Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 295 posts

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#71

Post by duskwuff »

Frompo wrote: post #32
jalami wrote: post #20

The current state of chat is depressing. The trend on the Internet today seems to be centralize everything . I think it's because centralized systems are easy to understand, maintain and take advantage of. Why maintain a library of media when you can let Netflix/Spotify/Steam etc. do it? Unfortunately chat is no different. There seems to be a modest swingback with things like Conversations/Signal/ChatSecure, but that…

Yeah, it'd be nice if IM just settled on some interoperable basis. I think there is an eternal need for a new chat app (as each new generation of school children create their first accounts on some service their parents aren't already on, and someone will fill that gap) but I liked the years when I could just add another account to adium and manage it that way. These last years it just been accounts dying off, and th…

> Yeah, it'd be nice if IM just settled on some interoperable basis.

And critically: that standard needs to not be XMPP. It's a mess of a protocol that's difficult to implement, and which fails to adequately support many common use cases (e.g, mobile clients, file transfer, and group chats).

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#72

Post by skykooler »

Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

Matrix looks interesting. But, damn, that animation on the homepage slows my browser to a crawl!

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#73

Post by Perceptes »

hughes wrote: post #63
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

"Decentralized persistent communication", as long as you either use a centralized homeserver you don't control, or run a hugely resource-hungry and crash-prone homeserver yourself. I tried running my own for a few months, and resource demands for even a single user in a few moderately popular channels brought down my small ec2 instance. Eventually I had to shut it down, but now I've lost my ability to authenticate as…

For anyone else reading, it's worth noting that these issues are with Synapse, the "reference implementation" homeserver built by the team developing the Matrix spec. Performance issues are a focus for its development now. There are also other projects (like my project Ruma) that provide alternative implementations that won't necessarily have these performance issues (hopefully!) The nice part about having a spec is that anyone has the opportunity to provide a superior implementation.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#74

Post by hughes »

Perceptes wrote: post #73
hughes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Decentralized persistent communication", as long as you either use a centralized homeserver you don't control, or run a hugely resource-hungry and crash-prone homeserver yourself. I tried running my own for a few months, and resource demands for even a single user in a few moderately popular channels brought down my small ec2 instance. Eventually I had to shut it down, but now I've lost my ability to authenticate as…

For anyone else reading, it's worth noting that these issues are with Synapse, the "reference implementation" homeserver built by the team developing the Matrix spec. Performance issues are a focus for its development now. There are also other projects (like my project Ruma) that provide alternative implementations that won't necessarily have these performance issues (hopefully!) The nice part about having a spec is…

That's interesting, I'll check it out!

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#76

Post by grahamburger »

stevewillows wrote: post #59

gchat was great. I really wish Google build on Hangouts to integrate SMS like iMessage. Having a proper desktop SMS client is the only reason I ended up going back to IOS a few months ago. I can understand why they dropped XMPP. I'm not sure if they really violated their 'don't be evil' motto as much as they recognized that other services were improving on their dime. I like Slack for corporate environments, but IRC…

If you use Google Voice the sms (and voice) integration is very seamless.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#77

Post by frik »

IRC, XMPP, WebRTC, WebSocket and AJAX.

Almost all common chat clients are based on one of these technologies.

The most straight forward protocol to implement is certainly IRC. It works very well for group chats and is used by many open source projects and in house usage. FBchat and Gchat are based on a slightly non-standard XMPP, at least started from that point and turned less and less open.

Maybe I am a forerunner, I used chat a lot more several years ago, and nowadays write a lot more (short) emails or just talk in person (or over VoIP with video). On the other side, we will chat/talk a lot with our personal software assistent in future.

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#78

Post by Karunamon »

Perceptes wrote: post #70
insane_dreamer wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is the greatest system in the world is useless unless a quorum of people in your circle are using it. I've been trying to get my friends to use Wire for a year but still have to run skype

That's where bridging with other services comes in, e.g. using Matrix on your side to talk to contacts on IRC or whatever else without the people on the other side having to change what system or software they use.

Does this require control of the server being bridged to implement, or could I do something like, say, set up an instance that lets me be on both Rizon and Freenode at the same time on one client connection?

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#79

Post by calanya »

Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

I have a computer which is always on and always connected.

It's my smartphone.

Can I just run a 'homeserver' on that and be connected?

Re: Gchat Was the Future of Messaging, but Google Didn’t Know

#80

Post by Perceptes »

calanya wrote: post #79
Perceptes wrote: post #53

Just about every week now there is a top story on HN about the disastrous state of interoperable messaging in the digital world. Every time it comes up, I implore people to look into Matrix ( https://matrix.org ), a system with an open specification that checks all the boxes in terms of features (not quite end-to-end encryption yet, but it's being worked on) and is not controlled by a company. I really hope to see it…

I have a computer which is always on and always connected. It's my smartphone. Can I just run a 'homeserver' on that and be connected?

Sure. Homeserver software doesn't care where it's hosted. If you want it to federate with other homeservers on the Internet, it will need to be accessible from outside your local network, of course.
Post reply on HN