This makes me think that the web-based ones work for teams (as a shared space for ambient documentation and file sharing), but not as a public service.
Of course #jabber exceeds at scale due to federation. Like email.
I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about the UI/paradigm of web-based #IRC is really compelling.
A friend here once told me in person that Slack was just a UI shift, and IRC could be improved by copying that (my paraphrase, it was obviously more elegant than that).
If that were the case, we are really talking about the client. Because IRC is weird, and the more we can hide it, the sooner people can do boring business things.
Slack, et al, make boring business easy. 🤔
Re: boring business and chat, that is what web-based chat is about.
Is that what IRC or XMPP promote? I don't think so. Because boring business used to be everyone running office warez locally, and then needed a way to send files to another person that would be opened locally, and they just needed to communicate while they worked locally.
We don't have local workspaces anymore, that isn't the "state of boring business". Now we have online office docs, and chat is "presence".
Quick aside: #Nextcloud straddles the line between "modern boring business" and "user freedom".
I am not sure I'd like text chat integrated into it, because the permissions for sharing, syncing and working on documents is different than who talks to who; ideally everyone would more or less have equal access to talk at people.
Think: employees, volunteers, interns, customers, fans, board members, partners, family members, work traders, refugees... roles in biz and in chat are different.
@maiki Not sure if I understand your point. Maybe you can elaborate? In general, chat works with everyone who has a account on your Nextcloud or with whom you share a public room. In the future chat and video calls between different Nextcloud instances should be possible as well.
All of this comes from my own experiments of hosting chat servers for teams and open to the public (two scenarios).
Web chat options are great for "teams", and by that I mean one or more groups that have habitual boring business interactions.
But the benefits of team chat options disappear for the public. Suddenly, sharing a file uses a lot of resources, with little benefit.
Which makes me think that an #ActivityPub chat solution/#Mastodon interface change might be a balanced solution.
Team web chat is manageable. If your storage starts to fill, let folks know, add more disk, good to go. Grow a bunch, kick it up, because you are making money.
But in order to offer team web chat to a larger community, to provide the same level of service, you have to plan on scalable storage. Can anyone do that without monetizing?
I'll put this out there: I don't consider #IRC to be a candidate for team chat.
* How does IRC develop?
* External system for archiving and search
* File sharing is weird
* Clients are weird
* Prefers commands over clicking
Super fun tech! But the teams that use it either depend on a third-party (which is fine in many cases), or have an engineer (or likely an IRC fan) to run the whole stack for them.
@maiki I think this person was me... I think what I was saying was "it turns out that Slack mostly showed that nerds had the right design with IRC and XMPP MUC (which, while less popular, can do the things Slack can do that IRC can't) right all along, but what we didn't do was make it accessible to the general public, which is what Slack managed to do really well."
@mdfrg I think it is usability *and* technical debt. There's no way to count private IRC servers, of course, but they don't show up in my industries.
If there was an easy-to-install IRC server for folks that do desktop support (generalized, drawing an arbitrary line around the tech support a given office work receives), I'd be looking at improving IRC clients.
I think web-based chat servers are easier to setup and maintain. I think. ^_^