Matrix communication protocol.

Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1637 bytes --]

Hi,

I recently started to become involved in GNU and FSF by installing also 
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 
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.

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.
Also I noticed that it is in the roadmap for Guix to have all the 
Matrix packages in the repositories. Which a lot of them are already 
there.

The benefits to me are first its a modern protocol with a lot of 
features. I know not everybody will want all these features though so 
we can always set up an IRC bridge to talk with people on the gnu IRC 
server.
Second a lot of new users nowdays expect modern tooling and 
communication. I think integrating a Matrix server will be a great way 
to accomodate them. In a sense it will improve onboarding of new 
contributors. Granted we have a long way to go with that in my opinion, 
but Matrix is the first piece of the puzzle towards a bigger and more 
liveful FSF.
Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using 
Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody.

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?
Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary client.

MSavoritias


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

   Hi,
   I recently started to become involved in GNU and FSF by installing also
   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
   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.
   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.
   Also I noticed that it is in the roadmap for Guix to have all the
   Matrix packages in the repositories. Which a lot of them are already
   there.
   The benefits to me are first its a modern protocol with a lot of
   features. I know not everybody will want all these features though so
   we can al ways set up an IRC bridge to talk with people on the gnu IRC
   server.
   Second a lot of new users nowdays expect modern tooling and
   communication. I think integrating a Matrix server will be a great way
   to accomodate them. In a sense it will improve onboarding of new
   contributors. Granted we have a long way to go with that in my opinion,
   but Matrix is the first piece of the puzzle towards a bigger and more
   liveful FSF.
   Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using
   Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody.
   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?
   Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary
   client.
   MSavoritias

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1255 bytes --]

Hi,

That was my assumption too. Especially as there is a request for 
packaging riot in the Guix Libreplanet page.
 From what I have heard it is basically the non-free addons and the 
Google Captca that seems to be the problem.
The first is just a site that we don't have to connect or remove stuff 
from there.
The second one they are working towards replacing it and I think we 
could patch it and remove it if needed.

Regards
MSavoritias

On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 19:21, Jonathan Sandoval 
<cloudneozero@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Msavoritias writes:
> 
>>  Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using
>>  Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody.
>> 
>>  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?
>>  Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary 
>> client.
>> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was curious about you saying that Riot is not free software. I just
> checked their repository in github and it uses the Apache License. I'm
> working as a consultor for a company that it's building its product
> using Matrix (synaps) and Riot, and I though both of them were free 
> (as
> in freedom) software with a permissive license.
> --


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1268 bytes --]

   Hi,
   That was my assumption too. Especially as there is a request for
   packaging riot in the Guix Libreplanet page.
   From what I have heard it is basically the non-free addons and the
   Google Captca that seems to be the problem.
   The first is just a site that we don't have to connect or remove stuff
   from there.
   The second one they are working towards replacing it and I think we
   could patch it and remove it if needed.
   Regards
   MSavoritias

   On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 19:21, Jonathan Sandoval
   <cloudneozero@gmail.com> wrote:

   Msavoritias writes:

     Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using
     Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody. 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? Disclaimer: I am NOT saying
     to use Riot or any other proprietary client.

   Hi, I was curious about you saying that Riot is not free software. I
   just checked their repository in github and it uses the Apache License.
   I'm working as a consultor for a company that it's building its product
   using Matrix (synaps) and Riot, and I though both of them were free (as
   in freedom) software with a permissive license. --

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1532 bytes --]

Hi,

I can add that riot for desktop is built on top of Electron, which is non free.

Librement,

Le 24 juillet 2020 10:37:14 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>That was my assumption too. Especially as there is a request for 
>packaging riot in the Guix Libreplanet page.
> From what I have heard it is basically the non-free addons and the 
>Google Captca that seems to be the problem.
>The first is just a site that we don't have to connect or remove stuff 
>from there.
>The second one they are working towards replacing it and I think we 
>could patch it and remove it if needed.
>
>Regards
>MSavoritias
>
>On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 19:21, Jonathan Sandoval 
><cloudneozero@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Msavoritias writes:
>> 
>>>  Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using
>>>  Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody.
>>> 
>>>  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?
>>>  Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary 
>>> client.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was curious about you saying that Riot is not free software. I just
>> checked their repository in github and it uses the Apache License. I'm
>> working as a consultor for a company that it's building its product
>> using Matrix (synaps) and Riot, and I though both of them were free 
>> (as
>> in freedom) software with a permissive license.
>> --
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --]

   Hi,
   I can add that riot for desktop is built on top of Electron, which is
   non free.
   Librement,

   Le 24 juillet 2020 10:37:14 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias
   <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a écrit :

Hi,
That was my assumption too. Especially as there is a request for
packaging riot in the Guix Libreplanet page.
 From what I have heard it is basically the non-free addons and the
Google Captca that seems to be the problem.
The first is just a site that we don't have to connect or remove stuff
from there.
The second one they are working towards replacing it and I think we
could patch it and remove it if needed.
Regards
MSavoritias
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 19:21, Jonathan Sandoval
<cloudneozero@gmail.com> wrote:

     Msavoritias writes:

     Also I think having a bunch of semi-official channel using
     Non-FreeSoftware like Riot does't help anybody.
     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?
     Disclaimer: I am NOT saying to use Riot or any other proprietary
     client.

     Hi,
     I was curious about you saying that Riot is not free software. I
     just
     checked their repository in github and it uses the Apache License.
     I'm
     working as a consultor for a company that it's building its product
     using Matrix (synaps) and Riot, and I though both of them were free
     (as
     in freedom) software with a permissive license.
     --

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5980 bytes --]

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.

>    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.

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].

>    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.

>    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.


# References


[1]:
<https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2017/conference/0-keynote.webm>,
under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, according to
<https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/>.


