Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
1–10 of 242 posts
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#2I would like to use Riot/Matrix but its UI (at least on Android) is terrible. I can't convince non-technical friends & family to switch.
Part of the problem is the inability to assign nicknames to contacts, so you have to remember everyone's Matrix ID.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#3IRC is listed as "E2E Private" true?
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#4IRC is listed as "E2E Private" true?
I assume it depends on the client?
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#5This is great thank you!!
Would love if the decentralised/federated were two distinct columns. :D
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#6Maybe we could add a section regarding Api's, developer features or available authentication methods?
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#7IRC is listed as "E2E Private" true?
I assume it depends on the client?
If you can communicate random text, you can layer E2E encryption over almost any communication medium. OTR is a great example of this. But it isn't a feature of the protocol.
Many irc servers listen on an ssl port, but this then only encrypts data between client and server. The data is decrypted on the server and sent to other clients. (Maybe encrypted)
Some ircd's support "encrypted only channels" where if you're not connected via ssl, you can't /join
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#8I would like to use Riot/Matrix but its UI (at least on Android) is terrible. I can't convince non-technical friends & family to switch. Part of the problem is the inability to assign nicknames to contacts, so you have to remember everyone's Matrix ID.
Yes. I think it's brilliant but the UI/UX needs a big update. Also from a techie point of view it's cool but from a normal user, there are too many options in group chats. Esp when people change phones etc.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#9I would like to use Riot/Matrix but its UI (at least on Android) is terrible. I can't convince non-technical friends & family to switch. Part of the problem is the inability to assign nicknames to contacts, so you have to remember everyone's Matrix ID.
Not just the UI but it's still rough around the edges in some cases. I ran into a couple bugs, I realize now I shoulda reported / researched further into, but my use for it is minimalist.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#10Are there any good XMPP clients that provide a "modern" messenger experience? For example seamlessly switching between online/offline mode, built in audio and video calls, sharing photos/videos.