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

On Privacy versus Freedom

matrix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 209 posts

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#191

Post by rakoo »

blindgeek wrote: post #137
progval wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> XMPP was supposed to solve all those problems when it came out That's also what Matrix said it would solve when it started. Except now it's yet another protocol with its own chatrooms that are not reachable from any other protocol by default (even rooms on matrix.org); and bridges are at best in "beta" (except the Telegram bridge, which is "late beta"): https://matrix.org/bridges/

I have lots of warm and fuzzy feelings toward Matrix, but my take is that XMPP solved my basic problem over 15 years ago. The problem being: I want to talk to Alice, Bob, Mary, Jane, Fred, and Joe without having to install ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo Messenger. Or should I say Facebook, Whatsapp, and Signal? I don't know what Matrix buys me over XMPP, but at this point, I don't care. I'll gladly drink the Matrix kool-aid, as…

XMPP lost because there was no big player behind it willing to push it as far as possible under its public name. Only a community of enthusiasts and a steering committee that only cares about what is going in the next spec.

Matrix at least has a company pushing for it, so there's a better chance it'll have more success than XMPP; unfortunately we'll have to wait a few more years to see the difference.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#192

Post by Dddd50000 »

maqp wrote: post #122

Matthew outlined much of the Matrix problems but not in the context of the latter part of his idealistic thoughts. Just going to point out that if agreeing on spec is six time slower, that's just the first car of traffic jam slowing down. The next car has to slow down more: The feature needs to move into SDKs. Then the next car, the client vendors need to actually implement and test their implementation of the featur…

Signal could be more tolerable if they did not threaten and harass those who develop third-party clients, citing their unreasoned claims that they somehow "burden" them (1). They cannot demand pull requests if they treat the community like that. Depending on the locale, even frivolous lawsuits can be a real nuisance.

1) https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...

Encryption is also not the only thing that matters. Amateurish functionality omissions are really annoying. For example, in 2015, Signal developers removed the option to create, join or leave groups in the desktop client (2), and they apparently haven't still fixed it. They don't want, nor does anyone else. Maybe a less hostile approach towards community would yield better results.

2) https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/530

While I agree with you that this Matrix e2ee thing has took way, way too long, let's not pretend that everything happens at time in those walled garden systems...

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#193

Post by [deleted] »

nickik wrote: post #165
SamWhited wrote: post #48

"Democracy and republics are hard, so we should all just give up and have autocratic governments" It may sound flippant or unrelated, but I think this extreme projection of his argument makes it evident how silly it is. This is one of the reasons I switched away from using Signal, as much as I'd like better privacy on my text messages it's not worth handing that much control over to someone I shouldn't have to put my…

How about that being in an atocracy might be much better when you have a population of 51% wolves and 49% sheep.

[deleted]

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#194

Post by zaarn »

progval wrote: post #156
zaarn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matrix is general lacks support for community tools to handle stuff like that (unless you're running a channel with loose rules that doesn't get raided by 4chan on a weekly basis).

Yes and it's perfectly acceptable for a Beta service. It's just too bad they don't have a single bridge that's of release quality yet, while it was their main promise.

I don't believe this is really fixable, on various occasions when I ask for the community tools I need, I get blown off and told that such features won't be implemented in Matrix or will depend on client support (which is unacceptable).

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#195

Post by est31 »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #107
est31 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mandatory google play services Note that since a while there is also the possibility of using web sockets. But they are an extreme battery drain, and thus google services are quasi-mandatory. Telegram solves this without being a battery drain, possibly at the cost of delivering messages with a delay, but why isn't that my choice.

