As someone who still uses IRC daily please understand that telling people IRC is a replacement for Discord is utter nonsense

[wearemuesli@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@eniko IRC is awesome for text-only conversations, but it is definitely not a replacement for an entire ecosystem, whether it's Discord or not.

-D.

[d1@autistics.life]

@eniko as soon as any [clears throat] "gateway" is needed, ~98% of all normies are not interested. Any solution - in order to be sufficiently elegant - should *not* need to stand on any such crutches.

[raymaccarthy@mastodon.ie]

@eniko
Something like Viber is better. Zero security and only text on IRC. Handy maybe for a 1 kbps radio link or dialup.

[netraven@hear-me.social]

@eniko I don't actually want any of those things. All of those things used to be individual programs and that was better, TO ME, not saying any more than that.

[burnoutqueen@todon.nl]

@k @eniko ergo ircd implements a lot of it

[doomed_daniel@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@WeAreMuesli @eniko
even for text-only I like it when I can put several lines in a message, ideally even formatted as code

[wearemuesli@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@Doomed_Daniel what are you talking about? Discord or IRC?

-D.

[doomed_daniel@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@WeAreMuesli
both?
IRC does *not* allow this.
Discord, Signal, Matrix and other "modern" chat programs do

[reiddragon@fedi.catto.garden]

@eniko link previews are client-dependent (and also the tiniest inconvenience if they don't exist)
offline messages depend on the server (some do, infact, have offline messaging)

[kevingranade@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@eniko agreeing but different perspective, offline delivery is the only feature I want from that list but it's critical. But also netsplits, channel takeovers, terrible moderation tools.
I'm guessing a lot of people saying it's good enough haven't been chanops much less server admins.