Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10666 bytes --]

Okay First of all I am going to say once more that I am not talking 
about Riot, Element or anything like that. I am talking about the 
protocol.
Please read my messages.

Second I see that you have some personal feelings about Vector. I don't 
know why but I respect that. Thus your opinion is subjective too.
That doesnt negate my arguments that Matrix has more features and is a 
more coherent whole than XMPP.

Third what  I know is that Olm is based on Signal encryption. If you 
say that Singnal encryption is not that good then I am afraid our 
conversation ends here because it is clear you don't know what you are 
talking about. That is not to say OMEMO is not good.

I was talking about Android clients specifically not iOS. I have no 
desire to be locked in that garden.

Also Element is functional. Like Conversations. Just like other clients 
like Fluffy Chat and Dillo.

Also I am not talking about Synapse. There are other servers to choose 
from. And the higher usage comes at the cost of features which XMPP 
lacks. Personally I find that acceptable.

When you are talking about the Matrix protocol when do they advocate 
for Non-Free Software? I know about the widgets on Element. But what 
exactly about Matrix is non-free? I thought you could implement how you 
want.

What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget? That is 
no different than patching Firefox to have Icecat if we go there. 
Although I wouldn't choose Element due to the license.

Can you send me a link where the Matrix people said that they don't 
want forward secrecy? Because I have read an issue that they want to 
upgrade their encryption to something better.

This is not about beauty or anything like that. It is about 
functionality and modern features that I have first hand experienced 
users caring about.

MSavoritias

On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 01:01, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) 
<neox@os-k.eu> wrote:
> Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is 
> not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not 
> always a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it 
> was evolutive and reliable.
> 
> The XSF point of view is different from the Matrix/Vector one : the 
> XSF is a non profit foundation, in the tracks of IETF. They made a 
> protocol in the hope that it will be useful and that's it. You can't 
> say the same for Vector.
> 
> We shouldn't have that discussion since the company behind the Matrix 
> protocol advocates for non free software, and open source when they 
> want to be popular.
> 
>>  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.
> 
> I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is developed by a 
> very small team, practically one person, and you conclude that this 
> app that evolves permanently has already shown all that could be 
> shown ? Excuse me, but at this time there is no client for Matrix as 
> functional as Conversations (since non free software usage or 
> advocacy is for me an anti-feature worst than "lack of stickers") and 
> XMPP server softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way more reliable 
> and powerful than Synapse (which is subject to overconsumption I 
> observed).
> 
> It is clear that you like Matrix very well, but your arguments are 
> wrong and subjective.
> 
>>  In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development 
>> outside > of Conversations.
> 
> I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and 
> devs of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and 
> are XSF members. There are many forks of both, and it provides 
> additionnal choices for people.
> 
> On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element. And 
> it advocates for non free software, especially Google one.
> 
>>  I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So maybe it 
>> finds some use there.
> 
> Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to him ? Everyone should care 
> about privacy, everyone should encrypt his communications. XMPP's 
> modern encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more secure than Olm/Megolm 
> (because it seems Vector thought that forward secrecy was an 
> anti-feature lol).
> 
> Do you think the FSF should advocate for that? With all the problems 
> that Vector has, it would be a treason for people who trust the FSF.
> 
> I can understand you like Element because it has stickers and it is 
> beautiful. This is the same with other software that are unethical 
> but beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity
> 
> Librement,
> 
> Le 1 août 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00, Denver Gingerich 
> <denver@ossguy.com <mailto:denver@ossguy.com>> a écrit :
>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
>>>     The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't 
>>> have good
>>>     clients for Mobile,
>> 
>> You mention this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations has 
>> "bad design".  Most people I know love the design of Conversations, 
>> so I have trouble seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP in 
>> some way.
>> 
>>>     doesn't have modern features
>> 
>> The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is "stickers".  I'm 
>> not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to have in a 
>> protocol they want to promote.  Are there other "modern features" 
>> that XMPP is missing?
>> 
>>>     or even a coherent standard.
>> 
>> As we've mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP.  If you 
>> want a client that supports the important standards, use Gajim or 
>> Conversations.
>> 
>>>     So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we 
>>> can
>>>     attract new contributors that may want modern features.
>> 
>> Per above, please tell us which "modern features" you mean.  Thanks!
>> 
>> Denver
>> <https://jmp.chat/>
>    Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and 
> is
>    not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not 
> always
>    a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it was
>    evolutive and reliable.
>    The XSF point of view is different from the Matrix/Vector one : 
> the XSF
>    is a non profit foundation, in the tracks of IETF. They made a 
> protocol
>    in the hope that it will be useful and that's it. You can't say the
>    same for Vector.
>    We shouldn't have that discussion since the company behind the 
> Matrix
>    protocol advocates for non free software, and open source when they
>    want to be popular.
>    > 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.
>    I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is developed by 
> a
>    very small team, practically one person, and you conclude that 
> this app
>    that evolves permanently has already shown all that could be shown 
> ?
>    Excuse me, but at this time there is no client for Matrix as 
> functional
>    as Conversations (since non free software usage or advocacy is for 
> me
>    an anti-feature worst than "lack of stickers") and XMPP server
>    softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way more reliable and 
> powerful
>    than Synapse (which is subject to overconsumption I observed).
>    It is clear that you like Matrix very well, but your arguments are
>    wrong and subjective.
>    > In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development
>    outside > of Conversations.
>    I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and 
> devs
>    of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are 
> XSF
>    members. There are many forks of both, and it provides additionnal
>    choices for people.
>    On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element. 
> And
>    it advocates for non free software, especially Google one.
>    > I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So maybe 
> it
>    finds some use there.
>    Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to him ? Everyone should care 
> about
>    privacy, everyone should encrypt his communications. XMPP's modern
>    encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more secure than Olm/Megolm 
> (because
>    it seems Vector thought that forward secrecy was an anti-feature 
> lol).
>    Do you think the FSF should advocate for that? With all the 
> problems
>    that Vector has, it would be a treason for people who trust the 
> FSF.
>    I can understand you like Element because it has stickers and it is
>    beautiful. This is the same with other software that are unethical 
> but
>    beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity
>    Librement,
> 
>    Le 1 août 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00, Denver Gingerich 
> <denver@ossguy.com <mailto:denver@ossguy.com>>
>    a écrit :
> 
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
> 
>      The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't have
>      good
>      clients for Mobile,
> 
>      You mention this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations 
> has
>      "bad design". Most people I know love the design of 
> Conversations,
>      so I have trouble seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP 
> in
>      some way.
> 
>      doesn't have modern features
> 
>      The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is "stickers". I'm
>      not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to have in a
>      protocol they want to promote. Are there other "modern features"
>      that XMPP is missing?
> 
>      or even a coherent standard.
> 
>      As we've mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP. If you
>      want a client that supports the important standards, use Gajim or
>      Conversations.
> 
>      So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we 
> can
>      attract new contributors that may want modern features.
> 
>      Per above, please tell us which "modern features" you mean. 
> Thanks!
>      Denver
>      [1]<https://jmp.chat/>
> 
> References
> 
>    1. <https://jmp.chat/>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 
> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
> <https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 10246 bytes --]