I use Signal without gapps and do not have extreme battery drain. I always get real-time notifications too - no late or missing deliveries. This is both on a galaxy s9 which went from stock ROM to deleted Gapps with no battery impact, and s 1+ 7 Pro with no Gapps from the very beginning (I get the expected excellent battery life). I suspected that Signal basically took Over Gapps's role since it's the only app I use…

Have you disabled GCM usage? As in: have you enabled the websocket mode? Because otherwise it's still using google services for the communication.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#196

Post by m-p-3 »

blindgeek wrote: post #110

My biggest problem with messaging applications as a whole is that I need so many of them. I have a few contacts who are reachable with Signal, a few more who are reachable on Hangouts or whatever Google is calling its latest thing, and a few more who are reachable with Skype. That's three programs, to communicate with three different subsets of people. I'm sure if I used Facebook Messenger and Whatsapp, I'd have two…

> XMPP was supposed to solve all those problems when it came out in the early 2000s. But then all the big tech companies who build "ecosystems" decided to push their own applications, all incompatible with one another.

Facebook Messenger and Google Talk actually used XMPP back then, I'm sad it's no longer the case.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#197

Post by the_pwner224 »

est31 wrote: post #195
the_pwner224 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Signal without gapps and do not have extreme battery drain. I always get real-time notifications too - no late or missing deliveries. This is both on a galaxy s9 which went from stock ROM to deleted Gapps with no battery impact, and s 1+ 7 Pro with no Gapps from the very beginning (I get the expected excellent battery life). I suspected that Signal basically took Over Gapps's role since it's the only app I use…

Have you disabled GCM usage? As in: have you enabled the websocket mode? Because otherwise it's still using google services for the communication.

I don't have google play services installed on the phone. The debug log also shows messages about the websocket connection.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#198

Post by Meldane »

Arathorn wrote: post #141
progval wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> XMPP was supposed to solve all those problems when it came out That's also what Matrix said it would solve when it started. Except now it's yet another protocol with its own chatrooms that are not reachable from any other protocol by default (even rooms on matrix.org); and bridges are at best in "beta" (except the Telegram bridge, which is "late beta"): https://matrix.org/bridges/

We tend to be pretty conservative on maturity estimates on Matrix (and bad at keeping the website updated). IRC, Slack, Gitter bridges are all considered stable these days. XMPP, Discord, Telegram, WhatsApp work usably too. The UX for managing them is not always great or consistent (we’re working on that currently), but “yet another protocol with its own chatrooms” is untrue. You can certainly access the entirety of…

Hi, I am trying to write an article in French to introduce Matrix to a wider public. Especially non tech people.

So I'd like to describe the possibilities accurately. Bridges are a very interesting feature, but how do you implement them ?

I went to the #whatsapp:maunium.net room and only saw guys wondering the same thing with no answer given to them.

I went to https://github.com/tulir/mautrix-whatsapp/wiki/Bridge-setup and understood they have to be implemented from the server itself ? Is that right ? So as a basic user I can't really make any adjustment on my side to join a Whatsapp group from Matrix, right ?

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#199

Post by pcstl »

This reminds me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which is also about a father-son roadtrip, and which uses it as an excuse to talk about what happens when we do long, boring tasks requiring some focus but leaving enough of the brain unoccupied. It's a good book and I should probably reread it.

Re: On Privacy versus Freedom

#200

Post by aiphee »

Arathorn wrote: post #166
goatsi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I need a chat application where I can have a client that I can use in my terminal, and Signal doesn't do that Have you looked at signald or Signal-CLI? https://gitlab.com/thefinn93/signald https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli

weechat-matrix is really nice

It doesn't support encryption.

When comparing to signal, or indeed to any modern chat client, you need to call out when you are mentioning non-Riot clients that don't support encryption.

In the original article you did this well: when you claimed "no fragmentation," the next sentence explained that the claim didn't apply to encryption.

In general, matrix feature-boasting about things it can do without encryption is confusing people. Most new users are coming to matrix expecting encryption, and they get it. But then matrix advocacy presentations proceed from the ridiculous assumption that open-source chat without encryption would be interesting as something to move onto, while hiding this assumption. Please stop doing this to preserve your credibility.

Post reply on HN