-- 
* Ativista do software livre
	* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
	* 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


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7995 bytes --]



On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via 
libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> 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]:
> <<https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2017/conference/0-keynote.webm>>,
> under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, according to
> <<https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/>>.
> 
> 
> --
> * Ativista do software livre
> 	* <https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno>
> 	* 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 
> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
> <https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 8024 bytes --]

   On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
   libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> 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]:
   <[1]https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2017/conference/0-keynote.web
   m>, under CC-BY-SA-3.0-US, according to
   <[2]https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/>.
   --
   * Ativista do software livre *
   [3]https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * 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 [4]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [5]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://downloads.softwarefreedom.org/2017/conference/0-keynote.webm
   2. https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/video/
   3. https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
   4. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   5. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Denver Gingerich]

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
>    On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
>    libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
> 
>    Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56,
>    Msavoritias escreveu:
>
>      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.

Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try?  And which clients did you try?

I believe there should be better resources to allow people to more easily find the best XMPP clients - I'm trying to do my part with the recommendations at https://jmp.chat/#clients (for the free software service I run).  In short, use Gajim or Conversations.  If you want fancy design but less features, then Dino.

Hopefully we can make these recommendations more widely-known so that people don't give up on XMPP.  It's an excellent protocol and is very easy to use and featureful if you have the right client.

Denver
https://jmp.chat/

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2596 bytes --]

Dino is not available for Android it seems though. On desktop there are 
choices.
I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and Fdroid 
but couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or otherwise.
I understand that tech people don't care about UI/UX but we need some 
nice looking clients.
Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech 
people.
IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been popular 
by now.
And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to message 
my self.
Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free 
Software (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by the 
wider community. Also the clients seem to decently designed.
I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free Software 
users, like it or not we need a good presentation with good interface. 
otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity.
No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.

MSavoritias

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:37, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com> 
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
>>     On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
>>     libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 
>> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>     Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56,
>>     Msavoritias escreveu:
>> 
>>       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.
> 
> Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try?  And which 
> clients did you try?
> 
> I believe there should be better resources to allow people to more 
> easily find the best XMPP clients - I'm trying to do my part with the 
> recommendations at <https://jmp.chat/#clients> (for the free software 
> service I run).  In short, use Gajim or Conversations.  If you want 
> fancy design but less features, then Dino.
> 
> Hopefully we can make these recommendations more widely-known so that 
> people don't give up on XMPP.  It's an excellent protocol and is very 
> easy to use and featureful if you have the right client.
> 
> Denver
> <https://jmp.chat/>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 2647 bytes --]

   Dino is not available for Android it seems though. On desktop there are
   choices.
   I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and Fdroid
   but couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or otherwise.
   I understand that tech people don't care about UI/UX but we need some
   nice looking clients.
   Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech
   people.
   IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been popular
   by now.
   And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to message
   my self.
   Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free
   Software (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by the
   wider community. Also the clients seem to decently designed.
   I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free Software
   users, like it or not we need a good presentation with good interface.
   otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity.
   No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.
   MSavoritias

   On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:37, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com>
   wrote:

   On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:

     On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
     libreplanet-discuss <[1]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
     Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56,
     Msavoritias escreveu: 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.

   Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try? And which
   clients did you try? I believe there should be better resources to
   allow people to more easily find the best XMPP clients - I'm trying to
   do my part with the recommendations at [2]https://jmp.chat/#clients
   (for the free software service I run). In short, use Gajim or
   Conversations. If you want fancy design but less features, then Dino.
   Hopefully we can make these recommendations more widely-known so that
   people don't give up on XMPP. It's an excellent protocol and is very
   easy to use and featureful if you have the right client. Denver
   [3]https://jmp.chat/

References

   1. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   2. https://jmp.chat/#clients
   3. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Ali Reza Hayati]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3389 bytes --]

If you ever considered using Riot (newly renamed to Element), please
note that Riot/Element has Electron and Electron is considered nonfree.

Electron has Chromium in it but it doesn't include all licenses of
Chromium so it's a violation of software freedom.

On 7/30/20 8:34 PM, Msavoritias wrote:
>    Dino is not available for Android it seems though. On desktop there are
>    choices.
>    I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and Fdroid
>    but couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or otherwise.
>    I understand that tech people don't care about UI/UX but we need some
>    nice looking clients.
>    Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech
>    people.
>    IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been popular
>    by now.
>    And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to message
>    my self.
>    Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free
>    Software (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by the
>    wider community. Also the clients seem to decently designed.
>    I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free Software
>    users, like it or not we need a good presentation with good interface.
>    otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity.
>    No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.
>    MSavoritias
> 
>    On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:37, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>    On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
> 
>      On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
>      libreplanet-discuss <[1]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
>      Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56,
>      Msavoritias escreveu: 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.
> 
>    Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try? And which
>    clients did you try? I believe there should be better resources to
>    allow people to more easily find the best XMPP clients - I'm trying to
>    do my part with the recommendations at [2]https://jmp.chat/#clients
>    (for the free software service I run). In short, use Gajim or
>    Conversations. If you want fancy design but less features, then Dino.
>    Hopefully we can make these recommendations more widely-known so that
>    people don't give up on XMPP. It's an excellent protocol and is very
>    easy to use and featureful if you have the right client. Denver
>    [3]https://jmp.chat/
> 
> References
> 
>    1. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
>    2. https://jmp.chat/#clients
>    3. https://jmp.chat/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 

-- 
Ali Reza Hayati <hayati@riseup.net>
www.alirezahayati.com


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4142 bytes --]

I am well aware. Personally I rejected it because its not Copyleft.

