, even if you federate, both the hosting and the control of the chatroom are centralized anyway, so the only benefit of federating is the “nice-to-have” convenience of not needing multiple accounts, which you can already get if you set up bridging anyway… so imho, an IRC channel with proper bridging covers all bases and allows cross-communicating with many different protocols. Since IRC is fairly simple it’d be relatively easy to bridge it with automatic or minimal steps for the user.
Personally, I think it’s 1-on-1 communication what makes federation (or p2p) be the most useful, or maybe private groups too, but federation in public groups isn’t really necessary. Imho, it makes more sense to solve the “multiple accounts” problem with specialized authentication services, and separate user management from content providers.
Exactly! Which is also why XMPP never really aimed to replaced IRC for public chat rooms and is strongest in 1:1 and private groups (and has an excellent gateway to join IRC channels).
I never really understood why Matrix made “everything” a group chat and basically started out as a glorified IRC bouncer. If those people behind old Freenode/Libera.chat were not so stuck in the past and held back IRC development a lot, then people would have definilty kept using modern IRC instead of switching to the buggy mess that is Matrix.