With all my gripes with# Signal (centralized, non-federated, server-based, Electron-based desktop app), the fact that in my circle of contacts it's not longer the "pretty good solution we should be using" but the "pretty good solution we are using but looking for something better" is such a win.
I just wanted to stop for a second and appreciate that.
If we're talking about the need to move to something better than Signal, we are in a pretty decent place.
@rysiek Couldn't agree more .. it's still very sad to see so much potential essentially squandered 😞
@moritzheiber I wouldn't say it's squandered. It gave us a very good secure IM protocol -- double ratchet -- and tested it out in the field, in production, on millions of users. It showed that security *is* a feature users want. We should not forget about that.
Can it be better? Sure. But credit where credit's due!
@rysiek I think by opportunity I meant opening up the Signal network to servers that aren't maintained by a single entity .. and yes, obviously Signal has done a lot for the secure IM space (that's why I agreed with you in the first place 😊)
@moritzheiber well, I am not convinced that eventually moxie will not get convinced to open the server-side up too.
Hoping beyond hope, I guess.
This is great news!
I'm still at:
them "hey, we use Skype to communicate"
me "let's use something confidential enough for the sensitive information we have to exchange, I know signal"
The problem is, when anything as private as signal and decentralised comes along, I'll have to start it all over.
@ScriptFanix yes. That is what annoys me. But at least Signal is open, so one could create a multi-protocol client supporting Signal and (say) Briar, and Tox, and...
End to end encryption is not as easy as with signal. Also, the identification of contacts by phone numbers is (imo) the biggest advantage of signal. If you have someone's phone number, and they use signal, you're encrypted. Xmpp requires the exchange of additional information : xmpp address + key exchange for E2E encryption. Also, I tend to assume people don't have an xmpp account (Gmail accounts don't qualify)
Servers and clients not implementing the same set of XEPs means that basically you have unmanageable fragmentation within the network.
I would not be able to get people to use XMPP. Full stop.
IMHO XMPP could be really close to succeed but there are few things which would need to happen: (1) define a set of modern XEP's as mandatory for every XMPP server. (2) have a "official" public server with a nice web interface like movim (similar to matrix.org and riot). (3) opt-in "address book" to map email addresses, phone numbers, etc to JID's. (4) A good iOS client.
@rysiek @phil @ScriptFanix
And most important, a fancy name for it because nobody will ever use something called "XMPP". ;) Conversations, both the client and the server offering shows what's possible. I still didn't gave up, that's why I still run my own XMPP server and I have to say it is one of the easier services I (tried) to run myself.
@rysiek I was searching their github for "federation" and "federate" but didn't see anything. do you know where they said they were working on that? I'm excited!
@wakest not sure, might have been in person at IFF.
@wakest shoot them an e-mail?
Please, do *not* write them an email. An issue or any public communication is preferable. Many people would like to see the official answers.
I can't find anything about them adding support for federation, care to send a link?
@pettter correct, sorry for being vague. I meant protocol and client.
@rysiek i think the better solution is matrix c: not ideal, but better
@rysiek it uses improved double ratchet, doesn't need an email or a phone number, has nice key distribution ux (dunno how it's implemented in signal). fully decentralized, but crypto and such are basic features of the protocol, not optional external xeps.
the only desktop client supporting encryption is electron though...
and it's convenient just like a usual messenger, has pushes and such
@rysiek Good for you. ;) Actually, so far I do have at least six different messengers on my phone, most of them to talk to two or three relevant persons, while the vast majority of contacts is still to be found in WhatsApp and totally reluctant / not seeing the need to even consider other solutions. Having even just 25% of my contacts in Signal would be a total win.
@z428 I'll admit I am a bit of a dick about not using WhatsApp, Telegram, Viber, and other crap like that. ;)
@rysiek Well I'd also be out of most of these channels but I recently experience there are a load of situations where this equals to being completely left out in certain situations where people who used SMS and e-mail before now got used to using WhatsApp before "everyone uses it". :|
@z428 sure thing. If I were to continue being a dick about using WhatsApp I would say you're de facto an enabler for them...
@pfm @rysiek Well you can see it both ways... ;) On Facebook, my circles aren't really "friends" (in a "real-world" understanding) but rather "communities" similar to mailing-lists in the late 1990s. In such a situation, one also might end up being a "dick" for leaving such a group just to make a personal, "egocentric" tool decision (choosing another tool) and, at that point, making that "egoistic" choice of tools more important than the relationship with those left behind. What's better? ;)
@pfm @rysiek Actually I had this dispute several times around here, too, with a larger group of (real-world) friends I'm trying to get off WhatsApp. Reasoning, all the time: "We all use it, to stay in touch with each other as well as with all of our other contacts. You are the only reason for us to even think about maybe finding another tool to talk to you. Why are you, as one person, trying to make things more complex for all of us?" I usually do have arguments for that, still it's difficult.
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!