MSavoritias

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 20:51, Ali Reza Hayati <hayati@riseup.net> 
wrote:
> If you ever considered using Riot (newly renamed to Element), please
> note that Riot/Element has Electron and Electron is considered 
> nonfree.
> 
> Electron has Chromium in it but it doesn't include all licenses of
> Chromium so it's a violation of software freedom.
> 
> On 7/30/20 8:34 PM, Msavoritias wrote:
>>     Dino is not available for Android it seems though. On desktop 
>> there are
>>     choices.
>>     I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and 
>> Fdroid
>>     but couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or 
>> otherwise.
>>     I understand that tech people don't care about UI/UX but we need 
>> some
>>     nice looking clients.
>>     Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for 
>> non-tech
>>     people.
>>     IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been 
>> popular
>>     by now.
>>     And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to 
>> message
>>     my self.
>>     Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free
>>     Software (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by 
>> the
>>     wider community. Also the clients seem to decently designed.
>>     I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free 
>> Software
>>     users, like it or not we need a good presentation with good 
>> interface.
>>     otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity.
>>     No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.
>>     MSavoritias
>> 
>>     On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:37, Denver Gingerich 
>> <denver@ossguy.com <mailto:denver@ossguy.com>>
>>     wrote:
>> 
>>     On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
>> 
>>       On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
>>       libreplanet-discuss <[1]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 
>> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>> wrote:
>>       Note: I don't speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56,
>>       Msavoritias escreveu: 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.
>> 
>>     Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try? And 
>> which
>>     clients did you try? I believe there should be better resources 
>> to
>>     allow people to more easily find the best XMPP clients - I'm 
>> trying to
>>     do my part with the recommendations at 
>> [2]<https://jmp.chat/#clients>
>>     (for the free software service I run). In short, use Gajim or
>>     Conversations. If you want fancy design but less features, then 
>> Dino.
>>     Hopefully we can make these recommendations more widely-known so 
>> that
>>     people don't give up on XMPP. It's an excellent protocol and is 
>> very
>>     easy to use and featureful if you have the right client. Denver
>>     [3]<https://jmp.chat/>
>> 
>>  References
>> 
>>     1. <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
>>     2. <https://jmp.chat/#clients>
>>     3. <https://jmp.chat/>
>> 
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  libreplanet-discuss mailing list
>>  libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 
>> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
>>  <https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss>
>> 
> 
> --
> Ali Reza Hayati <hayati@riseup.net <mailto:hayati@riseup.net>>
> www.alirezahayati.com <http://www.alirezahayati.com/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 4239 bytes --]

   I am well aware. Personally I rejected it because its not Copyleft.
   MSavoritias

   On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 20:51, Ali Reza Hayati <hayati@riseup.net>
   wrote:

   If you ever considered using Riot (newly renamed to Element), please
   note that Riot/Element has Electron and Electron is considered nonfree.
   Electron has Chromium in it but it doesn't include all licenses of
   Chromium so it's a violation of software freedom. On 7/30/20 8:34 PM,
   Msavoritias wrote:

     Dino is not available for Android it seems though. On desktop there
     are choices. I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google
     play and Fdroid but couldn't find one with acceptable design.
     Proprietary or otherwise. I understand that tech people don't care
     about UI/UX but we need some nice looking clients. Plus I have seen
     that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech people. IRC and
     XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been popular by
     now. And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to
     message my self. Matrix is the only protocol that is actively
     developed, is Free Software (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have
     a consensus by the wider community. Also the clients seem to
     decently designed. I'm saying all this because if we want to attract
     more Free Software users, like it or not we need a good presentation
     with good interface. otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity. No,
     Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.
     MSavoritias On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:37, Denver Gingerich
     <[1]denver@ossguy.com> wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 06:25:36PM
     +0200, Msavoritias wrote: On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:47, Adonay
     Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
     <[1][2]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote: Note: I don't
     speak for FSF, nor for GNU. Em 23/07/2020 18:56, Msavoritias
     escreveu: 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. Where did you go to determine which XMPP clients to try? And
     which clients did you try? I believe there should be better
     resources to allow people to more easily find the best XMPP clients
     - I'm trying to do my part with the recommendations at
     [2][3]https://jmp.chat/#clients (for the free software service I
     run). In short, use Gajim or Conversations. If you want fancy design
     but less features, then Dino. Hopefully we can make these
     recommendations more widely-known so that people don't give up on
     XMPP. It's an excellent protocol and is very easy to use and
     featureful if you have the right client. Denver
     [3][4]https://jmp.chat/ References 1.
     [5]mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 2.
     [6]https://jmp.chat/#clients 3. [7]https://jmp.chat/
     _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
     mailing list [8]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     [9]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discus
     s

   --
   Ali Reza Hayati <[10]hayati@riseup.net> [11]www.alirezahayati.com

   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [12]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [13]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   2. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   3. https://jmp.chat/#clients
   4. https://jmp.chat/
   5. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   6. https://jmp.chat/#clients
   7. https://jmp.chat/
   8. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   9. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
  10. mailto:hayati@riseup.net
  11. http://www.alirezahayati.com/
  12. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  13. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Denver Gingerich]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
> I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and Fdroid but
> couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or otherwise.

What is wrong with Conversations?

https://f-droid.org/app/eu.siacs.conversations
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.siacs.conversations

> Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech people.
> IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been popular by
> now.
> And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to message my
> self.
> Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free Software
> (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by the wider community.

XMPP is also actively developed and has many free software implementations (including some that are AGPLv3, like https://jmp.chat/ ).

If you want/need a gratis account that supports all the important features, see https://dismail.de/register.html .

> Also the clients seem to decently designed.

See above - is there something Conversations is missing versus the Matrix client(s) for Android?

> I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free Software users,
> like it or not we need a good presentation with good interface. otherwise we
> risk to fall into obscurity.
> No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.

I definitely agree.  However, I think we need to look at which protocols are likely to stand the test of time.  Matrix is very new, and the server implementation(s?) is extremely resource-heavy.  XMPP has been around for over 20 years and has multiple lightweight server implementations.

Denver
https://jmp.chat/

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3549 bytes --]

Conversations is badly designed. I am talking from experience trying 
for people to adopt it.
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 checked. It does have some development. Which seems interesting 
considering the stagnation of clients for mobile.

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.

