Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

discourse.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 258 posts

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#161

Post by Arathorn »

lousken wrote: post #160

So after testing matrix and riot with friends for a couple of months, there're still a ton of work to be done. We all used the most common setup - matrix.org homeserver, riot and riotX as apps. (Also please don't point me to dev version, I am only considering what's in stable.) Random stuff not in particular order: 1a) e2e is a choice that affects experience in riot, a lot - you can't use search, you don't see recent…

1a/1b and 2 is where all our work is going currently. We're trying to get E2E on by default in Jan, and likewise exit beta for RiotX/Android around the same time. We're going as fast as we can.

3: Matrix.org homeserver performance should be absolutely fine now. Delays when doing things like joining big rooms are unrelated to the hardware, but perf optimisations we need to do to synapse in general. They're on the radar.

4: This is literally the first time i've heard an ask for 'copy entire message'. The other features exist in labs, and yes, we need to fix notifs and add custom emoji. "Many people asking" doesn't magically produce features unfortunately, especially when we are battling points 1 & 2. Contributions help though. Thanks for testing though.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#162

Post by decentralisedog »

lifty wrote: post #101
jasonzemos wrote: post #70

This is really good news. I have only one question for Mozilla: why choose a solution whose hallmark is decentralization and the libre model- only to become a customer of a centralized host (modular.im). Why can't Mozilla actually federate? That's a step backward from your IRCd in my opinion. I hope Mozilla gets onboard with everyone else running their own Synapse, hacks on it, and pay their dues with patches, rather…

If Mozilla will use their own domain name they will be free to move their federated Matrix instance wherever they want. Modular.im will only provide the hosting expertise. I expect that in the future self-hosting your own Matrix server instance will become much easier.

Mozilla will no doubt use their own domain name, and would have the option to go self hosted if they wish to.

Moving synapse databases around isn't too difficult, and certainly Modular.im would be able to provide the data on request.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#163

Post by dvdgsng »

chrisseaton wrote: post #150
dvdgsng wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, are we complaining about one of the key advantages of open source now?

Is lots of half finished clients rather than one finished client an advantage?

Yes, the ability to create your own client certainly is. Everyone can implement their client as they see fit, as long as they stay compatible with the API. Naturally, you get many clients with different features.

Besides that, there is a reference implementation (Riot).

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#164

Post by ori_b »

swsieber wrote: post #138
jasonzemos wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Mozilla an example for the next major adopter of Matrix or are they not? If they are, and everyone else signs up for modular.im as well: at what point does this ship of Theseus called Federation only exist inside a bottle?

Probably at the same point email federation only exists inside a bottle, in terms of server topography.

Which is why it's worth actively resisting centralization.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#165

Post by ori_b »

floatingatoll wrote: post #123
jasonzemos wrote: post #70

This is really good news. I have only one question for Mozilla: why choose a solution whose hallmark is decentralization and the libre model- only to become a customer of a centralized host (modular.im). Why can't Mozilla actually federate? That's a step backward from your IRCd in my opinion. I hope Mozilla gets onboard with everyone else running their own Synapse, hacks on it, and pay their dues with patches, rather…

Assuming the purpose of the messaging system selected is to help Mozilla's community work together on Mozilla projects, what benefit of 'decentralization' do you think would improve their ability to work together effectively?

Work together to what end? If the goal is a vibrant internet where large players are not in control, supporting decentralization is important.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#166

Post by OkGoDoIt »

w354kjhllkj wrote: post #63
rtpg wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously, I feel like it’s such an indictment on native app tool development that we have a bazillion new electron apps written by ppl all the time for weekend projects yet almost no one spitting out native apps to interface with services. It’s clearly in demand (if a bit of a niche kind of demand)

You answered your own question. You can write a pretty and functional Electron app in a weekend. To implement the same level of functionality and prettiness in a native app toolkit like Qt is at least a month of work. It's the same story as Python versus C, or C versus Assembly. When C was introduced, the old-timers had the same complains like we do today: why would you program in such a slow and inefficient language…

I still find WinForms to be a very productive and pleasant way to write native Windows apps, even quick weekend MVP’s.

Yes, it’s Windows only, but if you really want tight efficient native apps then you’ll want a custom built app for each platform anyway, with a nice standardized API for them to connect to. So I don’t see the Windows platform lock-in as a downside if the goal is good native performance.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#167

Post by stjohnswarts »

jokoon wrote: post #145

I'm curious, what's wrong with IRC? Is it too old? Too difficult to monitor and moderate? Too easy to spam? I don't understand. I've never really understood why mozilla chose their own servers and not freenode. I've never really grasped the whole history of enet vs freenode either.

A lot of younger developers consider IRC limited and crusty. They are more easily attracted to platforms they've grown used to that behave similar to discord, teams, and slack.

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#168

Post by jordigh »

cjbprime wrote: post #155
pmoriarty wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, why can't you type a paragraph at a time in IRC?

I said "paragraphs-at-a-time", not "paragraph-at-a-time". You can't type paragraphs at a time on IRC because a single message can't contain newlines. But even then, paragraph-at-a-time is hard on IRC because there's a max line length that's surprisingly short (and usually just truncates the rest of your message once you exceed it!), and just because you'd stand out as being the person writing much more than everyone…

> a medium designed for carefully considered thought like that.

"Sorry this is so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter."

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#169

Post by CJefferson »

saagarjha wrote: post #80
gtirloni wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefits would Mozilla get from running their own server and federation (that they have with ircd today)?

Good publicity for decentralization. If they can get it to work, it shows that it’s possible to run a large instance from a non-central host.

That sounds like a benefit for Matrix, but it's not obvious why Mozilla would want to spend time and money on that?

Re: Synchronous Messaging at Mozilla: The Decision

#170

Post by est31 »

jeltz wrote: post #142
est31 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last ruma commit was in August, which was after a long period where nothing happened at all. Is the project dead?

No, the last commit was two days ago: https://github.com/ruma/ruma-events/commit/c7d7212b000e324b9... It is a bit hard to follow their project since they have split it up in so many tiny repos. I personally prefer when a set of closely related crates are developed in one mono repo.

Oh indeed, thanks for pointing out! Wishing them luck then.
Post reply on HN