Re: Matrix communication protocol.

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

[-- 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