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 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 >> >