   Okay First of all I am going to say once more that I am not talking
   about Riot, Element or anything like that. I am talking about the
   protocol.
   Please read my messages.
   Second I see that you have some personal feelings about Vector. I don't
   know why but I respect that. Thus your opinion is subjective too.
   That doesnt negate my arguments that Matrix has more features and is a
   more coherent whole than XMPP.
   Third what  I know is that Olm is based on Signal encryption. If you
   say that Singnal encryption is not that good then I am afraid our
   conversation ends here because it is clear you don't know what you are
   talking about. That is not to say OMEMO is not good.
   I was talking about Android clients specifically not iOS. I have no
   desire to be locked in that garden.
   Also Element is functional. Like Conversations. Just like other clients
   like Fluffy Chat and Dillo.
   Also I am not talking about Synapse. There are other servers to choose
   from. And the higher usage comes at the cost of features which XMPP
   lacks. Personally I find that acceptable.
   When you are talking about the Matrix protocol when do they advocate
   for Non-Free Software? I know about the widgets on Element. But what
   exactly about Matrix is non-free? I thought you could implement how you
   want.
   What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget? That is
   no different than patching Firefox to have Icecat if we go there.
   Although I wouldn't choose Element due to the license.
   Can you send me a link where the Matrix people said that they don't
   want forward secrecy? Because I have read an issue that they want to
   upgrade their encryption to something better.
   This is not about beauty or anything like that. It is about
   functionality and modern features that I have first hand experienced
   users caring about.
   MSavoritias

   On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 01:01, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
   <neox@os-k.eu> wrote:

   Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is
   not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not always
   a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it was
   evolutive and reliable. The XSF point of view is different from the
   Matrix/Vector one : the XSF is a non profit foundation, in the tracks
   of IETF. They made a protocol in the hope that it will be useful and
   that's it. You can't say the same for Vector. We shouldn't have that
   discussion since the company behind the Matrix protocol advocates for
   non free software, and open source when they want to be popular.

