From: "Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)" <neox@os-k.eu>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: Matrix communication protocol.
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 11:12:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2E654784-A437-418F-993D-8535D29922AF@os-k.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1596185910.1161.0@disroot.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4630 bytes --]
For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free software.
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
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 <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> 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 <denver@ossguy.com>
>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:
>>> <<https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html>> 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 <<https://matrix.org/clients/>> 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":
>>
>> <https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im>
>>
>> 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
>> <https://jmp.chat/>
>
[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 4732 bytes --]
For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free software.
[1]https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
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
<marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> 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 <denver@ossguy.com>
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]https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html>> 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]https://matrix.org/clients/>> 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]https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im>
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]https://jmp.chat/>
References
1. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
2. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
3. https://matrix.org/clients/
4. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
5. https://jmp.chat/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-31 16:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-23 21:56 Matrix communication protocol Msavoritias
[not found] ` <87eep1bw5k.fsf@gmail.com>
2020-07-24 8:37 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-25 7:07 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-07-24 14:47 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-07-29 16:25 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 4:37 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-30 16:04 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 16:21 ` Ali Reza Hayati
2020-07-30 19:30 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 16:27 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-30 19:51 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-31 3:00 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-31 8:58 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-31 9:12 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) [this message]
2020-07-31 19:20 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode)
2020-08-04 13:43 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-08-04 21:03 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 17:25 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 17:34 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-08-01 23:01 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-08-03 17:07 ` Jean Louis
2020-08-04 7:09 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-08-04 20:41 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-03 21:45 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-04 7:08 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-08-04 20:52 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 23:35 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-04 13:07 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-08-04 13:16 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=2E654784-A437-418F-993D-8535D29922AF@os-k.eu \
--to=neox@os-k.eu \
--cc=libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).