Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

For standalone IRC servers, yes. But many IRC servers are collected together into networks (Undernet, Freenode, EFnet, and so on) and in that case all you need to be is in the same channel on the same network.

IRC is "very different" in the sense that it's more open and more freewheeling than, say, Slack. Slack is basically IRC with a slicker coat of paint and more monetization.



sort by: page size:

Not really, the ircnet servers (many of them) are linked together and they provide the service like that, you can connect to any of them.

IRC might not, but an irc -client- can. :)

Yes, typically all your communications on IRC go through a server. But depending on your client, and server, there's a lot of room for extensions around the native features. For instance, you can use DCC to send messages directly to an other user

Yep. I run a server on a small IRC network.

You can also run your own IRC server. Risks are the same either way.

No, it's quite a bit less functional than IRC. Even just switching between channels on the same server doesn't reliably retain chat history, so it basically just doesn't work at all for anything but write-only channels.

Sure, like IRC but with a better interface,

Uh. I don't see the relation. You can run your own IRC server.

Couldn't you use someone else's IRC server, the same way you use Discord's server?

Yes, IRC is much better, and is something I use. (IRC even works without specialized software, although it works better if you do have it (which isn't too complicated to write).)

I’ve never tried IRC. I’ll look into it.

Let's not forget IRC channels can be split between servers too - don't wanna complicate the backup system too much but this is in the original design of IRC.

> It's easy to pop over in a different channel when you're already on the network

Most of the current irc clients make it possible to have multiple server connections simultaneously, so jumping between servers isn't a problem either.


For something like IRC? Yes. The service is dead simple and one server can handle thousands of users with modest hardware and without breaking a sweat. A completely unfamiliar sysadmin could set it up in an hour or less. Since it's probably internal, there's little need for public services (nick/channel registration, etc).

If you implement services on an IRC server you can do the same.

Why not use run an open-source IRC server then?

Only with the IRC bridge, which is the primary use-case for me since so much of my existing community chats are on IRC still. IRCCloud also bridges to Slack, so I get both in the same (synced across devices) interface.

There aren't if you run your own server. How many workgroups require an entire multi server IRC network?

No.

Individual IRC server implementations might, but each implementation seems to be unique in how they handle it (maybe through a website, maybe through NickServ, maybe through AuthServ, maybe through yet another bot name, and login may or may not use the PASS command, etc.), and those implementations frequently have you jumping through brittle hoops to auth that break when you attempt to automate them due to timing issues etc. leaving you manually logging in every time.

Which is probably part of the reason why the IRC servers I can think of generally all allowed messaging without any kind of registration other than connecting and auto-choosing a unique-for-now nickname. IRC moderation then becomes an uncoordinated, individualized, constant game of whack-a-proxy, RBLs, etc.

next

Legal | privacy