Re: Matrix communication protocol.

["Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode)" <neox@os-k.eu>]

[-- 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