Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of cross-platform instant messaging clients

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Client4 (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 4 September 2019 (→Reply 28-AUG-2019). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Additional Software

Riot.im, Hoccer and Kontalk could also be added to the charts. 94.220.154.71 (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those three messengers should have a Wikipedia article first. See WP:WTAF. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ring fits that criterion. 94.220.152.66 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Added. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im+ could also be added to the list of programs. 83.150.96.149 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few more instant messaging clients: https://www.androidheadlines.com/2013/09/top-10-best-im-instant-message-apps-android.html and https://www.androidpit.com/best-instant-messenger-apps-for-android 83.150.96.149 (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyph would be a good one to add for the secure messengers section. 23.243.26.182 (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These messaging apps do not meet this article's inclusion criteria. Before adding a client, ensure that it has a corresponding Wikipedia article, or create the article first using the software notability essay as a guideline. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim in 1st sentence .. ICB, IRC, Zephyr, and the thing that IBM CP/CMS had all predate 1996. Sounds like a plug for Mirabilis.

To paraphrase Ecclesiastes 1:9, "There ain't nothing new under the sun, son." Instant Messaging was around, in one form or another, since perhaps the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.76.84 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "was invented" claim is nonsense. I recollect myself using IM at least as far back as 1987/8, both on dialup from a home computer (Acorn Archimedes) and on Unix and PCs at work. Unix "talk" goes back to 4.2BSD, which appears to date it 1983. Your own page lists Project Athena with a 1987 date. RFC 1459 (IRC) is 1993 - and we know that early implementations pre-date any formal RFC. I agree there were many ways to send messages. CP/CMS was probably one of the most widely used in the 1980's. Maybe what we need is a better definition of what is meant by instant messaging. As MS Windows had a method for sending messages to someone in Windows 95. 2600:1700:4BA0:BE60:D55D:3BFD:D7B0:90E0 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)8/1/2018[reply]

Presumably the Texas Austin Uni article linked to that claim is using a very idiosyncratic definition of instant messaging, and clearly this article is not using the same definition for its criteria, so that whole sentence should be scrapped or else a history section should be written which can note the development and temper or remove that claim. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

I am looking to add Keybase to the comparison list as the Keybase app on all platforms performs end-to-end encrypted chat. There is a COI as I currently work for Keybase, but the Keybase Client is topical to this article and I am in a position to include neutral accurate information. If it is acceptable for me to edit this page I will propose changes to this article as a draft for editors to review. Client4 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may propose any requested changes here on the talk page. Please note that for an item to be listed, it should already be independently notable in Wikipedia.[a]
Regards,  Spintendo  01:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ An item is considered to be independently notable if it already has its own page on Wikipedia.

Request edit

I added the sections below to be added, but I'm not sure I proposed them correctly. Client4 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
General information

The following should be included in the corresponding tables of the article.

Operating system support

The operating systems the clients can run on without emulation or compatibility layers.

Client Publisher First public release Type Latest stable version License
Keybase Keybase 2014; 11 years ago (2014) Single-protocol 4.3.0[1] New BSD license[2]
Features

Information on what features each of clients support.

Client Desktop Mobile Other
Windows macOS Unix-like Haiku Amiga Windows Phone Android BlackBerry OS iOS Symbian MeeGo Java ME WebOS Web VGCs
Keybase (chat) Yes[3] Yes[4] Yes[5] No No No Yes[6] No Yes[7] No No No No No No
Secure Messengers
Client Toolkits or SDKs File transfer Editing sent messages Proxy server Graphical emoticons Unicode (UTF-8) Built-in games Themes, skins Plugin system Third party add-ons Scripting Message logging Voice messaging Voice mail Webcam Offline Cloud backup Remote desktop assistance Whiteboard RTL texting
Keybase Yes[8] Yes[9] Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No
Client Handwriting mode Dockable Multiaccount Spell check User-defined graphic emoticons Animations OAuth
Keybase No Yes Yes No No No No
Client Encrypted by default Development status Open source client[a] Servers Contact verification[b] Encryption ciphers Forward secrecy[c] Multiple encryption[d][e] Encrypted groupchat[f] Encrypted file transfer[f] Public key and IP unrelated[g] Proxy /Tor[h] Transport[i] Asynchronous encryp. communication[j] Encrypted client data[k] Screenshot protection[l] Self-destructing messages[l]
Open source servers Distributed[m] Federated[m] Data Symmetric[d][n] Asymmetric[o] Asym. key size[p] TCP UDP SCTP
Profile information[q] Chat metadata[r] Contact lists[s] Cloud backup McEliece RSA DSA ECC NTRU El Gamal Default Max.
Keybase Yes[10] Active Yes[11] No No No Stored[12] Stored[13] Not Stored Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No ECC-256 [14] — Optional[15] Yes[16] Yes[17] Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes[18] Yes Yes[19]

References

  1. ^ "Keybase Latest Version". Retrieved 27 August 2019.
  2. ^ "Keybase license info". Retrieved 26 August 2015.
  3. ^ "Keybase for Windows". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  4. ^ "Keybase for MacOS". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  5. ^ "Keybase for Linux". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  6. ^ "Keybase for Android". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  7. ^ "Keybase for iOS". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  8. ^ "Keybase Git Repository". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  9. ^ "Keybase File Transfer". Retrieved 2019-08-27.
  10. ^ "Keybase Crypto Overview". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  11. ^ "Keybase Client Source". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  12. ^ "Keybase Privacy Policy". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  13. ^ "Keybase Chat FAQ". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  14. ^ "Keybase Chat Encryption Source". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  15. ^ "Keybase Exploding Messages". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  16. ^ "Keybase Teams". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  17. ^ "Keybase Team Files". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  18. ^ "Keybase File System". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.
  19. ^ "Keybase Exploding Messages". Keybase. Retrieved 26 August 2019.

Client4 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 28-AUG-2019

Pinging local editors @Kashmiri, MrOllie, Dozed Off, and JJMC89: The COI editor Client4 would like to add the information contained in the extended content section above to this article. Not being familiar with this article, I was hoping you could take a look at the request and advise on whether the technology they wish to add is appropriate to be placed in Comparison of instant messaging clients. Any input you can offer would be most appreciated. Thank you! (My apologies for the ping if any of you are already watchlisted for this page.) Regards,  Spintendo  06:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of any feedback from local editors I'm prepared to implement this edit request. The only problem preventing this is that the reference template chosen was {{cite web}} — while the |website= parameter is blank in all 19 references. This parameter is essential to use with that template. If those could be filled out, it would be much appreciated. When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Client4: My apologies, the |website= parameter not being filled out was not a problem of your making, rather, it was due to a change which was implemented to the CS1 template behind the scenes, a change which was effected without consensus. Don't worry about fixing the issue, I'll take care of it when I implement the changes. Regards,  Spintendo  09:12, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spintendo: Thank you for your communication! I'll keep watching until the changes are implemented in the event you need any changes. Regards, Client4 (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Table "Messengers with client-to-client encryption"

Sorry, I am new to talking here. Can someone please tell me if this table is up to date? I want to use this for my decision which secure e2e encrypted messenger to use and recommend to friends and family.

84.44.183.139 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_cross-platform_instant_messaging_clients&oldid=914022599"