That''s true. It is still in heavy development. It does have though at 
least 4 server implementations that I know of. Some of them are 
lightweight. One of them by matrix.org themselves as a planeed rewrite 
for the slow current server.
Also bear in mind that the Goverment of France, and the Goverment of 
Germany along with some other providers. Also Kde and Gnome have moved 
there. Matrix is here to stay.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 16:27, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com> 
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:
>>  I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and 
>> Fdroid but
>>  couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or otherwise.
> 
> What is wrong with Conversations?
> 
> <https://f-droid.org/app/eu.siacs.conversations>
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.siacs.conversations>
> 
>>  Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech 
>> people.
>>  IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have been 
>> popular by
>>  now.
>>  And what good is a system if its not popular? I don't want to 
>> message my
>>  self.
>>  Matrix is the only protocol that is actively developed, is Free 
>> Software
>>  (although not AGPL-3), and seems to have a consensus by the wider 
>> community.
> 
> XMPP is also actively developed and has many free software 
> implementations (including some that are AGPLv3, like 
> <https://jmp.chat/> ).
> 
> If you want/need a gratis account that supports all the important 
> features, see <https://dismail.de/register.html> .
> 
>>  Also the clients seem to decently designed.
> 
> See above - is there something Conversations is missing versus the 
> Matrix client(s) for Android?
> 
>>  I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free 
>> Software users,
>>  like it or not we need a good presentation with good interface. 
>> otherwise we
>>  risk to fall into obscurity.
>>  No, Im not saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.
> 
> I definitely agree.  However, I think we need to look at which 
> protocols are likely to stand the test of time.  Matrix is very new, 
> and the server implementation(s?) is extremely resource-heavy.  XMPP 
> has been around for over 20 years and has multiple lightweight server 
> implementations.
> 
> Denver
> <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: 3957 bytes --]

   Conversations is badly designed. I am talking from experience trying
   for people to adopt it.
   Every other client listed on this
   page: [1]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 [2]https://matrix.org/clients/ has a lot of new
   clients with active development.
   I checked. It does have some development. Which seems interesting
   considering the stagnation of clients for mobile.
   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 be hind 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.
   That''s true. It is still in heavy development. It does have though at
   least 4 server implementations that I know of. Some of them are
   lightweight. One of them by matrix.org themselves as a planeed rewrite
   for the slow current server.
   Also bear in mind that the Goverment of France, and the Goverment of
   Germany along with some other providers. Also Kde and Gnome have moved
   there. Matrix is here to stay.

   On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 16:27, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com>
   wrote:

   On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 06:04:34PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote:

     I wanted a client for Android so i searched on Google play and
     Fdroid but couldn't find one with acceptable design. Proprietary or
     otherwise.

   What is wrong with Conversations?
   [3]https://f-droid.org/app/eu.siacs.conversations
   [4]https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.siacs.conversations

     Plus I have seen that there is a huge shift to Matrix for non-tech
     people. IRC and XMPP seem to stay into obscurity. XMPP would have
     been popular by now. And what good is a system if its not popular? I
     don't want to message my self. Matrix is the only protocol that is
     actively developed, is Free Software (although not AGPL-3), and
     seems to have a consensus by the wider community.

   XMPP is also actively developed and has many free software
   implementations (including some that are AGPLv3, like
   [5]https://jmp.chat/ ). If you want/need a gratis account that supports
   all the important features, see [6]https://dismail.de/register.html .

     Also the clients seem to decently designed.

   See above - is there something Conversations is missing versus the
   Matrix client(s) for Android?

     I'm saying all this because if we want to attract more Free Software
     users, like it or not we need a good presentation with good
     interface. otherwise we risk to fall into obscurity. No, Im not
     saying to use proprietary messaging to attract users.

   I definitely agree. However, I think we need to look at which protocols
   are likely to stand the test of time. Matrix is very new, and the
   server implementation(s?) is extremely resource-heavy. XMPP has been
   around for over 20 years and has multiple lightweight server
   implementations. Denver [7]https://jmp.chat/
   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [8]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [9]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
   2. https://matrix.org/clients/
   3. https://f-droid.org/app/eu.siacs.conversations
   4. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.siacs.conversations
   5. https://jmp.chat/
   6. https://dismail.de/register.html
   7. https://jmp.chat/
   8. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   9. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Denver Gingerich]

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/

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3707 bytes --]

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: 3892 bytes --]

   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 o utside
   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 09:51:4 3PM +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:
     <[1]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
     <[2]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": [3]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
   [4]https://jmp.chat/

References

   1. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
   2. https://matrix.org/clients/
   3. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
   4. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

[-- 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7942 bytes --]

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

On 31/07/2020 11:12, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) wrote:
>    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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> libreplanet-discuss mailing list
> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #1.1.1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 8340 bytes --]

   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

   On 31/07/2020 11:12, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) wrote:

   For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free software.
   [1][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
   [2]<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 [3]<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][4]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][5]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][6]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][7]https://jmp.chat/>

References

   1. [8]https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
   2. [9]https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
   3. [10]https://matrix.org/clients/
   4. [11]https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
   5. [12]https://jmp.chat/


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

References

   1. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
   2. mailto:marinus.savoritias@disroot.org
   3. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   4. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
   5. https://matrix.org/clients/
   6. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
   7. https://jmp.chat/
   8. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
   9. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
  10. https://matrix.org/clients/
  11. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
  12. https://jmp.chat/
  13. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  14. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3071 bytes --]

Em 31/07/2020 16:20, Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode) escreveu:
>    Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is

Interesting, I wonder if there are references to that.

>    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.

Good point. On a not so similar subject, this seems to align with the
arguments presented by Software Freedom Conservancy (SFConservancy) in
regards to copyleft enforcement (almost all of their talks, including
the recorded ones, present this "who best enforces copyleft?" paradigm,
and all results in either individual copyright holders or these signing
their contributions to one of FSF-and-sisters, SFConservancy or Software
Freedom Law Center, and avoiding non-disclosure agreements, trade
secrets and contributor license agreements).

