How can it be at 1.0 and still have not implemented secret chats?
Because it was never planned that would be a feature of the desktop application.
Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
121–130 of 201 posts
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#122Some of my friends are moving from Skype to Discord, but it seems to be a plethora of new IM clients popping up all the time. From what I can see Telegram doesn't have VoIP, which could be a deal breaker for some. Are there other advantages with Telegram compared to Discord that makes up for the lack of voice?
Telegram never planned implementing VoIP, as far as I remember, only voice messages. The main reasons it's so popular (with some users, 100+ mil of them) - bots (telegram has open api, and bt platform https://telegram.org/blog/bot-revolution ) and channels. In Russia - telegram channels is now a new type of media, very popular with independent journalists, bloggers etc.
I wonder how difficult it would be to add voice chats using a custom client. I've thought about doing some experiments extending the feature list (e.g. calls, different encryption layers, etc.) by forking an existing client and using some hacks to send custom data, but I don't have the time to try it at the moment.
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#123Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Dark Skin (still waiting for Slack doing it) Any number of any skins, actually. Themes.
Indeed. Sorry for being unclear.
https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/205166337-Customize...
Or am I misunderstanding you?
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#125It's so stupid that I can't read public channels without providing a valid phone number. I don't need any secrecy, just want to read damn blog posts!
Hm, this gets me thinking... it wouldn't take much work to get a public channel viewer website working.
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#126Native all the way! Opening github page of app and seeing that pink line instead of yellow (line that represents languages used in project) made me smile! I am really surprised they did native app, plus it looks really nice, I tought "sigh, another electron app", but to my surprise I was wrong! Good job for guys at Telegram, respect.
I don't get it. Why is native better than browser application? Browser application is by definition better sandboxed and can do much less damage to the system. Normal application can do mayhem. And Telegram needs root access for installation... do I want to give it root access? When I can just open another tab?
And i don't get it, why kids today want only a browser. All that flame wars about the best window manager we fought and now we end up with one window only and a fucking tab bar?
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#127Congratulations to the team! The native desktop apps have been top notch in user experience, speed and stability. Among messaging apps, Telegram has been my favorite for some years. Its development speed and feature introductions, at least in my knowledge, are unparalleled.
I've always liked the multi-device sync feature in Telegram and can't imagine using an app without that. My main concerns have been the home grown crypto and that normal chats are not end-to-end encrypted (only secret chats are). So I've been trying Wire [1] for a while, which provides both multi-device sync, multi-OS apps and end-to-end encrypted chats by default (there is no non-E2E chat). But it needs some more time to become much better (it's comparatively quite slow to startup and sync messages). Unfortunately, for all the fame that Signal [2] has on crypto and end-to-end encryption, it's the slowest in feature development among these apps.
[1]: https://wire.com
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#128Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't seem so: https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/871
To clarify: secret chats have been present on Telegram as a platform for a long time. The desktop client doesn't seem to support them though. This often leads to people saying things like "Telegram doesn't have end-to-end encryption". Really, what they mean is that it's not the default and isn't on all platforms. Most people can use it if they want to though because it's available on all major mobile OSes.
The desktop version has no encryption? Seriously, why should i use something like this in 2017?
Re: Telegram Desktop reaches version 1.0
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Telegram never planned implementing VoIP, as far as I remember, only voice messages. The main reasons it's so popular (with some users, 100+ mil of them) - bots (telegram has open api, and bt platform https://telegram.org/blog/bot-revolution ) and channels. In Russia - telegram channels is now a new type of media, very popular with independent journalists, bloggers etc.
I wonder how difficult it would be to add voice chats using a custom client. I've thought about doing some experiments extending the feature list (e.g. calls, different encryption layers, etc.) by forking an existing client and using some hacks to send custom data, but I don't have the time to try it at the moment.
Well, 3rd party client can use Telegram protocol for texting etc, and Jingle for VoIP.