Live data from Hacker News

COI – Chat Over IMAP

coi-dev.org

251–259 of 259 posts

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#251
post #226
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, those bridges work badly and hardly anyone uses them. I had to give up on my attempt at using Matrix as IRC client - it had questionable uptime and some channels even banned Matrix users due to frequent reconnects (on Freenode). Hackint recently shut down their Matrix bridge due to how maintenance-intensive it was (and the fact that it logged all messages in its own database). It's great in theory but imp…

Speaking in my personal capacity but as somebody's who's a freenode oper: The ridiculous crashing every few minutes thing of the IRC bridge has been fixed enough I haven't noticed a problem for quite a while. I have a looooot of disagreements with matrix, which I have discussed and will discuss with them, but honestly they're not doing it completely wrong anymore.

> I have a looooot of disagreements with matrix, which I have discussed and will discuss with them, but honestly they're not doing it completely wrong anymore.

\o/ :) The other stuff is very much on our radar, fwiw (and in an ideal world i hope we'll finally be able to implement a services or TS6-based bridge). We've been a bit distracted over the last few months with an XMPP bridge (matrix-bifrost) but will be back on IRC bridging shortly.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#252
post #187
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except XMPP already has several mature client and server implementations since it was around for longer.

So I want: - multiuser chat (persistent) - voice-calls (let's have them 1on1) - file-transfer - concurrent clients Which mature clients and servers should I choose from, implementing all this (basic) stuff?

I've been using [Wire](https://wire.com/en/) very happily for some time now. Great interface, top quality audio/video, good chat, persistent, very secure, open source. I'm surprised it hasn't received more mentions.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The products you mention are all good examples of niche products for techies. If that's what you want, by all means keep XMPP and be happy with it.

> The products you mention are all good examples of niche products for techies. The blind person that told me about how much better Gopher was than the modern web for blind people was not a techie, and I don't think it is moral to treat disabilities as just a "niche."

No offense to the blind, but their rest of us do want funky graphics, emojis and cat gifs.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The products you mention are all good examples of niche products for techies. The blind person that told me about how much better Gopher was than the modern web for blind people was not a techie, and I don't think it is moral to treat disabilities as just a "niche."

No offense to the blind, but their rest of us do want funky graphics, emojis and cat gifs.

Gopher support rich media, it just doesn't double as a client side application platform like the modern web does.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention that it's just re-solving all the same problems other messaging protocols (XMPP, IRC, etc.) spent time solving 10+ years ago. I always feel that the Matrix organization is a bit disingenuous. Not only are they not developed by any recognized standards body (meaning they have no long-term sustainable funding model), but if they really just wanted to connect all the other chat protocols and make sure eve…

> Not only are they not developed by any recognized standards body (meaning they have no long-term sustainable funding model), I don't see a clear relationship between the sentence and its parenthetical. I don't know about Matrix' funding model. But I do know Signal, for example, isn't developed by a recognized standards body. What can I infer from that about the sustainability of its long-term funding?

That's fair; these should have been two separate points.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#257
post #187
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except XMPP already has several mature client and server implementations since it was around for longer.

So I want: - multiuser chat (persistent) - voice-calls (let's have them 1on1) - file-transfer - concurrent clients Which mature clients and servers should I choose from, implementing all this (basic) stuff?

Let's assume this hypothetical client doesn't exist (I'm not actually sure if it does or not): are you suggesting it's better to start over and create an entirely new chat protocol instead of just writing a client that has the features you want? These features do all exist within existing open protocols, and clients do exist that implement some of these features (and probably all, but I'm not sure). So I don't see any reason to start over.
Post reply on HN