>    of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are XSF
>    members. There are many forks of both, and it provides additionnal

Indeed, in open standards, people and projects being members of the
standards committees/workgroups is a very important thing, specially if
many are in favor of free/libre software or if the group itself has that
commitment or is a non-profit, preferably a charity.

>    On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element. And
>    it advocates for non free software, especially Google one.

The references in my previous replies to this topic also agree with you. :)

>    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).

That is scary indeed.

>    beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity

And with this I contribute referencing to [1].


# References


[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html .


-- 
* Ativista do software livre
	* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
	* 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


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4645 bytes --]

My only issues is not the two that you mention. We have also:

1. No coherent Standard so everybody can have the same features.
2. Not a lot of Clients.
3. Not a lot of Clients that look decent.
4. No communities.
5. No threading.
6. No Voice rooms like Discord.

These are just some of the problems that I have. As I explained above 
Matrix is for groups mostly. And it is much more welcoming to newcomers 
than IRC or XMPP. or even Mailing lists for that matter.

Well FSF has Wire as a high priority project. WHich is a straight for 
Profit Company unlike Matrix.
Also I didn't know FSF was against companies. Their latest article is 
that being FLOSS doesn't mean no Companies.

<https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:High_Priority_Projects>

But you can already get involved in Matrix and developing the Spec. 
Isn't that what you mean?

Well the IRC that we currently using has not encryption. So what 
exactly are comparing here?

MSavoritias

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:43, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via 
libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:
> Em 31/07/2020 16:20, Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode) escreveu:
>>     Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) 
>> and is
> 
> Interesting, I wonder if there are references to that.
> 
>>     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.
> 
> Good point. On a not so similar subject, this seems to align with the
> arguments presented by Software Freedom Conservancy (SFConservancy) in
> regards to copyleft enforcement (almost all of their talks, including
> the recorded ones, present this "who best enforces copyleft?" 
> paradigm,
> and all results in either individual copyright holders or these 
> signing
> their contributions to one of FSF-and-sisters, SFConservancy or 
> Software
> Freedom Law Center, and avoiding non-disclosure agreements, trade
> secrets and contributor license agreements).
> 
>>     of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and 
>> are XSF
>>     members. There are many forks of both, and it provides 
>> additionnal
> 
> Indeed, in open standards, people and projects being members of the
> standards committees/workgroups is a very important thing, specially 
> if
> many are in favor of free/libre software or if the group itself has 
> that
> commitment or is a non-profit, preferably a charity.
> 
>>     On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : 
>> Element. And
>>     it advocates for non free software, especially Google one.
> 
> The references in my previous replies to this topic also agree with 
> you. :)
> 
>>     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).
> 
> That is scary indeed.
> 
>>     beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity
> 
> And with this I contribute referencing to [1].
> 
> 
> # References
> 
> 
> [1]: 
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html> .
> 
> 
> --
> * Ativista do software livre
> 	* <https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno>
> 	* 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 
> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
> <https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 4714 bytes --]

   My only issues is not the two that you mention. We have also:
   1. No coherent Standard so everybody can have the same features.
   2. Not a lot of Clients.
   3. Not a lot of Clients that look decent.
   4. No communities.
   5. No threading.
   6. No Voice rooms like Discord.
   These are just some of the problems that I have. As I explained above
   Matrix is for groups mostly. And it is much more welcoming to newcomers
   than IRC or XMPP. or even Mailing lists for that matter.
   Well FSF has Wire as a high priority project. WHich is a straight for
   Profit Company unlike Matrix.
   Also I didn't know FSF was against companies. Their latest article is
   that being FLOSS doesn't mean no Companies.
   [1]https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:High_Priority_Projects
   But you can already get involved in Matrix and developing the Spec.
   Isn't that what you mean?
   Well the IRC that we currently using has not encryption. So what
   exactly are comparing here?
   MSavoritias

   On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:43, Adonay Felipe Nogueira via
   libreplanet-discuss <libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> wrote:

   Em 31/07/2020 16:20, Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode) escreveu:

     Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is

   Interesting, I wonder if there are references to that.

     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.

   Good point. On a not so similar subject, this seems to align with the
   arguments presented by Software Freedom Conservancy (SFConservancy) in
   regards to copyleft enforcement (almost all of their talks, including
   the recorded ones, present this "who best enforces copyleft?" paradigm,
   and all results in either individual copyright holders or these signing
   their contributions to one of FSF-and-sisters, SFConservancy or
   Software Freedom Law Center, and avoiding non-disclosure agreements,
   trade secrets and contributor license agreements).

     of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are
     XSF members. There are many forks of both, and it provides
     additionnal

   Indeed, in open standards, people and projects being members of the
   standards committees/workgroups is a very important thing, specially if
   many are in favor of free/libre software or if the group itself has
   that commitment or is a non-profit, preferably a charity.

     On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element.
     And it advocates for non free software, especially Google one.

   The references in my previous replies to this topic also agree with
   you. :)

     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).

   That is scary indeed.

     beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity

   And with this I contribute referencing to [1]. # References [1]:
   [2]https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html .
   --
   * Ativista do software livre *
   [3]https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno * Membro dos grupos
   avaliadores de * Software (Free Software Directory) * Distribuies de
   sistemas (FreedSoftware) * Sites (Free JavaScript Action Team) * No sou
   advogado e no fomento os no livres * Sempre veja o spam/lixo eletrnico
   do teu e-mail * Ou coloque todos os recebidos na caixa de entrada *
   Sempre assino e-mails com OpenPGP * Chave pblica: vide endereo anterior
   * Qualquer outro pode ser fraude * Se no tens OpenPGP, ignore o anexo
   "signature.asc" * Ao enviar anexos * Docs., planilhas e apresentaes:
   use OpenDocument * Outros tipos: vide endereo anterior * Use protocolos
   de comunicao federadas * Vide endereo anterior * Mensagens secretas
   somente via * XMPP com OMEMO * E-mail criptografado e assinado com
   OpenPGP

