I hear regularly that people see / as a IRC client similar to IRCCloud but not as a independent messenger and protocol. This also has the effect sometimes, that they leave Matrix again as soon as IRC become less important for them. Bridges are great but sometimes I have the impression that it would help Matrix if they would talk less about the Bridges and more about the strength of Matrix as such. I'm the only one with this impression?

@bjoern Maybe, but the Matrix protocol is a mess, and they largely dropped the privacy aspect, so there's not a lot of uniqueness about it that's compelling other than the IRC bridge

@emacsen @bjoern Could you elaborate on where they dropped the privacy aspect?

@nycex @bjoern Earlier implementations had every conversation end-to-end end encrypted.

@emacsen @nycex @bjoern and they will be again, have you followed any of the progress?
Turns out E2E without good UI is a nightmare for users, so E2E is off by default until cross-signing of your devices is ready (it almost is)

@f0x @nycex @bjoern

> Turns out E2E without good UI is a nightmare for users

Poor UI design should never be confused with poor ideas.

Also the Matrix protocol itself has been such a mess that there are only a tiny number of implementations of it.

@emacsen @f0x @nycex @bjoern Hopefully the e2ee stuff will get fixed soon. It seems to me that Matrix was primarily written as an IRC replacement, with one-to-one messaging and its security being an afterthought. On the few occasions I've used one-to-one chat on Matrix it has been an unnecessarily laborious/buggy exercise compared to the same thing on XMPP.

@emacsen @nycex @bjoern it really hasn't. the spec is stable and well documented, it's just a lot of (complicated) things to implement. That's not the result of bad design, but as a means for the goals of a decentralized eventually consistent database

@f0x @emacsen @nycex @bjoern I plus this one, while it was criticized because it is kinda easy to make network DDOS one server, I think distributed consensus is a really hard problem and you got to only pick some things of CAP theorem. And this is all in addition to the Signal protocol which is not a simple thing at all (trust me, we analyze it a lot). I think taking time to get e2e right is a right decision.

@bjoern Maybe, but the Matrix protocol is a mess, and they largely dropped the privacy aspect, so there's not a lot of uniqueness about it that's compelling other than the IRC bridge

@bjoern You aren't wrong. Matrix can technically can do way more than chat, the big problem is not many develop anything for it more than chat.

Bridging in apub would probably help, but as it stands most of the work being done in the decentralized application sphere is really on apub at the moment.

@seven @bjoern It would be great if some of the #Matrix client app developers realized it was a mistake to write a new messaging protocol from the ground up and start helping out #XMPP client devs with their experiences instead.
XMPP server implementations (multiple) are fast, scalable and have well-maintained codebases. Unlike Matrix.
If they want their apps to have an impact and a chance to really make decentralized messaging more appealing, I think they should.

@stevenroose @seven @bjoern why not the contrary and xmpp devs help make matrix server much better or different servers etc.?

@blobyoumu @bjoern @seven Because the protocol itself is a big part of the problem. The XMPP protocol is better suited to deal with the challenges we have in decentralized messaging.

@stevenroose @bjoern @seven and yeah i think XMPP would benefit from more client devs. People around me often try out different clients and they all suck in one or another way.

@blobyoumu @bjoern IMO Conversations is very good. But it's Android only and lacks A/V. Other platforms are left behind with clients that lack features or are abandoned.

@stevenroose @bjoern why is it abandoned while it has such good server software and good protocol?

@stevenroose @seven @bjoern thanks for your opinion, but just because you don't like matrix, matrix is not a mistake. You calling it that is kinda toxic, so it'd be great if you would refrain from doing that in the future. Back at FOSDEM last year, matrix and xmpp had their stands next to each other and we all had productive discussions on what we can learn from each other, maybe try that next time?

@jcgruenhage @seven @bjoern Of cource I agree that constructive conversations are favorable over finger-pointing. And the Matrix protocol made some different design decisions than XMPP did. My point is that I think many client devs are not aware of those differences or don't feel strongly about them. They might just be working on the Matrix because of more short-term hype or an easier c2s interface.
They might not be aware the decentralized IM problem had already been solved 20 years before.

@stevenroose @seven @bjoern Matrix has a completely different decentralization model, one I think is way more useful than xmpp's "just deliver the message to a few other servers and that's it"

@f0x @seven @bjoern Isn't that exactly what instant messaging is supposed to do? What more do you care than that your contact is receiving your message?

@bjoern not on my side. girlfriends here dont using brindges

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!