181–190 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix is a fantastic project. As the technology matures and becomes more useful, I hope there will be a large push to formalize the organization and bring in other stakeholders. As I'm sure you know, Matrix will not be able to get off the ground by itself, it'll need institutional buy-in from corporations and existing tech companies. Hope there is a plan for that type of out-reach.
> it'll need institutional buy-in from corporations and existing tech companies. Hope there is a plan for that type of out-reach. "Failing to plan is planning to fail". I don't see why would corporations and existing tech companies be interested in yet another IM protocol they cannot control, especially in the era of total silos and FAANGs. Doesn't sound like a solid plan to me at all.
I'd be more interested in seeing how they plan on preventing the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing pretty much every company pulled with their initially XMPP based chat apps that gained market share, turning them into back into closed silos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it'll need institutional buy-in from corporations and existing tech companies. Hope there is a plan for that type of out-reach. "Failing to plan is planning to fail". I don't see why would corporations and existing tech companies be interested in yet another IM protocol they cannot control, especially in the era of total silos and FAANGs. Doesn't sound like a solid plan to me at all.
I can absolutely imagine why existing tech companies would be interested if the protocol became so popular that they'd be stupid to ignore it and start from scratch with their own protocol, like XMPP was at one point. I'd be more interested in seeing how they plan on preventing the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing pretty much every company pulled with their initially XMPP based chat apps that gained market sha…
The best solutions we have right now are:
* Ensure there's enough value in the wider network (e.g. available services, integrations, bridges, public chatrooms) that you'd be taking a massive step backwards not to federate.
* Try to build the protocol to be capable enough that vendors don't feel that they have to fork and close it in order to make it do what they want.
I think it's mainly the first one that will make the difference. If there hadn't been such great content out there on the public internet, we might still be on AOL & Compuserve today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>XML is not popular because of JavaScript developers. This could not be more false. JavaScript is built around the DOM. You can parse XML with DOMParser and query it with the same interfaces that you build your UI with. The X in AJAX is XML. The "good native representation" of XML in JavaScript is the very core data structure that JavaScript was designed to interact with. XML is not popular because it's complex. Esca…
Good arguments but using DOM Api in JavaScript needs many more lines than JSON parsing and access. jQuery made HTML access bearable for a simple reason: DOM sucks :) Average Joe Dev does not reach the impedance mismatch you mention correctly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, the Telegram desktop client is super fast. EDIT: Someone seems to already have done this: https://matrix.org/docs/projects/client/nheko.html
I think nheko is a clone of the telegram UI rather a fork of it. I agree it'd be awesome if someone took the actual Telegram FOSS clients and ripped out the TG backend and replaced it with Matrix (a bit like the Delta.chat folks did, but replacing with email)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems to be yet another "federation" system. Is this worth any attention? In the current internet environment of walled gardens and a siloed and decimated internet, any federation system is worthy of attention.
Given Facebook, Microsoft, and Google have shown they're against federated messaging the more pertinent question for me is "can it work? Will anyone other than geeks switch from Facebook, et al.. You'd probably need some legislation to force those running large communication platforms to open their protocols and allow federation before there can be significant progress. I really can't see their being political will f…
You're probably right, the legacy companies won't buy-in without a fight, but I see two avenues of success.
- New companies: If a federated messaging system existed five years ago, Slack may have chosen to run on an open standard rather than build its own.
- Large corporates: they may want the self-hosting, security customizeation, and lack of vendor lock-in of an open standard. For example, I know that Goldman Sachs has built their own in-house messaging service (crazy, I know). They may be a good candidate to switch to an open standard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how you are judging "activity". I suspect you are talking about chatrooms. In this sense, yes, IRC probably would look pretty active - it is built around the concept of channels, the majority of which tend to be public. XMPP is far more diverse, rooms are spread across multiple servers with no central way to list them. A project that aims to spider the network and help find rooms is at: https://search.ja…
> I'm not sure how you are judging "activity" OK, "324 Kuketz-Blog (kuketzblog@rooms.dismail.de)" seems like most popular jabber channel, right? Here's the #freenode top in this moment: #linux 2000 #python 1950 #archlinux 1860 And it's ONLY first 3 top channels. So, the facts matters.
Indeed. Could you also provide the number of 1:1 chats and private groupchats running on freenode, then? Both of these are way more popular use cases for XMPP than public rooms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can absolutely imagine why existing tech companies would be interested if the protocol became so popular that they'd be stupid to ignore it and start from scratch with their own protocol, like XMPP was at one point. I'd be more interested in seeing how they plan on preventing the whole Embrace, Extend, Extinguish thing pretty much every company pulled with their initially XMPP based chat apps that gained market sha…
Preventing the embrace, extend, extinguish manoeuvre that WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Google Talk, even Apple Push Notifications did with XMPP is indeed a tough one. The best solutions we have right now are: * Ensure there's enough value in the wider network (e.g. available services, integrations, bridges, public chatrooms) that you'd be taking a massive step backwards not to federate. * Try to build the protocol t…
Regarding the first point, I'm not sure it will be ever possible to pull this off. The proprietary IM silos are many orders of magnitude larger than IRC, XMPP and Matrix taken together. You are doing a good job with promoting Matrix to nerds, and there will be _some_ value in being able to directly contact the French government (provided that they will allow federation from the public network, which I have a hard time imagining).
I think the only viable route today is to push for legislation (e.g. in the EU, in the context of ePrivacy / GDPR) that will force silo providers to open up their silos and to offer interop by means of standardized protocols. But even in this improbable case they will probably rather create their own rubber-stamped standards (remember Office Open XML) than follow what is already out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are people so attached to XMPP? There was no entity preventing XMPP from thriving, if the community really wanted XMPP, we would have had XMPP everywhere. But honestly, as someone who ran and tried to use XMPP for many years, the entire protocol was an unmaintained divided mess. And the XEPs didn't help, they felt like hacky workarounds to keep an old protocol up-to-date with the modern needs. Matrix feels very c…
Weren't facebook messenger and google talk based on xmpp? I know that at least they were compatible, but in the end they removed that. Trying to force people on their own client
Google killed the xmpp momentum by gettimg scared of Facebook around 2010. and adopting the 'walled garden' approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given Facebook, Microsoft, and Google have shown they're against federated messaging the more pertinent question for me is "can it work? Will anyone other than geeks switch from Facebook, et al.. You'd probably need some legislation to force those running large communication platforms to open their protocols and allow federation before there can be significant progress. I really can't see their being political will f…
> Given Facebook, Microsoft, and Google have shown they're against federated messaging the more pertinent question for me is "can it work? You're probably right, the legacy companies won't buy-in without a fight, but I see two avenues of success. - New companies: If a federated messaging system existed five years ago, Slack may have chosen to run on an open standard rather than build its own. - Large corporates: they…