   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [4]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [5]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Collection:High_Priority_Projects
   2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
   3. https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
   4. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   5. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11678 bytes --]

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) 
<neox@os-k.eu> wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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/>>
>> 
>    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 
> <mailto: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 
> <mailto: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/>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 11608 bytes --]

   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)
   <neox@os-k.eu> wrote:

   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
   <[2]marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a crit :

     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 <[3]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:
     <<[4]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
     <<[5]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":
     <[6]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
     <[7]https://jmp.chat/>

   For instance, Conversations is in the FSD, as confirmed free software.
   [1][8]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
   <[9]marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a crit : 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 <[10]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][11]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][12]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][13]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][14]https://jmp.chat/> References 1.
   [15]https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im 2.
   [16]https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html 3.
   [17]https://matrix.org/clients/ 4.
   [18]https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im 5.
   [19]https://jmp.chat/

   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [20]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [21]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
   2. mailto:marinus.savoritias@disroot.org
   3. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   4. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
   5. https://matrix.org/clients/
   6. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
   7. https://jmp.chat/
   8. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
   9. mailto:marinus.savoritias@disroot.org
  10. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
  11. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
  12. https://matrix.org/clients/
  13. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
  14. https://jmp.chat/
  15. https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Conversations.im
  16. https://xmpp.org/software/clients.html
  17. https://matrix.org/clients/
  18. https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0423.html#im
  19. https://jmp.chat/
  20. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  21. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Denver Gingerich]

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/

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3791 bytes --]

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> 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/

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 3953 bytes --]

   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>
   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/

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 699 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Jean Louis]

Mostly I am in agreement with Adrien.

There is this review that I found, that you all may find it
interesting:
https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix

For me XMPP does so many things, we create business with XMPP, we have
all personnel within XMPP coordination, and we use our own servers and
domains, and XMPP work well in worst network conditions as by the
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda.

Most important it is free software in terms as in freedom, we are free
to distribute it, and we gain good communication, secure private
network line without spying from third unknown parties.

Jean

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

Thanks  for this link, this is clear !

Le 3 août 2020 19:07:34 GMT+02:00, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> a écrit :
>Mostly I am in agreement with Adrien.
>
>There is this review that I found, that you all may find it
>interesting:
>https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix
>
>For me XMPP does so many things, we create business with XMPP, we have
>all personnel within XMPP coordination, and we use our own servers and
>domains, and XMPP work well in worst network conditions as by the
>Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda.
>
>Most important it is free software in terms as in freedom, we are free
>to distribute it, and we gain good communication, secure private
>network line without spying from third unknown parties.
>
>Jean

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 782 bytes --]

   Thanks for this link, this is clear !

   Le 3 août 2020 19:07:34 GMT+02:00, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> a
   écrit :

Mostly I am in agreement with Adrien.
There is this review that I found, that you all may find it
interesting:
[1]https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix
For me XMPP does so many things, we create business with XMPP, we have
all personnel within XMPP coordination, and we use our own servers and
domains, and XMPP work well in worst network conditions as by the
Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda.
Most important it is free software in terms as in freedom, we are free
to distribute it, and we gain good communication, secure private
network line without spying from third unknown parties.
Jean

References

   1. https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2176 bytes --]

How is Matri not Free Software though? Apache-2 is Free Software by the 
FSF.

Also this review fails to mention how Matrix has been growing this year 
expotentially.
<https://www.hello-matrix.net/public_servers.php>
There are already a lot of servers and growing. Gnome and purism and 
Kde have their own instances outside of this too.

Also here is the list of at least 5 servers alternative to synapse.
<https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now>
Plus Matrix is working on p2p. So you won't need a server.
<https://matrix.org/blog/posts#dept-of-p2p->

Also the encryption has been through security audits:
<https://matrix.org/blog/2016/11/21/matrixs-olm-end-to-end-encryption-security-assessment-released-and-implemented-cross-platform-on-riot-at-last>
And they want to upgrade it:
<https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2458>

I'm not arguing that it is better than Omemo. But it is good encryption 
with future upgrades.

I really don't get about Matrix not being Free Software though. Gnu 
Specifically says Apache 2 is Free Software.
<https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2>

If you mean the integrations somehow, that are optional then I ahve 
some news for you about Firefox.

MSavoritias

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 20:07, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
> Mostly I am in agreement with Adrien.
> 
> There is this review that I found, that you all may find it
> interesting:
> <https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix>
> 
> For me XMPP does so many things, we create business with XMPP, we have
> all personnel within XMPP coordination, and we use our own servers and
> domains, and XMPP work well in worst network conditions as by the
> Bwindi Impenetrable Forest in Uganda.
> 
> Most important it is free software in terms as in freedom, we are free
> to distribute it, and we gain good communication, secure private
> network line without spying from third unknown parties.
> 
> Jean
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 2814 bytes --]

   How is Matri not Free Software though? Apache-2 is Free Software by the
   FSF.
   Also this review fails to mention how Matrix has been growing this year
   expotentially.
   [1]https://www.hello-matrix.net/public_servers.php
   There are already a lot of servers and growing. Gnome and purism and
   Kde have their own instances outside of this too.
   Also here is the list of at least 5 servers alternative to synapse.
   [2]https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now
   Plus Matrix is working on p2p. So you won't need a server.
   [3]https://matrix.org/blog/posts#dept-of-p2p-
   Also the encryption has been through security audits:
   [4]https://matrix.org/blog/2016/11/21/matrixs-olm-end-to-end-encryption
   -security-assessment-released-and-implemented-cross-platform-on-riot-at
   -last
   And they want to upgrade it:
   [5]https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2458
   I'm not arguing that it is better than Omemo. But it is good encryption
   with future upgrades.
   I really don't get about Matrix not being Free Software though. Gnu
   Specifically says Apache 2 is Free Software.
   [6]https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
   If you mean the integrations somehow, that are optional then I ahve
   some news for you about Firefox.
   MSavoritias
   < /div>
   On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 20:07, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:

