[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Matrix communication protocol.
|
From: |
Msavoritias |
|
Subject: |
Re: Matrix communication protocol. |
|
Date: |
Mon, 03 Aug 2020 23:45:11 +0200 |
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