Re: Matrix communication protocol.

[Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode)]

   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/

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature