I know that Whats app at some point used the XMPP protocol. and Facebook. I don't know if it is used internally still though. Especially since they are merging all the messaging protocols together and basically rewriting everything. Google used to use it but I don't know anymore since they changed three apps since then. I was talking about the protocol being Copyleft. Otherwise you risk of EEE like Whatapp did. The conversation here is not about Riot or Element. Its about Matrix the protocol. Which has many clients. Some of them AGPL-3 even. I fail to understand though what does it matter that XMPP is may or may not used by Facebook. The point I was trying to make was that Matrix is used and it has wide deployment. It's not something that's going to go away. The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't have good clients for Mobile, doesn't have modern features or even a coherent standard. So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we can attract new contributors that may want modern features. PS. How would Vector Violate its own license? MSavoritias On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 11:12, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) wrote: > For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free software. > > > > I don't understand your statements. XMPP is used by major companies > like Whatsapp for example, if you need a proprietary one (so Facebook > use it). > > Conversations is GPL v3, so this is copyleft isn't it ? The Matrix > protocol is not especially copyleft nor XMPP. These are just spec > documents that describes functions. If Matrix is under copyleft, > Vector is actually violating its own license ! > > Conversations advocates for free software, unlike Element for > example. This is a huge difference. > > Librement, > > Le 31 juillet 2020 10:58:30 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias > > a écrit : >> As I said they mainly had issues with the UI/UX and some features >> that >> were missing like stickers. I searched for the second one and there >> didn't seem to be an intention to implement stickers. >> >> Things don't seems to be changing on that front though. The last >> client >> on that page Zom moved to matrix too. >> If you ask me they are different crowds. XMPP is for techies with no >> chance of going mainstream. >> Matrix takes a more radical approach and even now it is used more >> than >> XMPP. With XMPP being mostly gone since Google and Facebook Stopped >> using it. Gone outside of the tech communities that is. Only place I >> see recommending it is for the enccryption. >> >> If you ask me I would prefer a copyleft protocol. Because neither >> XMPP >> or Matrix can stop themselves from being EEE. But I will take what i >> can get. >> >> In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development >> outside >> of Conversations. I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks >> though. >> So maybe it finds some use there. >> >> I like the standarization you said the community is trying. But I >> think >> its too late for that. With all the fragmentation and people moving >> on. >> >> You are right that people still use it but I think it is more like >> IRC. >> It is good for the minority but you are not going to convince new >> users >> to join there. >> We should look how to convince new users to join in modern protocols. >> If Conversations are the benchmark for how much behind XMPP is in >> capabilities that a modern user wants, then I don't know if it can be >> overcomed. >> >> MSavoritias >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 03:00, Denver Gingerich > > >> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:51:43PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote: >>>> Conversations is badly designed. I am talking from experience >>>> trying for >>>> people to adopt it. >>> >>> I haven't had any bad experiences getting people to adopt >>> Conversations. Maybe you could be more specific about what >>> particular aspects of Conversations they have issues with? >>> >>>> Every other client listed on this page: >>>> <<>> for android is >>>> basically >>>> with >>>> design from twenty years ago. >>>> There doesn't seem to be new clients popping up. for mobile at >>>> least. >>>> In contrast Matrix <<>> has a lot >>>> of new >>>> clients >>>> with active development. >>> >>> I agree that the XMPP community could make a prettier clients page >>> with screenshots and such, like Matrix has. There are at least as >>> many XMPP clients under active development as there are Matrix >>> clients. >>> >>>> Its not the problem of something Conversations are missing. >>>> Although it >>>> misses a lot of stuff. Like stickers and widgets. >>>> The thing is that every client I installed had different >>>> capabilities >>>> entirely. It made sense when I read the phylosophy behind XMPP >>>> and >>>> Matrix >>>> though. Matrix wants to be ,from my perspective, a coherent >>>> standard. One >>>> piece. XMPP is more modular. Which explains the fragmentation in >>>> the XMPP >>>> ecosystem. >>> >>> True that is another thing the XMPP