No mention of Semaphor by SpiderOak?
Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
21–30 of 242 posts
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#22Where's the "don't allocate 8 gigabytes and crash the system" feature? (Yeah Slack, I'm looking at you.)
Indeed, and for "compatibility" it doesn't really say anything about the quality of the software for that system. Signal, for example, doesn't have a native iOS app and it shows.
Yes it does? https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#23Does anyone know what supports E2E encrypted video? (Great doc btw)
I believe video calls on Signal are?
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#24Have your tried Grape (chatgrape.com)? On-Premises and Eurocloud, used by banks, telco providers, city departments, energy providers etc. in Europe
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#25There still isn't a popular messaging and voice call platform that supports private end-to-end encryption by default. How terrible is this? I mean it would be so trivial to establish a secure and private communications standard. Europe and North America has a population of almost a billion people combined. If 500 millions of those live in first-world conditions and only 1% cares about privacy, with $1/year worth of giving a fuck we could have a budget of $5M/year, or close to 50 top notch developers to pull this off. Obviously a lot more could be spend, but even with this minuscule spending we could still have a viable, standardized alternative to Facebook and Google.
We literally had better privacy when we had analog phone lines that anyone could tap into. That's just terrible.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#26Where's the "don't allocate 8 gigabytes and crash the system" feature? (Yeah Slack, I'm looking at you.)
Funny how that works isn't it. Let's start out with Electron so we can get our new app on all platforms quickly, we'll build a proper native UX when we can afford to >> company grows and grows >> yeah, so screw UX, where are our customers going to go instead? Hipchat? lol, let's buy them instead.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#27Are 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.
These ones perhaps? https://conversations.im/ https://conversejs.org/ https://dino.im/
Yes, Conversations (Android) and ConverseJS (web) are on par with - or better than - the commercial apps like Whatsapp. On ios, Chatsecure is pretty close.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#28What is the data source for all of these? I'm particularly curious about a number of the "claimed" entries.
+1 It seems like someone just created a spreadsheet with no description of what methodology was used to test the assertions.
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#29Why is Signal scoring so bad?
Re: Messenger systems compared by security, privacy, compatibility, and features
#30I 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.
For me, the problem is how incredibly slow Riot is (and every other client I've tried has almost unusable bad UI, sometimes in combination with being slow).
IMO: Text chat with a few emojis and images here and there should not ever be among the things that slows your computer to a crawl.
EDIT: I'm speaking of the UI, not the network connection; the latter is sometimes slow too, but that's understandable