From: "Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)" <neox@os-k.eu>
To: libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
Subject: Re: Matrix communication protocol.
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2020 01:01:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43ED4949-3E64-4D3F-A2D1-1628B9F61B22@os-k.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200801173456.GP25289@ossguy.com>
[-- 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-03 16:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-23 21:56 Matrix communication protocol Msavoritias
[not found] ` <87eep1bw5k.fsf@gmail.com>
2020-07-24 8:37 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-25 7:07 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-07-24 14:47 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-07-29 16:25 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 4:37 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-30 16:04 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 16:21 ` Ali Reza Hayati
2020-07-30 19:30 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-30 16:27 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-30 19:51 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-31 3:00 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-07-31 8:58 ` Msavoritias
2020-07-31 9:12 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-07-31 19:20 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on freenode)
2020-08-04 13:43 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-08-04 21:03 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 17:25 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 17:34 ` Denver Gingerich
2020-08-01 23:01 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) [this message]
2020-08-03 17:07 ` Jean Louis
2020-08-04 7:09 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-08-04 20:41 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-03 21:45 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-04 7:08 ` Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)
2020-08-04 20:52 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-01 23:35 ` Msavoritias
2020-08-04 13:07 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
2020-08-04 13:16 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira via libreplanet-discuss
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43ED4949-3E64-4D3F-A2D1-1628B9F61B22@os-k.eu \
--to=neox@os-k.eu \
--cc=libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).