   Mostly I am in agreement with Adrien. There is this review that I
   found, that you all may find it interesting:
   [7]https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix For me XMPP does so many
   things, we create business with XMPP, we have all personnel within XMPP
   coordination, and we use our own servers and domains, and XMPP work
   well in worst network conditions as by the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest
   in Uganda. Most important it is free software in terms as in freedom,
   we are free to distribute it, and we gain good communication, secure
   private network line without spying from third unknown parties. Jean
   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [8]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [9]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://www.hello-matrix.net/public_servers.php
   2. https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now
   3. https://matrix.org/blog/posts#dept-of-p2p-
   4. https://matrix.org/blog/2016/11/21/matrixs-olm-end-to-end-encryption-security-assessment-released-and-implemented-cross-platform-on-riot-at-last
   5. https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/2458
   6. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2
   7. https://wiki.404.city/en/XMPP_vs_Matrix
   8. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   9. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10662 bytes --]



Le 3 août 2020 23:45:11 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a écrit :
>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.

But you're telling us about XMPP on mobile. Have you a functionnal alternative to Conversations on Android that has the same features ?


>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.
OMEMO is based on Signal encryption, known as Axolotl, and is audited by experts (see https://conversations.im/omemo/). Then Olm and Megolm appeared, and Megolm is the most used in order to allow people to retrieve messages when changing their devices (so no forward secrecy). 
>
>Also Element is functional. Like Conversations. Just like other clients 
>like Fluffy Chat and Dillo.
Proprietary software is antifeature.


>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.
But Synapse is the most used.

>
>What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget?
Recatpcha, is a best example.

>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.
Which features are you talking 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: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 699 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13237 bytes --]

Like what features are you missing in other clients?

What do you mean Proprietary Software? Fluffy Chat is AGPL-3. Did you 
even search the clients I mentioned?
Element is Apache-2. This is all Free Software.

The encryption not being as good in Matrix it is known. And they are 
looking to upgrade it. See my previous message.
But aside from that I see Matrix more as a IRC and Discord and Slack 
alternative. For groups.

And what does it mean that Synapse is the most used now? Coversation is 
the most used Android Client.
Does that mean that XMPP is not an open protocol and is only for 
Conversations?

If you want to use Element they are open to changing the captca:
<https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/3606>
If you don't want to like me there is fluffy chat which AGPL-3 and not 
Catpca.

If you are talking about Desktop there are 6 clients to use one of them 
from Gnome.
Plus even three terminal ones and one Emacs client.

I have mentioned before the features:
First a lot of clients which XMPP lacks.
Second ease of use which XMPP lacks.
Third stickers, threads, communities and other modern features that 
people expect for groups from Discord and the likes.
Or Voice rooms even.

Keep in mind that all of these and more are planned for Matrix. If you 
go through their github issues.

MSavoritias

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 09:08, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) 
<neox@os-k.eu> wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 3 août 2020 23:45:11 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias 
> <marinus.savoritias@disroot.org 
> <mailto:marinus.savoritias@disroot.org>> a écrit :
>> 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.
> 
> But you're telling us about XMPP on mobile. Have you a functionnal 
> alternative to Conversations on Android that has the same features ?
> 
> 
>> 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.
> OMEMO is based on Signal encryption, known as Axolotl, and is audited 
> by experts (see <https://conversations.im/omemo/>). Then Olm and 
> Megolm appeared, and Megolm is the most used in order to allow people 
> to retrieve messages when changing their devices (so no forward 
> secrecy).
>> 
>> Also Element is functional. Like Conversations. Just like other 
>> clients
>> like Fluffy Chat and Dillo.
> Proprietary software is antifeature.
> 
> 
>> 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.
> But Synapse is the most used.
> 
>> 
>> What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget?
> Recatpcha, is a best example.
> 
>> 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.
> Which features are you talking about ???
> 
>> MSavoritias
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 01:01, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
>> <neox@os-k.eu <mailto: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> 
>>> <<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> 
>>> <<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>
>>>  <<mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>>
>>>  
>>> <<https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss>>
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 12495 bytes --]

   Like what features are you missing in other clients?
   What do you mean Proprietary Software? Fluffy Chat is AGPL-3. Did you
   even search the clients I mentioned?
   Element is Apache-2. This is all Free Software.
   The encryption not being as good in Matrix it is known. And they are
   looking to upgrade it. See my previous message.
   But aside from that I see Matrix more as a IRC and Discord and Slack
   alternative. For groups.
   And what does it mean that Synapse is the most used now? Coversation is
   the most used Android Client.
   Does that mean that XMPP is not an open protocol and is only for
   Conversations?
   If you want to use Element they are open to changing the captca:
   [1]https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/3606
   If you don't want to like me there is fluffy chat which AGPL-3 and not
   Catpca.
   If you are talking about Desktop there are 6 clients to use one of them
   from Gnome.
   Plus even three terminal ones and one Emacs client.
   I have mentioned before the features:
   First a lot of clients which XMPP lacks.
   Second ease of use which XMPP lacks.
   Third stickers, threads, communities and other modern features that
   people expect for groups from Discord and the likes.
   Or Voice rooms even.
   Keep in mind that all of these and more are planned for Matrix. If you
   go through their github issues.
   MSavoritias

   On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 09:08, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
   <neox@os-k.eu> wrote:

   Le 3 aot 2020 23:45:11 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias
   <[2]marinus.savoritias@disroot.org> a crit :

     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.

   But you're telling us about XMPP on mobile. Have you a functionnal
   alternative to Conversations on Android that has the same features ?

     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.

   OMEMO is based on Signal encryption, known as Axolotl, and is audited
   by experts (see [3]https://conversations.im/omemo/). Then Olm and
   Megolm appeared, and Megolm is the most used in order to allow people
   to retrieve messages when changing their devices (so no forward
   secrecy).

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

   Proprietary software is antifeature.

     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.

   But Synapse is the most used.