     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.

   I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is developed by a
   very small team, practically one person, and you conclude that this app
   that evolves permanently has already shown all that could be shown ?
   Excuse me, but at this time there is no client for Matrix as functional
   as Conversations (since non free software usage or advocacy is for me
   an anti-feature worst than "lack of stickers") and XMPP server
   softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way more reliable and powerful
   than Synapse (which is subject to overconsumption I observed).  It is
   clear that you like Matrix very well, but your arguments are wrong and
   subjective.

     In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development
     outside > of Conversations.

   I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and devs
   of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are XSF
   members. There are many forks of both, and it provides additionnal
   choices for people. On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix
   client : Element. And it advocates for non free software, especially
   Google one.

     I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So maybe it
     finds some use there.

   Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to him ? Everyone should care about
   privacy, everyone should encrypt his communications. XMPP's modern
   encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more secure than Olm/Megolm (because
   it seems Vector thought that forward secrecy was an anti-feature lol).
   Do you think the FSF should advocate for that? With all the problems
   that Vector has, it would be a treason for people who trust the FSF. I
   can understand you like Element because it has stickers and it is
   beautiful. This is the same with other software that are unethical but
   beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity Librement, Le
   1 aot 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00, Denver Gingerich <[1]denver@ossguy.com>
   a crit :

     On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:

     The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't have
     good clients for Mobile,

     You mention this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations has
     "bad design". Most people I know love the design of Conversations,
     so I have trouble seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP in
     some way.

     doesn't have modern features

     The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is "stickers". I'm
     not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to have in a
     protocol they want to promote. Are there other "modern features"
     that XMPP is missing?

     or even a coherent standard.

     As we've mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP. If you
     want a client that supports the important standards, use Gajim or
     Conversations.

     So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we can
     attract new contributors that may want modern features.

     Per above, please tell us which "modern features" you mean. Thanks!
     Denver [2]https://jmp.chat/

   Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is
   not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not always
   a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it was
   evolutive and reliable. The XSF point of view is different from the
   Matrix/Vector one : the XSF is a non profit foundation, in the tracks
   of IETF. They made a protocol in the hope that it will be useful and
   that's it. You can't say the same for Vector. We shouldn't have that
   discussion since the company behind the Matrix protocol advocates for
   non free software, and open source when they want to be popular. > 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. I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is
   developed by a very small team, practically one person, and you
   conclude that this app that evolves permanently has already shown all
   that could be shown ? Excuse me, but at this time there is no client
   for Matrix as functional as Conversations (since non free software
   usage or advocacy is for me an anti-feature worst than "lack of
   stickers") and XMPP server softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way
   more reliable and powerful than Synapse (which is subject to
   overconsumption I observed). It is clear that you like Matrix very
   well, but your arguments are wrong and subjective. > In mobile at least
   there doesn't seem to be enough development outside > of Conversations.
   I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and devs
   of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are XSF
   members. There are many forks of both, and it provides additionnal
   choices for people. On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix
   client : Element. And it advocates for non free software, especially
   Google one. > I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So
   maybe it finds some use there. Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to
   him ? Everyone should care about privacy, everyone should encrypt his
   communications. XMPP's modern encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more
   secure than Olm/Megolm (because it seems Vector thought that forward
   secrecy was an anti-feature lol). Do you think the FSF should advocate
   for that? With all the problems that Vector has, it would be a treason
   for people who trust the FSF. I can understand you like Element because
   it has stickers and it is beautiful. This is the same with other
   software that are unethical but beautiful. Free software is about
   freedom, not popularity Librement, Le 1 aot 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00,
   Denver Gingerich <[3]denver@ossguy.com> a crit : On Sat, Aug 01, 2020
   at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote: The second point I was trying
   to raise is that XMPP doesn't have good clients for Mobile, You mention
   this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations has "bad design".
   Most people I know love the design of Conversations, so I have trouble
   seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP in some way. doesn't have
   modern features The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is
   "stickers". I'm not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to
   have in a protocol they want to promote. Are there other "modern
   features" that XMPP is missing? or even a coherent standard. As we've
   mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP. If you want a client
   that supports the important standards, use Gajim or Conversations. So
   by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we can
   attract new contributors that may want modern features. Per above,
   please tell us which "modern features" you mean. Thanks! Denver
   [1][4]https://jmp.chat/ References 1. [5]https://jmp.chat/

   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [6]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [7]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   2. https://jmp.chat/
   3. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   4. https://jmp.chat/
   5. https://jmp.chat/
   6. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   7. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss