OSDev.org Discord Server

[onlyonemac]

I still don't get why they're called "servers". They're just groups/rooms/channels. The whole thing's a disgusting centralised proprietary bandwagon that everyone's jumping onto. If everyone's going to keep calling them "servers" then I'd at least like to see server software that you can download and actually run on your own server, and point people to your own address for them to connect to. It's like people are so intent on following the herd that nobody questions the use of the term "server" anymore.

[Rusky]

There's nothing insidious or even new about this sense of the word "server." It's used for situations like virtualization, shared hosting, and even (unsurprisingly, given Discord's initial target market) multiplayer games. Decentralization and reproducibility are not parts of the definition.

If you're upset about centralization, just talk about that, but be aware that it's only one feature that many are perfectly fine losing in order to gain others (zero maintenance, persistent logs, easy discoverability, etc.)

[onlyonemac]

There's nothing insidious or even new about this sense of the word "server." It's used for situations like virtualization, shared hosting, and even (unsurprisingly, given Discord's initial target market) multiplayer games. Decentralization and reproducibility are not parts of the definition.

Even in the context of multiplayer games, a "server" refers to a separate machine (virtual or otherwise) running a separate instance of the game server software. Only occasionally would people run multiple games on the same machine, in which case they were still separate instances of the server software and listened on different ports.

Whether or not discord run each channel in a separate virtual machine is irrelevant, the point is that they're all run together behind one interface, don't have any of the typical characteristics of servers (one or more of: hostnames, listening ports, separate authentication, ability to be installed on any machine). It's no different to a platform like Skype in terms of its end-user experience.

[Rusky]

the point is that they're all run together behind one interface, don't have any of the typical characteristics of servers (one or more of: hostnames, listening ports, separate authentication, ability to be installed on any machine).

This is exactly how multiplayer games work.

For the same reasons, too- it's a much better user experience in several ways.

[Kazinsal]

Welcome to the future. Everything is hyperconverged, and it's better this way.

[matt11235]

Everything is hyperconverged

Somebody call Mark Shuttleworth and tell him that his dreams are back on track.

[onlyonemac]

the point is that they're all run together behind one interface, don't have any of the typical characteristics of servers (one or more of: hostnames, listening ports, separate authentication, ability to be installed on any machine).

This is exactly how multiplayer games work.

That's not my experience of multiplayer games. If I run, say, a Minecraft server, I install the Minecraft server software on my computer and allow incoming connections to it. Sure I can get shared hosting, but I can still install it on my own computer/server if I want to. A few other games that I've seen or worked with in the past are the same way, if I run a server it's actually running as a separate installation on my own computer (it may be part of a centralised public server list, and it may be accessible only through a centralised proxy, but the actual server is still running on my computer). Discord is not like that, there are no separate servers, they're all hosted by a single company's infrastructure under their control (and I'm pretty sure there aren't any actual separate server software instances for each channel either, but that's mostly irrelevant at this point).

[osdever]

the point is that they're all run together behind one interface, don't have any of the typical characteristics of servers (one or more of: hostnames, listening ports, separate authentication, ability to be installed on any machine).

This is exactly how multiplayer games work.

That's not my experience of multiplayer games. If I run, say, a Minecraft server, I install the Minecraft server software on my computer and allow incoming connections to it. Sure I can get shared hosting, but I can still install it on my own computer/server if I want to. A few other games that I've seen or worked with in the past are the same way, if I run a server it's actually running as a separate installation on my own computer (it may be part of a centralised public server list, and it may be accessible only through a centralised proxy, but the actual server is still running on my computer). Discord is not like that, there are no separate servers, they're all hosted by a single company's infrastructure under their control (and I'm pretty sure there aren't any actual separate server software instances for each channel either, but that's mostly irrelevant at this point).

I agree with the naming "server" being technically incorrect, but it isn't bad. It's a pretty good name for that kind of chat, taking into account that Discord is mainly oriented on gamers. So yeah, technically it's incorrect but the name itself is good.

