Live data from Hacker News

Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

mail.jabber.org

41–50 of 169 posts

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#41
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's the universal alternative for XMPP?

In the U.S.? SMS is as close to universal as one can get (which is to say, not very).

> In the U.S.?

Try reading the bit which says "universal" again before answering next time.

And how do you run your own SMS server for family and friends off the internet? What a worthless suggestion.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#42
post #36

I recently tried riot.im and I'm realy blown away by the good UI they have and how easy it is to get started to develop your own stuff. It is a shame that nothing by the likes exists in the XMPP-sphere. EDIT: As a side note: Daniel Gultsch from the conversations-fame is doing a great job by providing/developing a realy awesome XMPP client for android and pushing the standard forward.

I registered when it was called called Vector and recently started using it more seriously. It is freaking fantastic. Voice/video calls actually works and the Android app is very good. It was long since I had such as strong feeling of "this is it".

When it comes to protocols (as opposed to "services"), they're seldom replaced. I mean, we're still using IRC for open source projects. Matrix/Riot gives me a glimpse of the future.

I recommend reading this: http://www.titus-stahl.de/blog/2016/12/21/encrypted-messenge...

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#43
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Google is only used to send empty notifications to android and chrome devices, right? IOS too, maybe? Not that this nullifies your point about Google. There's just not much for them to collect if what I asked is correct.

This is my understanding as well. However even this requires you to have various google-parts installed on your phone. These can be fairly obtrusive with permissions and such.

My understanding is that Play Services sends information about the user to Google periodically.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#44
post #38

These would be my concerns about potential differences between Signal and an 'Easy XMPP' client; would someone who knows Signal say whether these are accurate?: * Signal users are not anonymous; Signal requires users' phone numbers. * Signal is centralized. Is there a way to run your own Signal server? * Signal uses Google Chrome on the desktop (and Android?) and Google Play Services (or some part of them) on Android…

Signal requires users' phone numbers. True for Signal. XMPP is using JIDs which are functionally comparable to email addresses, and similarly anonymous (or not). Is there a way to run your own Signal server? The Signal client is open source, the server mostly so. You could create your own semi-Signal community, but it would not be able to talk to official-Signal users. XMPP is designed for federation by default, and…

What is this constant rumor about that Google killed XMPP federation? I think they killed the XMPP support in their own clients, but in general they still provide the service. I've at least three active @gmail.com XMPP accounts in my roster on a private server. I've read some rumor that they do not do TLS for server2server traffic, but in the end if you use XMPP on your desktop you most likely use OTR.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#45
post #17
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when you've got so many clients and so many servers that the typical user gives up instead

Email exists. When Slack is bought by Google and merged with Hangouts, and WhatsApp changes over to a new all-messages-delivered-by-the-NSA protocol, email will still exist.

And XMPP has always tried to be the email of IM. Similar model, address format, and so on. A sea of independent, autonomous domains openly connecting to each other.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#46
post #44
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal requires users' phone numbers. True for Signal. XMPP is using JIDs which are functionally comparable to email addresses, and similarly anonymous (or not). Is there a way to run your own Signal server? The Signal client is open source, the server mostly so. You could create your own semi-Signal community, but it would not be able to talk to official-Signal users. XMPP is designed for federation by default, and…

What is this constant rumor about that Google killed XMPP federation? I think they killed the XMPP support in their own clients, but in general they still provide the service. I've at least three active @gmail.com XMPP accounts in my roster on a private server. I've read some rumor that they do not do TLS for server2server traffic, but in the end if you use XMPP on your desktop you most likely use OTR.

I think it's more than a rumor. As far as I know, Google stopped allowing new XMPP servers to federate, because almost all of the new servers that were trying to were sending spam.

It's possible that they grandfathered you in, if you were already federated when they put on the breaks, and your server wasn't guilty of sending spam.

Or it's possible that I'm wrong and they just got really aggressive about banning new servers if anything even remotely spammy came out of them, and it's really the spammers complaining that "Google won't let anyone new federate."

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#47
post #17
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when you've got so many clients and so many servers that the typical user gives up instead

Email exists. When Slack is bought by Google and merged with Hangouts, and WhatsApp changes over to a new all-messages-delivered-by-the-NSA protocol, email will still exist.

Snail mail too exists. And will exist for quite a while still. About as relevant for personal communications as email.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#48
post #31

I'm not sure "popular clients" is a good thing to look at; Skype UI isn't great (and really bad if you use the IM part of it). On this topic; I wouldn't mind hosting my own XMPP service, but most clients aren't good enough (specially on Android). I can't advocate for a service (protocol?) that can't offer some basics that are covered and seamless everywhere else (eg, sending files, showing media files in the client i…

I thought Android is one of the best-supported platforms with conversations.im?

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#49
post #44
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal requires users' phone numbers. True for Signal. XMPP is using JIDs which are functionally comparable to email addresses, and similarly anonymous (or not). Is there a way to run your own Signal server? The Signal client is open source, the server mostly so. You could create your own semi-Signal community, but it would not be able to talk to official-Signal users. XMPP is designed for federation by default, and…

What is this constant rumor about that Google killed XMPP federation? I think they killed the XMPP support in their own clients, but in general they still provide the service. I've at least three active @gmail.com XMPP accounts in my roster on a private server. I've read some rumor that they do not do TLS for server2server traffic, but in the end if you use XMPP on your desktop you most likely use OTR.

In 2013, the xmpp community decided to enforce TLS on all server-to-server links [0]. Google still doesn't support this, essentially preventing non-gmail users to communicate with them.

While OTR is a possible solution, it has its own can of worms (multi-device, offline use).

Besides of this, Gmail xmpp silently fails if the other party upgraded to hangouts.

[0] https://github.com/stpeter/manifesto/blob/master/manifesto.t...

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#50
post #48
post #31

I'm not sure "popular clients" is a good thing to look at; Skype UI isn't great (and really bad if you use the IM part of it). On this topic; I wouldn't mind hosting my own XMPP service, but most clients aren't good enough (specially on Android). I can't advocate for a service (protocol?) that can't offer some basics that are covered and seamless everywhere else (eg, sending files, showing media files in the client i…

I thought Android is one of the best-supported platforms with conversations.im?

Yes, you're correct; but I found the UI too ugly and at that point I was already too frustrated. It's probably me, but I had put already too much time on something that shouldn't be an issue.
Post reply on HN