Earlier quoted context omitted.
HTTP is used for far more than just browsers. how broad is the current adoption of HTTP 2.0? Will there ever be a time when all HTTP clients, servers, proxies, etc will have upgraded to 2.0 - clearly that's never going to happen in the foreseeable future so we're stuck in a mishmash of supporting HTTP 1.x and HTTP 2.x clients and server software indefinitely - similar to XMPP extensions the article refers to. It's ob…
What's more, HTTP's recent movement is arguably only because the web experience has centralized so much around Google. Google already had the top two most popular websites in the world, so once Google Chrome also became the most popular web client, it was easy for them to develop a new communication protocol of their own, which everyone else has more or less begrudgingly agreed to call HTTP/2 and start deploying as w…
Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
81–90 of 103 posts
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#82Are we super sure about this premise: a vendor builds a centralized solution on top of (or evolved from) a federated protocol in order to be able to adapt with speed to a moving environment? For instance, I am not so sure that is the reason Whatsapp built a custom XMPP. I am more inclined to think that decentralized-anything is basically impossible to monetize so companies thinking for-profit will always chose the ce…
I'm writing from the perspective of Signal, which is not a business, so it's definitely not about monetizing users for us.
After reading your comments on the LibreSignal tracker, my impression was that you are very much writing with your business hat on, as you are framing alternative clients as "products" and trying to protect the Signal brand, as well as preventing third-party clients from using your service - all typical business moves.
I can see how federation breaks the phone-number-based identity and discoverability, so I accept your position in that regard.
However, opening up the service to community-developed clients would be A Good Thing. You have to maintain backward compatibility to a certain degree for the official client anyway. If community clients fail to roll out a new protocol version, it will be a valid move to lock them out together with outdated official installations. You wrote that maintaining servers is difficult, but I am sure that it is possible to find a scheme where your additional financial burden of accepting (but not providing support for) third-party clients is compensated for.
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#83Some relevant background information on this issue: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37
Making Signal open source is not enough; now they want to constrain Moxie in doing something he doesn’t want to do. As predicted by Tocqueville, this is the moment when the desire for equality gets in the way of liberty.
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#84So, although I don't question huge amount of work brought to the public for free by Moxie, I cannot notice that he killed all points of federation (even those which were to some extent under his control, http://www.cyanogenmod.org/blog/whisperpush-end-of-life), that he sabotages non-Google-controlled repositories (https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127) of his so called open software client. I don't care that much because for this and other reasons I won't touch Signal with a ten-feet pole, and federated alternatives (XMPP) work for me just fine, thank you. So, my suspicion is that instead of some theoretical difficulties the issue is that he got how own fiefdom under his control, and now he is not willing to let it go.
All these opponents of federation and open software (I am not talking about just FLOSS here, I mean truly community-drive software), each with their fiefdoms to protect, argue that we are stuck with the open technologies from 1990s (or even earlier), and only their proprietary silo (proprietary meaning with only one implementation and under their control) is able to bring us a shiny new blink. However, they tend to ignore the other part of the story. The biggest problem of storing my life in proprietary silos is not that they are under control, I don’t live a life in delusion of importance, so I don’t expect anybody to mine my communication with my wife about what to do for dinner (and yet, even that communication is encrypted by a pretty good encryption system, which works just fine with a plain XMPP). The biggest problem is that every individual proprietary silos in the moment owner of such silo goes out of business, or for some other reasons looses interest in providing the service. So, the question is not how many technologies from 1990s we use, but how many proprietary technologies from 1990s we don't use. Yes, I have stored on my hard drive all emails since 1997, because old boring mbox files still work as they did. But all those exciting and sometimes tearful conversations I had on Yahoo! IM or ICQ are gone forever. That bigfoot.com and mail.com accounts I had for my life? Yeah.
And to the second lie Moxies lies to himself (I am willing to believe he really means it). It is suddenly easy to move between proprietary silos? Yeah. It is lovely that we have to keep unique identifier (phone number) for all NSAs to trace us in some weird databases somewhere (that livejournal.com account? yes, it is now owned by the Russian Коммерса́нтъ; yes, I know that this newspaper is not that bad). And yes, it is seriously interesting if perhaps phone numbers would serve as the unique personal identifier most Americans were so afraid to introduce. A possibility to have anonymous accounts? Yeah.
