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

COI – Chat Over IMAP

coi-dev.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 259 posts

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#211

Post by godot »

I understand that from a protocol perspective this is more open, so your data is not going into another silo like Signal etc.

From a consumer standpoint, isn't it still true that you still need to get people to use the new client(s)? (It's not like gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc. email service providers automatically have a COI client on top of their email client) In the end, you still have the network problem, of getting people to switch over?

That would make statements like this a little bit deceiving: "You can also reach everyone, there are more than double active email users than WhatsApp users, for example."

Yes, all email users (who use services that support IMAP) are technically automatically "users" of this, but before they start using your client, you still can't chat with them over COI. Or is there fall back to email?

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#212

Post by dflock »

Arathorn wrote: post #112
zinid wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i'd argue that the Matrix.org Foundation is just as 'recognized' as the XMPP Standards Foundation :) Recognized by whom? The XSF has standardized their core in IETF. Is there something similar for Matrix.org Foundation? > trying to solve existing problems using new approaches is how things evolve. What new approaches? You're just recreating federated IM network using different wire format. How on earth is it innova…

> Recognized by whom? The foundations responsible for the protocols look to be pretty similar to me (both non-profit orgs), and would be equally recognized as such by the general public. Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so, and perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it. > How on earth is it innovative or new? > Since you invented nothing new,…

Your description of the Matrix protocol reminded me of this, currently in development by the Atom/xray team: https://github.com/atom/xray/tree/master/memo_core

> Memo – Real-time collaboration for Git

> On its own, Git can only synchronize changes between clones of a repository after the changes are committed, which forces an asynchronous collaboration workflow. A repository may be replicated across several machines, but the working copies on each of these machines are completely independent of one another.

> Memo's goal is to extend Git to allow a single working copy to be replicated across multiple machines. Memo uses conflict-free replicated data types (CRDTs) to record all uncommitted changes for a working copy, allowing changes to be synchronized in real time across multiple replicas as they are actively edited. Memo also maintains an operation-based record of all changes, augmenting Git's commit graph with the fine-grained edit history behind each commit.

They intend to use this in their WIP xray editor - a possible future replacement for the Atom editor. Meno will be used to provide real-time multi-user collaboration for the editor, like Teletype for Atom: https://teletype.atom.io/

I occurred to me, that if your got repo contained chat history, then your edit would then be a chat client, with your chat history version and stored by git.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#213

Post by lazyjones »

I'd like to try this or the similar delta.chat, but have thousands of confidential/sensitive e-mails on my account and don't know what these clients will do to/with them. It's also not an ideal situation from a security perspective (a lot of damage could be done if the clients are exploitable).

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#214

Post by stevenicr »

Arathorn wrote: post #112
zinid wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i'd argue that the Matrix.org Foundation is just as 'recognized' as the XMPP Standards Foundation :) Recognized by whom? The XSF has standardized their core in IETF. Is there something similar for Matrix.org Foundation? > trying to solve existing problems using new approaches is how things evolve. What new approaches? You're just recreating federated IM network using different wire format. How on earth is it innova…

> Recognized by whom? The foundations responsible for the protocols look to be pretty similar to me (both non-profit orgs), and would be equally recognized as such by the general public. Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so, and perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it. > How on earth is it innovative or new? > Since you invented nothing new,…

Been watching Matrix for a long while now, and just now I see this: > "innovative bit of Matrix is that it's a replicated database of objects (events), similar to Git, but designed for syncing conversation history around in realtime."

and think, this is basically blockchain workings right? IF we had only created a client that worked on iOs only, could store and send chat coins and log votes for each group, this could be presented in press releases as a new blockchain chat and get all kinds of posts and maybe money thrown at it.

kidding aside - I have more faith in Matrix moving forward than any similar projects at the moment, and I don't see that changing soon - so I hope more can be done to polish clients and make sure bridges and other features are well done.

As soon as moderation tools are enhanced I'll begin to use it on several sites.

I'd love to see some bubbles of related issues that need love and have some people put some estimated time and money on each bubble - maybe we could crowdsource some code for some bubbles and money for others or something -

I feel there are many groups of people who want / need different things in order to increase adoption, and I feel for the folks coders / maintainers who are trying to extinguish all the fires at once.

I put a few hundred into bug bounty like thing to get some features added to rocket chat so we could use it.. then found the amount of other bugs left un worked at the time meant it was not feasible for our usage any time soon. Hopefully with the funding and such of Matrix it can evolve on multiple levels at once and become a solid framework with many clients and ux options.

A bridge for COI and delta chat or any others. I'd love a client that bridges with email address and has one click to keybase auth or pgp and such - and puts things into a timeline / fbook feed like view.. not for me, but for others.. group friends, display on phones and web.. seems these things could be close to reality.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#215

Post by nydel »

ape4 wrote: post #200

In case anyone missed it, here is version 1.0 of the spec. Not yet an RFC. https://confluence-public.open-xchange.com/display/CoiW/COI+...

thank you!

it's like the only possibly important thing about this and nobody has mentioned that the COI web front runs into nothing when you follow URL toward an RFC:

https://www.coi-dev.org/popup2?type=1000

it's a blank page that says they think RFC is essential, which is surely a valid opinion :)

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#217

Post by gsich »

Arnt wrote: post #150
gsich wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for a backups sake you should do it.

Are you suggesting that if I want to search on a particular device, then that device should hold my backup storage? If so, then I disagree and have chosen to store my backups on a device that's behind two locked doors, hard to reach, well protected from being accidentally disturbed, and which doesn't run unrelated software.

One can never have enough backup storage. I fail to see where your problem is.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#218

Post by gsich »

lima wrote: post #41
Arathorn wrote: post #29

> With XMPP and Matrix.org -based services you would still need to convince everyone to join your new network. Easy in theory, very complex in practice! I think they missed the the bit where Matrix is called Matrix because it bridges (matrixes) the existing networks (Slack, IRC, Telegram, Discord, XMPP, etc) in, rather than needing to convince everyone to join. But no matter, we'll just provide a COI bridge if this t…

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…

Bridges usually suck, even for IRC. Split brain, someone needs to monitor it constantly, you are not sure if Matrix clients have received it and vice versa.

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#219

Post by frandroid »

5166cc9c39fa61 wrote: post #208
cvwright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone shared your (lack of) optimism, then we'd still be stuck with: * Wonky unwieldy hypertext systems instead of the WWW * The Nomad instead of the iPod * The Blackberry instead of the iPhone * GNU Hurd instead of Linux * Geocities instead of Facebook (-- OK maybe that one's a wash :-) The point is, sometimes it's worth trying again until you can make it work.

Those are some really good examples of the opposite of what you intended to say. > * Wonky unwieldy hypertext systems instead of the WWW Which ones? Gopher wasn't hypertext, but it is still going and still a good idea. A conversion to Gopher would be a huge usability and accessibility upgrade for many current websites. > * The Nomad instead of the iPod iTunes is garbage. iPods sucked until (certain models) had Rockbo…

> [Gopher] is still going

Hum, yeah, most of the world is connecting through Gopher...

Re: COI – Chat Over IMAP

#220

Post by robgibbons »

godot wrote: post #211

I understand that from a protocol perspective this is more open, so your data is not going into another silo like Signal etc. From a consumer standpoint, isn't it still true that you still need to get people to use the new client(s)? (It's not like gmail/hotmail/yahoo/etc. email service providers automatically have a COI client on top of their email client) In the end, you still have the network problem, of getting p…

It explains on the site that it falls back to email. Basically an abstraction layer for real time chat built on top of email.
Post reply on HN