[Sik]

Discord got the word "server" from IRC (and pretty much all the things surrounding it, for that matter - channel names start with # and have extreme restrictions on the names too, for example).

The main reasons a lot of people are jumping to Discord are that 1) it integrates both IM and IRC-style chatrooms and remembers them without having to mess with the configuration 2) a lot of hosting services outright ban IRC regardless of tier because they're too prone to be targets for script kiddies (found this the hard way when once looking to setup a new IRC server). And also I suppose a lot of people find the Discord app convenient on phones (I bet there are IRC clients on iOS and Android, but I don't think any of them are particularly well known except maybe outside a niche).

Yes, I also hate that Discord is a completely centralized service, but things stagnated with both IM and IRC and when stagnation happens in open protocols what happens is that some centralized service will pick up the need and hog everything (and since everybody goes there, it'll be hard to convince people to even consider trying something else if an alternative comes up).

[Rusky]

the point is that they're all run together behind one interface, don't have any of the typical characteristics of servers (one or more of: hostnames, listening ports, separate authentication, ability to be installed on any machine).

This is exactly how multiplayer games work.

Sure I can get shared hosting, but I can still install it on my own computer/server if I want to.

That's not how most online games work. Minecraft is an exception.

I bet there are IRC clients on iOS and Android, but I don't think any of them are particularly well known except maybe outside a niche

Aside from being niche, they are also horrible to use because they require a persistent connection which doesn't work out well on mobile devices. IRC cannot get around this without changing the protocol.

[onlyonemac]

Yes, I also hate that Discord is a completely centralized service, but things stagnated with both IM and IRC and when stagnation happens in open protocols what happens is that some centralized service will pick up the need and hog everything (and since everybody goes there, it'll be hard to convince people to even consider trying something else if an alternative comes up).

I still don't understand why open versions of something die, and then as soon as a centralised version comes along everyone's interested in it again.

Aside from being niche, they are also horrible to use because they require a persistent connection which doesn't work out well on mobile devices. IRC cannot get around this without changing the protocol.

IRC can be supplemented with logging and bouncers. Heck if enough people were interested in the protocol it would be easy to develop a set of extensions that allow downloading a backlog of conversation when connecting or refreshing (assuming that there's a logging server somewhere in the network). But for some reason nobody extends existing protocols and standards, they always make their own things and then use them to take over a market.

That's not how most online games work. Minecraft is an exception.

That's how multiplayer games worked a few years ago last time I had any experience with them. Why do you think people talk about port-forwarding and complained about carrier-grade NAT? Because of gamers trying to run servers or host multiplayer games on their computer.

[Sik]

I still don't understand why open versions of something die, and then as soon as a centralised version comes along everyone's interested in it again.

Because it was marketed better.

That in itself isn't inherent to closed centralized systems though (you could do the same with an open protocol if you really were willing to). The problem is that once people go for the centralized system, it's going to be practically impossible to convince people to move away due to inertia ("everybody is here already, why should I move?" - see: any attempt to convince people to use something other than Facebook or Whatsapp, 99% of the time it'll result in they trying to suck you in instead). Only way to get people to move is either to have the centralized service to connect to the competition (which won't happen) or wait for their reputation to be trashed so badly that a competitor can easily take advantage of it to promote their own (sadly, it's usually just another closed centralized service taking the place).

The big problem with open protocols is that usually nobody has the manpower to actually make it spread well enough. Usually the only time it happens is when big companies themselves end up stuck and decide to make a standard protocol for their own uses (that just happens to be widely open for use).

[Rusky]

IRC can be supplemented with logging and bouncers. Heck if enough people were interested in the protocol it would be easy to develop a set of extensions that allow downloading a backlog of conversation when connecting or refreshing (assuming that there's a logging server somewhere in the network).

Yep, this has been done. IRCCloud even provides a mobile app that solves the problems I mentioned, and IRCv3 is an attempt to add those sorts of capabilities into the core protocol. But IRCCloud has a subscription fee and IRCv3 is unimplemented, while Discord exists and is free.

Also, IRCCloud and IRCv3 are both exactly what I said- changes to the protocol.