On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss wrote: > Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. > > Em 23/07/2020 18:56, Msavoritias escreveu: >> Guix on system. I am part of the Guix Channel on Matrix.> >> […] >> I created three channels on my server privacytools.io I know >> that there >> are some GNU channels on the matrix.org server but I went forth >> with >> […] >> I noticed that there are a lot of GNU projects already there. >> Some of >> them are GUIX, Octave, Gnunet, a lot of GNU channels, Linux >> Libre and >> so forth. > > On the subject of channels/rooms, please make sure that these are pure > Matrix channels by checking the full address, since last time I tried > (many years ago) with purple-matrix, Matrix itself doesn't tell that > very easily. Also, make sure that the official pages of the projects > advertise these channels, if not, they might not be official. Fair point. From what I can see there are some that are basically IRC bridged channels and some that are native. But they don't seem to be advertised so they are unofficial. > >> creating one on my server. First for Decentralization reasons. >> Matrix.org is the biggest server. And second matrix.org is slow >> due to >> the number of users there. > >> we can al ways set up an IRC bridge to talk with people on the >> gnu IRC >> server. > > Setting up a bridge means allocating a separate part of the server to > talk to those protocols. How this communication is made (if a guest > account is created for every person or if each of them have to > manually > set their own account in case the IRC network has rules to only allow > participation of registered people) is another set of issues. The best > option I know of thus far, which also helps non-experienced and > unregistered users although possibly having some limitations on which > IRC features will be available, is to set a bot to serve as a message > relay back and forth between the target channels. Disregarding the > message relay bot solution, Matrix's bridge services seem to be > similar > to XMPP's. As for the bot, as a Free Software Directory > reviewer/evaluator, I saw a submission (still unapproved) for one such > tools, which I'm trying to review as of today. > >> Second a lot of new users nowdays expect modern tooling and >> communication. I think integrating a Matrix server will be a >> great way > > Indeed but, let's not forget that the means of communication and data > interoperability/exchange that are still stable as of today succeeded > in > such a way thanks to one specific kind of standardization that was the > norm before the growth of the Californian ideology past 2000 (i.e.: > the > term coined by Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, not to be confused > with beliefs of a random person from California). The standard in > question which resisted is called "open standard", not because it > simply > came from a free/libre and "open source" software project, but because > it was/is approved by a national or international standards > body/collective/workgroup — e.g.: internationally we have many > organizations, including W3C, IETF, ISO, XSF. These standards bodies > often accept members from different groups so as to make sure that > everyone has a chance to participate. That all sounds great in theory. But in practise from my experience the W3C is controlled by Google basically with the browser monopoly they have. And POSIX and other stuff have been holding innovation back. That happens because of the resistanse to change and the slow beraucracy of the process. I think we should look into finding striking a better balance between standartization and innovation and also having Standard bodies that actually listen to everybody. > > These "open standards" can of course be obsolete or not reflect a new > scenario that arose, this is why the members of the bodies can > occasionally call on the others to make updated versions, which in > most > cases, even if approved, are in no way immediately mandatory. > > However, when it involves standards "auto-regulated" by their own > projects, we will occasionally see lots of anomalies, such as: new > versions being approved as mandatory very fast and thus breaking > software which, despite being updated, still implement the old > version; > and other group of people making and following a partially compatible > parallel standard branched from the original (e.g.: original Markdown, > GitLab/GitHub Markdown, BibTex, BibLaTeX, abnTeX2, abnTeX2cite, > BibLaTeX-ABNT). > > It must be noted that even if "open standards" suffer from these > anomalies — e.g.: WhatsApp which was a XMPP service provider too big > (because many people recommended it instead of pointing to either a > "XMPP server list" or a local provider), and so made "FunXMPP" which > embraced XMPP, extended it, and extinguished XMPP communications); and > the many non-conforming CSV and vCard implementations —, the > original > reference is not lost and the revision approval has clearly defined > process. > > The failure to keep those means of data exchange standardized and > interoperable opens space to the abuses described in [1]. It does and I'm not disagreeing with you. But, a lot of the time the commitees a lot of the time are so strict to change and so slow a lot of contributors don't even try to propose stuff. We need to seriously modernize how standards are used and implemented if you ask me. But that is not the discussion at hand. > >> Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using >> Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody. >> […] >> Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary >> client. > > The only free/libre one I have heard so far is purple-matrix for > libpurple. There is also an emacs client but it has lagged behind a little bit. > >> I would like to ask is it in the works to have an official >> FSF/GNU >> server in the future? Are there any blockers I can help with? > > FSF already has XMPP service for their associate members. I guess it comes down to personal preference but for me I didn't see the same features in all the clients I tried and almost all of them were badly designed. This doesn't help with convincing people to use XMPP. > > > # References > > > [1]: > <>, > under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, according to > <>. > > > -- > * Ativista do software livre > * > * Membro dos grupos avaliadores de > * Software (Free Software Directory) > * Distribuições de sistemas (FreedSoftware) > * Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) > * Não sou advogado e não fomento os não livres > * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrônico do teu e-mail > * Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada > * Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP > * Chave pública: vide endereço anterior > * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude > * Se não tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo "signature.asc" > * Ao enviar anexos > * Docs., planilhas e apresentações: use OpenDocument > * Outros tipos: vide endereço anterior > * Use protocolos de comunicação federadas > * Vide endereço anterior > * Mensagens secretas somente via > * XMPP com OMEMO > * E-mail criptografado e assinado com OpenPGP > > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > >