Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Some kind of list for Web-Based IRC clents?

Should there be a category/list on this page or should there be a new one?

Proposed Deletion removed

I have removed the PD notice, I don't see how this article can be "uncontroversially deleted" (as WP:DP says it would be with this notice on it) - it has clear content and this talkpage is filled with concerns about validity of product comparisons, which the PD reason claims does not exist on the page. So I'm honestly lost what whoever argued this article should be deleted thinks is missing from this page to be a valid "product comparison". Gijs Kruitbosch 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

More feature classes

There should be a table for support of ipv6, utf8 and ssl too, and probably something about scriptability. I'll try to start adding some of it. Amaurea 05:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Information in the individual articles

The information here should probably be reflected on the individual pages for the irc clients. Perhaps a template for irc clients, with fields corresponding to the table sections here, would help organize that? Right now they use a general software template. Amaurea 09:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

fserv vs DCC server vs passive DCC

Is DCCserver and passive dcc really seperate things? mIRC seems to use what it calls DCCserver to do passive transfers. The ftp-like file sharing server mode is called fserver there, but perhaps it is called DCCserver other places? It would be nice if someone could clarify, perhaps making articles about Passive DCC (probably best done as a section of the dcc-article) and dccserver, if it really is something else. Amaurea 06:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone confirm that ScrollZ has support for all DCC Specs we evaluate here? I can't believe that a client based on ircII (which has 'No' support) gets a double Yes here. 139.18.1.5 16:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for disputing this claim. I actually took a little more time to look for it and it seems i made a grave misjudgement. XDCC does not equal to passive dcc/dccserver - so actual facts often are more accurate than elaborate thought process. GroundedZero 12:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Xchat text mode ui

If you don't believe me that xchat doesn't have a usuable text mode ui, here's a screenshot: Image:Xchat-text.png If everyone insists on giving xchat a Yes for text ui, then irssi would need to get a Yes for GUI - there is some xirssi stuff on svn.

I don't believe the issue is usability; that's POV. X-Chat does come with both a GUI and CLI, therefore it seems reasonable to have both listed in the table. As for Irssi, I know very little about it, so I cannot comment about its entry. Michael 08:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure it's pov, but I'd agree with above post that it is helpful to weight this in the feature comparison table. You wouldn't add an entry for telnet with Text UI: yes just because it can connect to IRC.84.16.231.42 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this further, especially considering also debian's deicision to get rid of that useless xchat-text http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xchat/xchat_2.4.4-0.1/changelog 83.216.199.120 14:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd argue against removal just because debian have removed the code in their package. The original source code as provided on the Xchat website includes it, if debian have essentially forked it and removed it, that's their prerogative but is not the intention of the original authors. --FrostyCoolSlug 19:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

mIRC and UTF-8

mIRC utf-8 conversion script

If there had been a mirc script capable of adding utf-8-support, then I agree that that should be listed as something else than "No", but the script mentioned only translates between the tiny charset mirc is set to use and utf-8. That is, it only supports a small subset of unicode at a time, and will not let you write, for example, Russian and Japanese at the same time. This isn't unicode-support, but I guess it might still deservee a footnote, since it atleast lets you participate in a limited manner in a utf-8-based channel. Amaurea 03:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Native UTF-8 support in mIRC

As of v6.17, mIRC now supports UTF-8 in a limited way. It decodes all (as far as i've seen), and encodes some (having the curious behavior of leaving some characters as Windows-1252). —StationaryTraveller 15:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A very limited way! mIRC does not encode server messages at all, so away, quit messages etc. goes in windows encoding. For queries you can't make encoding for some network, preferences are global for one nick on every network or for all queries on all networks. Sublimator (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

With the correct settings mIRC can both encode and decode UTF-8. But if any character that is not a valid UTF-8 sequence enters the line (in the timestamp or nick for example) the whole line is rendered with native encoding. — MizardX (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Operating system support

I thought we don't count cygwin emulated versions? then where could one get native BX and ircII Windows version? 83.216.199.120 15:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite follow what gets Irssi a 'partial' in Windows support and ScrollZ and BX a 'Yes'?! 139.18.1.5 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed BX to 'Partial' because they do provide a version for Cygwin, but no real win32 version. (I'm taking "Partial" to mean "You need to work a bit to get it running") --Shen 13:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that a reasonable criterion would be that it run under a current out-of-box version of the OS. ("Current" is necessary, since, for example, apps requiring .NET won't run on Win2k out-of-box. They would fail this criterion, two years ago.)
Regarding BX: it seems to me that i ran it under Win98 several years ago, without Cygwin. (It stunk very badly, but i was told that it was significantly different from its unixoid counterpart.) —StationaryTraveller 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Trillian

Trillian is on the above sections but not in the below "Features" section. 70.111.236.90 12:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Snak

Snak is a fairly popular client for MacOS (incl now unsupported versions for MacOS Classic). It should be included. —StationaryTraveller 15:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I came back and did it. :) —StationaryTraveller 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Konversation scripting

It's listed as shell scriptable. It can use anything that can be a filter, and includes some perl scripts.—StationaryTraveller 16:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

0irc

Why do we still have 0irc down on the comparison list if it is credited as to "unknown" to be an article? Ps0

ircII

ircII states that it's for UNIX and has a MacOS version of it. There's nothing stating that it can be run on windows. Dantman 03:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

List of fax software

Editors of this article might want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fax software (2nd_nomination). This article was recently deleted via AfD, and it does have some resemblance to the present article. In general, the more analysis an article contains, the safer it is (apparently). EdJohnston 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is Nettalk???

Nettalk IRC-Client --82.149.82.142 12:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trillian

lmao nevermind I'm an idiot please disregard

Least CPU usage for windows

Which one uses the least CPU and works on windows ? Luminaflare 17:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Scripting Language Consistency

Would it make sense to change the name of the ircII scripting language to it's official name (if one exists), or mIRC's Scripting language to 'Own Language' with a link to the mIRC Scripting page, to maintain consistency between the two? --FrostyCoolSlug 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

MD5 passwords hashing support

There is one critical section missing in a comparison table - we don't show whether a client supports authorization using MD5 password hashing vs. old unsecure plain text authorization. With the advent of sniffers and trojans - it's a very important issue of security and privacy. // Artem S. Tashkinov, Tuesday 27 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.226.226.210 (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)