However, even this does not seem to make transfer between platforms that easy. If all your friends are on Telegram, then no matter how easy for whole group it would be easy to transfer, you cannot transfer unless whole group does. How many people really and truly love Twitter, and how many of those who hate it with passion are able to move to some better platform? Nobody, because that is where people are.
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's precisely the fact that Moxie is so credible on this topic that makes his post so frustrating. I believe that he's telling the truth as he sees it, and I believe that he's as well-situated as anyone could be to pull off a white-hat secure messaging system, so if he says it can't be done with federation, it's awfully hard for me to assert that he's wrong. The problem is that I don't see the point of doing any of…
The fact that Signal exists, and I can use it every day with friends and coworkers, is evidence that we are not locked in. No one is making money from Signal, and anyone who uses Signal can switch to any of ten different (less secure) apps in five minutes. And if Signal goes away or whatever, we can build our own! The only thing stopping us is that we are a lot worse at designing crypto than Moxie and Trevor ;)
???? This does not even start to make sense to me. The fact you could chat with your friends on ICQ/MSN/FacebookChat/Compuserve/AIM/Yahoo! IM/Prodigy meant you were not locked in?
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#86Moxie: there's a third alternative to centralization and federation which nobody is talking about on this thread: P2P. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what pitfalls someone (me) might encounter trying to implement a peer-based messaging system. I've got a lot of learning to do before I feel qualified to actually write code for such a project, but it's something I'm actively working toward.
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#87I totally get this; federation is hard , and its so much easier and nicer ─ as a developer ─ to have a centralised service. Often centralisation is the right choice for a particular project, and I respect that. That doesn't mean we should give up trying to federate things, though. The major upside (for me) to federated systems is simple: choice . Choice over the client you use. Choice over the servers you use. Choice…
> The major upside (for me) to federated systems is simple: choice. Choice over the client you use. Choice over the servers you use. With a centralized system, you cannot choose the servers you use, but you can still choose the client, if the procotol is open and versioned. As explained in Moxie's post, being able to choose the servers you use doesn't help if all servers use the exact same protocol with the exact sam…
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#88Perhaps the "federation" that should evolve is not federation of the servers behind a single protocol or app, but federation between multiple apps. Applying the traditional definition of "federation" to Signal implies that any entity could host a Signal server, and any Signal client could talk to that server. Moxie mentions the main issue with this, namely that because of the "evolving ecosystem," it's impossible to…
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get what you are saying about it being easier to move from one walled garden to another (based on the evidence that those moves happen more often than moves from between email providers)... but there is such a huge caveat that those moves are never a move chosen by an individual. I cannot, as an individual, choose to move from one walled garden messenger app to another - if I do, I cannot message those people that…
Wouldn't you still have that problem with a federated system? You could roll your own uber-secure decentralized messaging protocol right now, if you wanted, but if nobody else adopts it then you're basically SOL.
If the system is centralized and it doesn't support security, it's all or nothing; to enable secure protocols, both you and the other party must change to a different app, and you'd have to support both systems in order to communicate with secure and insecure users.
Re: Reflections: The ecosystem is moving
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's precisely the fact that Moxie is so credible on this topic that makes his post so frustrating. I believe that he's telling the truth as he sees it, and I believe that he's as well-situated as anyone could be to pull off a white-hat secure messaging system, so if he says it can't be done with federation, it's awfully hard for me to assert that he's wrong. The problem is that I don't see the point of doing any of…
I think this post misses one of the points in the original essay, which is that federation is less important for user-level protocols because the network layer beneath it is open. That tilts the slow-moving-federated-service vs. fast-moving-centralized-service tradeoff towards fast-moving-centralized-service, which is why we see the landscape we see today. His argument applies for any centralized top-layer services b…
How is it easier for me to switch from Facebook to something else, if it's carried over the Internet as opposed to something proprietary like their own modem pools for example?
I can't think of a single service for which that is true. Facebook is the lock in, just as Microsoft is the lock in for office PCs even if the underlying technology is somewhat open.