     What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget?

   Recatpcha, is a best example.

     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.

   Which features are you talking about ???

     MSavoritias On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 01:01, Adrien Bourmault (neox on
     Freenode) <[4]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 <[5]denver@ossguy.com
     <[6]mailto: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 <[7]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 <[8]denver@ossguy.com
     <[9]mailto: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]<[10]https://jmp.chat/> References 1. <[11]https://jmp.chat/>
     _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
     mailing list [12]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
     <[13]mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org>
     <[14]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-disc
     uss>

   _______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss
   mailing list [15]libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
   [16]https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

References

   1. https://github.com/vector-im/element-web/issues/3606
   2. mailto:marinus.savoritias@disroot.org
   3. https://conversations.im/omemo/
   4. mailto:neox@os-k.eu
   5. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   6. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   7. https://jmp.chat/
   8. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
   9. mailto:denver@ossguy.com
  10. https://jmp.chat/
  11. https://jmp.chat/
  12. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  13. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  14. https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
  15. mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
  16. 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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Msavoritias]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2806 bytes --]

If I download three clients in Android I will find three different 
feature sets. And then I have to pick the right server with the right 
extensions. Its all a big puzzle. That is not very coherent.

The modern features I said as above can be stickers, gifs, communities 
or Discord servers if you will. There are a lot such features.
Now I understand that XMPP may support these in some extension 
somewhere. But the point is that I need to have the right combination 
of an app and the server to get this feature.

About the design I guess we have different circles. I like IRC and 
terminal too. Doesn't mean that new users will like them and I should 
recomend it for them.

Look, the whole point of this anyway was a suggestion for the FSF to 
add a Matrix server so new users can patricipate somewhere that fills 
modern and they can easily grasp. It's not about XMPP vs Matrix. That 
can be an endless debate like IRC vs XMPP. Email vs Gittea or something.

As I have said I downloaded all the XMPP apps that i could find xmpp 
site or otherwise. The only one that had the necesserary features was 
Conversations. And that one has a bad UI. That doesn't look like a 
standard to me, if I have to use Conversations only. On Matrix I can 
easily on the top of my head tell you at least 3 that are in active 
development. Two of them Copyleft.

As it stands now I will continue to have the Free Software rooms in 
Matrix and patricipate there. Any new user that is interested also I 
will suggest them to divert there. I don't want to scare them by 
showing IRC or some random XMPP server.

MSavoritias

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 17:34, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com> 
wrote:
> 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/>


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/plain, Size: 2867 bytes --]

   If I download three clients in Android I will find three different
   feature sets. And then I have to pick the right server with the right
   extensions. Its all a big puzzle. That is not very coherent.
   The modern features I said as above can be stickers, gifs, communities
   or Discord servers if you will. There are a lot such features.
   Now I understand that XMPP may support these in some extension
   somewhere. But the point is that I need to have the right combination
   of an app and the server to get this feature.
   About the design I guess we have different circles. I like IRC and
   terminal too. Doesn't mean that new users will like them and I should
   recomend it for them.
   Look, the whole point of this anyway was a suggestion for the FSF to
   add a Matrix server so new users can patricipate somewhere that fills
   modern and they can easily grasp. It's not about XMPP vs Matrix. T hat
   can be an endless debate like IRC vs XMPP. Email vs Gittea or
   something.
   As I have said I downloaded all the XMPP apps that i could find xmpp
   site or otherwise. The only one that had the necesserary features was
   Conversations. And that one has a bad UI. That doesn't look like a
   standard to me, if I have to use Conversations only. On Matrix I can
   easily on the top of my head tell you at least 3 that are in active
   development. Two of them Copyleft.
   As it stands now I will continue to have the Free Software rooms in
   Matrix and patricipate there. Any new user that is interested also I
   will suggest them to divert there. I don't want to scare them by
   showing IRC or some random XMPP server.
   MSavoritias

   On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 17:34, Denver Gingerich <denver@ossguy.com>
   wrote:

   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/

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2563 bytes --]

Note: forgive me for double-posting, but people involved in this
conversation already did it and I lost track of who and don't know if
you all are subscribed to the list or not.

Em 31/07/2020 05:58, Msavoritias escreveu:
> 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

From the messages so far I can see that "missing features" that
Msavoritias mentioned so far are the ones described in the sections to
follow. However, if there is something else missing, please describe it.


# [ ] Sticker XEP/standard


For this I request that all parties interested contribute to [1] so that
it either becomes a XEP or is implemented using existing ones like what
is described in the issue's comments.


# [?] Widget implementations


If what Msavoritias refers to is a persistent notification showing how
many of your accounts are connected then go to Conversations
(eu.siacs.conversations), "Settings", under "Advanced" check
"Active/enable service".

However, if Msavoritias means any widget that stays in the
"desktop"/"start area" of the phone's screen, that depends on what
Msavoritias wants the widget to do, since no mobile operating systems
standardizes what types of widgets must be supported. In this sense,
Conversations (again, eu.siacs.conversations) has a 1 * 1 widget that
you can associate a contact to and it will behave as a shortcut to talk
to that address provided you are connected and have that person in the
contact list inside the XMPP account with which you are connected.


# References


[1] https://github.com/Gargron/xmpp-web/issues/3 .


-- 
* Ativista do software livre
	* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
	* 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




[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

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

Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

Note: sorry for double-posting, please tell me if you are subscribed to
the list.

Em 30/07/2020 01:37, Denver Gingerich escreveu:
the best XMPP clients - I'm trying to do my part with the
recommendations at https://jmp.chat/#clients (for the free software
service I run).  In short, use Gajim or Conversations.  If you want
fancy design but less features, then Dino.

Great work on fostering JMP.chat, I also make a similar recommendation
(also citing JMP.chat) in [1].


# References


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/XMPP . This is also a community wiki,
so anyone involved in free/libre software activism can contribute.


-- 
* Ativista do software livre
	* https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
	* 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


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]

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

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