community could work on. We do >>> have compliance suites that will tell you if your client meets a >>> certain "coherent standard": >>> >>> <> >>> >>> However, we haven't done enough work to advertise this or certify >>> clients, so it's not yet easy to benefit from this work as a person >>> new to XMPP. >>> >>> >>> There seem to be enough people using XMPP for it to continue on an >>> upward trajectory. It might not see the hockey stick growth that >>> other protocols do, but it also hasn't flamed out, which I fear may >>> happen with some of the newer, more hyped protocols. >>> >>> Denver >>> <> >> > For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free > software. > [1] > I don't understand your statements. XMPP is used by major companies > like Whatsapp for example, if you need a proprietary one (so > Facebook > use it). > Conversations is GPL v3, so this is copyleft isn't it ? The Matrix > protocol is not especially copyleft nor XMPP. These are just spec > documents that describes functions. If Matrix is under copyleft, > Vector > is actually violating its own license ! > Conversations advocates for free software, unlike Element for > example. > This is a huge difference. > Librement, > > Le 31 juillet 2020 10:58:30 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias > > a écrit : > > As I said they mainly had issues with the UI/UX and some features that > were missing like stickers. I searched for the second one and there > didn't seem to be an intention to implement stickers. > Things don't seems to be changing on that front though. The last > client > on that page Zom moved to matrix too. > If you ask me they are different crowds. XMPP is for techies with no > chance of going mainstream. > Matrix takes a more radical approach and even now it is used more than > XMPP. With XMPP being mostly gone since Google and Facebook Stopped > using it. Gone outside of the tech communities that is. Only place I > see recommending it is for the enccryption. > If you ask me I would prefer a copyleft protocol. Because neither XMPP > or Matrix can stop themselves from being EEE. But I will take what i > can get. > In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development outside > of Conversations. I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks > though. > So maybe it finds some use there. > I like the standarization you said the community is trying. But I > think > its too late for that. With all the fragmentation and people moving > on. > You are right that people still use it but I think it is more like > IRC. > It is good for the minority but you are not going to convince new > users > to join there. > We should look how to convince new users to join in modern protocols. > If Conversations are the benchmark for how much behind XMPP is in > capabilities that a modern user wants, then I don't know if it can be > overcomed. > MSavoritias > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 03:00, Denver Gingerich > > wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 09:51:43PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote: > > Conversations is badly designed. I am talking from experience > trying for > people to adopt it. > > I haven't had any bad experiences getting people to adopt > Conversations. Maybe you could be more specific about what > particular aspects of Conversations they have issues with? > > Every other client listed on this page: > <<[2]>> for android is > basically > with > design from twenty years ago. > There doesn't seem to be new clients popping up. for mobile at > least. > In contrast Matrix <<[3]>> has a > lot of > new > clients > with active development. > > I agree that the XMPP community could make a prettier clients > page > with screenshots and such, like Matrix has. There are at least as > many XMPP clients under active development as there are Matrix > clients. > > Its not the problem of something Conversations are missing. > Although it > misses a lot of stuff. Like stickers and widgets. > The thing is that every client I installed had different > capabilities > entirely. It made sense when I read the phylosophy behind XMPP > and > Matrix > though. Matrix wants to be ,from my perspective, a coherent > standard. One > piece. XMPP is more modular. Which explains the fragmentation in > the XMPP > ecosystem. > > True that is another thing the XMPP community could work on. We > do > have compliance suites that will tell you if your client meets a > certain "coherent standard": > <[4]> > However, we haven't done enough work to advertise this or certify > clients, so it's not yet easy to benefit from this work as a > person > new to XMPP. > There seem to be enough people using XMPP for it to continue on > an > upward trajectory. It might not see the hockey stick growth that > other protocols do, but it also hasn't flamed out, which I fear > may > happen with some of the newer, more hyped protocols. > Denver > <[5]> > > References > > 1. > 2. > 3. > 4. > 5. > _______________________________________________ > libreplanet-discuss mailing list > libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org > >