News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:33PM (#13170019)
Does slack feel like IRC to anybody else?

Sorry I didn't mean for this to be divisive or rude. I wasn't aware this was a common observation. I'm not trying to be negative or incriminate the product. I use and enjoy slack every day.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by jamestenglish on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:45PM (#13170167)
Wow quick to the low effort Slack is just IRC comment.

In my opinion Slack does something that is often very undervalues and easily overlooked, it is like the opposite of a death my a thousand cuts - superiority by a thousand minor improvements.

When taken individually or even in handfuls none of the features are that impressive, but cumulatively it creates a much better product. This was very apparent to me at least when I switched from HipChat to Slack. Just reading features or looking at screenshots they are nearly identical, yet with actual use Slack seems like a significant step up.

So yes IRC is to Slack, as the Ford Model T is to a Mercedes S-Class.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:58PM (#13170332)
The one thing that I liked (and still like) about IRC is its federated server model. Maybe I need to do more research, but I guess I am assuming that slack is a for-profit company with private servers that they own somewhere that everyone uses ... or am I totally off?
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by vertex-four on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:08PM (#13170448)
If you're looking for "a better IRC" while still not tying your communications to a single data silo, Matrix[0] with the Riot[1] client is currently the best experience.

The brilliant bit is that you can set up your own homeserver which holds all your chat logs, can authenticate against whatever you like (internal username/password, LDAP, or even CAS single sign-on), and allows you to communicate with people and rooms on other homeservers without having to manually connect, create a dozen different accounts, etc.

I think right now, 50% of users are on the matrix.org homeserver and 50% are on their own homeservers. And the upside of everyone being on a homeserver is that everyone essentially has their own bouncer by default - no more having to set up ZNC on some random VPS on a user-by-user basis, you can always message anyone and they'll get your message whenever they reconnect.

Because of its federated model, you can also use it to communicate with other companies and customers as well as internal communications - something Slack/etc aren't really chasing after.

[0] https://matrix.org [1] https://riot.im

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:10PM (#13170473)
Alright let's go further ... so how is this different from XMPP rooms? (http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0045.html)

XMPP can support all the other things you've mentioned.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by vertex-four on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:13PM (#13170505)
While XMPP is wonderful in theory, in practice, it's very difficult to assume that any given set of client+server can support anything, especially once you're talking to people on other servers. Even things like the features allowing messages to be delivered to multiple clients, rather than only one, are rarely implemented according to the standard. Matrix has a reference server and client which supports the entire protocol, so any other implementation will hopefully wind up implementing at least the majority of it, or won't be used.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:14PM (#13170512)
XMPP hasn't really played out to its promises. Pity, it's such a great set of technology.

There's something to learn from this - there's likely a "right amount" of anarchy, some goldilock zone where people can still be creative and unburdened but not so much that things become fractured, fragmented, and incoherent.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by mxuribe on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @09:28PM (#13173324)
See "What is the difference between Matrix and XMPP?": http://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differenc...
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by danellis on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:40PM (#13170756)
> So yes Slack is to IRC, as the Ford Model T is to a Mercedes S-Class.

I think you mean the other way around.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by jamestenglish on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:45PM (#13170811)
You're correct. Fixed.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by ryanlol on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @10:24PM (#13173533)
Sure, IRC might be the Ford Model T if you are using it with netcat and manually PONGing the server. But compared to a proper IRC client Slack really feels more like an E-Class.

Good luck handling 3000 concurrent buffers in slack, or even adding basic features like OTR.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by sturmeh on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @09:38PM (#13173355)
In my opinion IRC is superior to Slack, so I really don't understand this argument. (You're assuming Slack is an improvement on IRC, when in fact it's a completely different platform.)
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by abalashov on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @02:36AM (#13174449)
Then I'm sure you can appreciate the irony that I use Slack via:

https://github.com/rawdigits/wee-slack

It's more featureful than the native Slack IRC gateway.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by erlehmann_ on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:45PM (#13171384)
I personally think that Slack has been heavily inspired by IRC and it can be seen by its feature set and failure modes – where it more resembles IRC than any other messaging solution I am aware of that came after it (importantly, Slack engineers did apparently not learn from XMPP).

