This goes back to the previous comment. IRC users and other IM users are in different universes now. Stuff that is considered core functionality like push notifications, embedded images and videos is probably never going to work in IRC.
All incoming IRC messages are like push notifications aren't they? Or do I have my webology terms confused? IRC clients can certainly pop up a notification or make a sound or blink an icon when they encounter certain messages (e.g., your nick is mentioned), if push notification now means a more intrusive type of alert.
Push notifications are a specific thing where your OS can briefly wake up, check for notifications for all services, and then sleep again. It’s how you can have 10 IM apps but still be notified of messages on all of them despite none of the apps actually running unless they are actively on the screen.
IRC is unable to do this because it requires a constant active connection which is something that was fine in the desktop era but is not usable on battery powered devices.
> Push notifications are a specific thing where your OS can briefly wake up, check for notifications for all services, and then sleep again. It’s how you can have 10 IM apps but still be notified of messages on all of them despite none of the apps actually running unless they are actively on the screen.
Ah, I didn't know that's what push notifications were. Sounds like a regular old pull aka refresh but I have no idea about web stuff.
> IRC is unable to do this because it requires a constant active connection which is something that was fine in the desktop era but is not usable on battery powered devices.
I think at the scale which devices are already waking up to check things, it's unlikely to be a problem for most. Phones don't actually sleep for hours (or probably even minutes.
That said, IRC's heavyweight connection does seem clunky, if your connection drops momentarily it's unlikely you wanted to lose track of conversations you were currently participating in. Although that can be solved with logs / archives pulling what you missed, it seems better solved at a core level (maybe it is, I haven't looked at IRC for a decade or more).
In particular frequent disconnect/reconnects seem to cause stress to others in IRC, sometimes even resulting in bans, when it ultimately just shouldn't matter.
People who use IRC see it as the text communication component of the platform that is the internet. When we need to do media we use the appropriate protocol and simply paste an address in chat (or DCC send it). Building everything into one protocol is just asking for problems (both legal and social).
Textual (macOS) has had both image and video inline embedding since at least 2014 (in fact it was ironically used for the longest time as the main client of the dev behind Hexchat, another IRC client). KiwiIRC (web based) also has embeds IIRC.
If I have a website that does not require SSL, I don't need an SSL cert.
I don't need a screaming firefox window blaring "ThIs SiTe MaY Be InSecUrE" because IRC back in the days you shared links without https. Why does a .jpg need SSL?
IRC is a dead feature. Until someone creates a drag-dropable image uploader to the client, IRC is dead. You can add as many features as you wish to the server, but without a client, there is no connection to hyperspace.
> I don't need a screaming firefox window blaring "ThIs SiTe MaY Be InSecUrE"
So your problem is with your own choice of browser? This is not related to IRC or web links.
> Until someone creates a drag-dropable image uploader to the client
Create one yourself, then? IDK, I don't feel the need for it. I use IRC with a web client and it satisfies my needs.
> IRC is dead.
It's definitely not dead. I use it daily, as do lots of other people. Just because it doesn't have certain features that you want, it doesn't mean it's dead. It just means it's not for you.
> there is no connection to hyperspace.
I think you're mistaking Star Wars for the Internet.
Your missing the point on the fact that IRC is all text. All you could ever do send links. It worked but sucks from now future on.
Nowadays where do you host those links? Github? Sure. But the FAFF of setting up a github static wank account. find some lets encrypt cert bot owned by google which expires every six months. Your going to do all that for one IRC Link?
In the days before tumblr, the simple days of MSN/Yaho. When IRC was active and flourishing. You could just send a link from your own server, a server in your bedroom. Sitting on your home 56k IP on a http server without needing any cert, any annoying messages, cookie banners to a user.
Those days are over. I know, but it hasn't gotten easier. IRC it's sitting right there, the diamond.
There is no need for TLS if you don't want it. Firefox and Chrome don't show a nagging window if your stuff is only reachable via HTTP. Have you even tried that?
I think all the people who use IRC daily would disagree with you on that.
I do agree that IRC is stuck in the dark ages when it comes to feature support, and even just features in the spec. I dislike Slack, but whenever I use Slack for a while, and then switch to IRC for something else, I miss seemingly-simple things like being able to easily share images, react to messages with emoji, start subthreads in messages (a feature of Slack's I initially hated, but eventually came to appreciate).
I get that it's difficult to add these sorts of things to IRC in a reasonable way, especially when we're talking about degrading gracefully for clients that don't support newer features. But IRC is pretty much the definition of an open, federated protocol failing to avoid ossification.
> I do agree that IRC is stuck in the dark ages when it comes to feature support, and even just features in the spec. I dislike Slack, but whenever I use Slack for a while, and then switch to IRC for something else, I miss seemingly-simple things like being able to easily share images, react to messages with emoji, start subthreads in messages (a feature of Slack's I initially hated, but eventually came to appreciate).
I like that IRC doesn't have those things. IRC is great because most clients have very high information density. Look at this screenshot [0], look how many messages fit on the screen.
Compare that to something like slack. Every message has a bunch of upper and lower padding, an avatar, space for reactions etc. If someone links an image, it can use up half your screen to render it. If someone links something, suddenly there is a preview wasting space.
> Compare that to something like slack. Every message has a bunch of upper and lower padding, an avatar, space for reactions etc. If someone links an image, it can use up half your screen to render it. If someone links something, suddenly there is a preview wasting space.
FWIW, slack and discord have 'compact' modes where information density is about the same as the screenshot you posted.
> I think all the people who use IRC daily would disagree with you on that.
What people? I've used IRC for the past 15 years. It is dead. I was the generation to make it alive. You have stale, and chaos. It's old, musky and old.
I have no issue with IRC its a robust, reliable protocol. But it's just stale. Its old. "We will invent this" where is it?
Who recently has made an attempt at a half-good browser?
Actually I used Matrix for 2 years and went back to IRC recently when I realised that the really cool channels I cared about where on IRC. A few are on Discord (which I really don't like). To me, Matrix seems to be in the middle, and I don't find anyone there.
> easily share images, react to messages with emoji, start subthreads in messages
You can do all this on IRCCloud (which is currently the only IRC client to support them, sadly). However, like you mentioned, other clients won't see reactions or threading.