One example deficiency is message ordering. In Slack, messages ordering sometimes changes sometimes after I have received two messages, that are then ordered differently. Is this an example of “eventual consistency” in the wild?

Another deficiency of Slack that definitely is more “inspired” by IRC than anything else is the reconnection handling. If you ever have used IRC, Slack and XMPP on a train (or any other spotty connection), you may have noticed that IRC (or Slack) can time out without you noticing immediately, while with XMPP temporary network problems are usually handled automatically by modern clients.

The difference in both cases lies in stream management – if each message has a sequence number (as it has in XMPP with XEP-0198), endpoints can definitely establish a) an ordering and b) what the last message received was. This eliminates any manual replay. Slack does not do this, apparently, even though unexpected network termination happens frequently.

A third defiency of Slack that makes it look like IRC is the notable absense of metadata fields. While in XMPP you can have a vCard, the Slack documentation contains this gem, indicating Slack developers themselves abuse the last name field to convey information such as not being in the office:

> We ask that everyone displays first and last names in Slack, so we can use the last name field to alert coworkers when they are out of the office, on extended leave, or sick for the day.

Source: https://slackhq.com/slack-101-onboarding-247454704155#11aa

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by schmichael on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:44PM (#13170156)
This is an odd question to ask when the feature being announced, video call integration, is definitely not available in IRC.

Slack is "just IRC" as much as vim is "just ed."

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:56PM (#13170309)
Certainly! I was just wondering if anyone had that similarity feeling that I did. Didn't mean anything more than just an innocent curiosity.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by DoodleBuggy on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:40PM (#13170111)
That's pretty much exactly what it is, to me anyway. It's IRC for non-technical people (not that IRC is particularly technical, but...)
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by lotyrin on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:49PM (#13170222)
IRC, minus a bunch of technical nonsense nobody who is busy will bother to understand or manage (mode flags, server vs network channels, out-of-band post-hoc client-to-client features, netsplits), with good stories for multi-device (single, consistent cross platform experience) and offline (messages are queued/marked as read server side, in a way consistent across devices) and bots (anyone can add an integration in a few minutes, instead of delegating to a developer to add some code to the latest pet bot which soaks up maintenance effort like a sponge) management (managed, easy access control, no services bolted on as an afterthought) and file sharing (files stored server side, every client and user supports the feature, file can be sent when user's client is offline, doesn't have to figure out how to forward some ports or something) presence (consistent single feature instead of someone maybe implementing away status or an away nickname) identity (nicks === users) and so, so much more.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:05PM (#13170411)
It sounds like you've extensively tried to work with both, correct?
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by lotyrin on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @04:10PM (#13171069)
Indeed. I'm the seemingly rare creature who was able and willing to jump through all the IRC hoops but can still understand the people who maybe can't but certainly won't.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by trome on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @01:31AM (#13174274)
I dunno, I get people on IRC all the time using web clients, there aren't many hoops to jump through to get on it. You don't even have to register either.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by lotyrin on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#13177200)
Yeah, sure if you just want to send and receive text synchronously from a public channel, each feature past that point and you have to break open your computing history book and learn some arcane incantations.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by Navarr on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:37PM (#13170066)
That's mostly what Slack is and why people like it.

IRC was (and still IS) good. Slack is basically a modern way to view and utilize the same basic system. It also made it very easy for developers to integrate components (whereas IRC you'd have to search out some way to do such integrations) - and with the "special" UX that they control they could add things like button actions on messages.

A client like Slack for IRC with some of the newer IRC RFCs could potentially work just as well - as long as the UX and push notifications etc were nailed.

Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by kristopolous on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @03:09PM (#13170462)
IRC is a pain, yes. I made a C library to talk to IRC servers about (oh god) 15 years ago that I then put a perl wrapper around ... it provided a notification engine like the slack notifications I see today. But I had to cull all the hacker in me from 15 years ago to get it working right ... not an easy thing at all.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by FooBarWidget on Tuesday December 13, 2016 @02:35PM (#13170043)
Not sure what you want to say with that statement. Slack has a ton more features than IRC, so until IRC catches up and is easy to maintain I couldn't care less what Slack is written in.
Re:Slack Calls: Now with video by LukasRos on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @04:38AM (#13174835)
As the infamous Jenn Schiffer said, "IRC is like Slack for old people" :)