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

Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

mail.jabber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#31

Post by reidrac »

I'm not sure "popular clients" is a good thing to look at; Skype UI isn't great (and really bad if you use the IM part of it).

On this topic; I wouldn't mind hosting my own XMPP service, but most clients aren't good enough (specially on Android). I can't advocate for a service (protocol?) that can't offer some basics that are covered and seamless everywhere else (eg, sending files, showing media files in the client itself, etc).

I understand standards are slow, but when I think how difficult was to get avatar support everywhere... it makes me sad.

After many years, I gave up on XMPP recently for "internal family" communications. I'm using Telegram now, although it really bothers me that I need a phone to start using it.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#32

Post by voidz »

hackuser wrote: post #29

These would be my concerns about potential differences between Signal and an 'Easy XMPP' client; would someone who knows Signal say whether these are accurate?: * Signal users are not anonymous; Signal requires users' phone numbers. * Signal is centralized. Is there a way to run your own Signal server? * Signal uses Google Chrome on the desktop (and Android?) and Google Play Services (or some part of them) on Android…

I think Google is only used to send empty notifications to android and chrome devices, right? IOS too, maybe? Not that this nullifies your point about Google. There's just not much for them to collect if what I asked is correct.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#33

Post by Markoff »

FabHK wrote: post #16
Faaak wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except when you've got so many clients and so many servers that the typical user gives up instead

particularly with the network effect. It gets tiring to convince people to install Signal, Wire, etc.

argument to install Signal is pretty easy - I just ask Android users if they use Facebook Messenger to manage SMS. if answer is negative I propose why not use different nice SMS client called Signal which can also do encrypted online instant messaging

though many people are just too lazy to replace even ugly default Messaging app, so wet just use it with my wife and parents since I boycott Messenger/Whatsapp, just in case for video calls I have Skype Mingo (it's sad that out of billion people in India it's difficult to find one person which would upload always newest build to apkmirror)

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#34

Post by ariwilson »

digi_owl wrote: post #19
ge0rg wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are attempts at creating an XMPP compliance suite[0], but the biggest problem is actually a lack of volunteers / money to improve the clients and servers. Conversations is driven by one full time developer, most other applications are hobby projects. [0] http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0375.html

It was a real sad day when Facebook and Google decided that proprietary was the way to go...

The writing was on the wall before that, though. WhatsApp was eating everyone's lunch and Facebook / Google wanted to move faster and own the messaging space.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#35

Post by techphys_91 »

voidz wrote: post #32
hackuser wrote: post #29

These would be my concerns about potential differences between Signal and an 'Easy XMPP' client; would someone who knows Signal say whether these are accurate?: * Signal users are not anonymous; Signal requires users' phone numbers. * Signal is centralized. Is there a way to run your own Signal server? * Signal uses Google Chrome on the desktop (and Android?) and Google Play Services (or some part of them) on Android…

I think Google is only used to send empty notifications to android and chrome devices, right? IOS too, maybe? Not that this nullifies your point about Google. There's just not much for them to collect if what I asked is correct.

This is my understanding as well. However even this requires you to have various google-parts installed on your phone. These can be fairly obtrusive with permissions and such.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#36

Post by 0XAFFE »

I recently tried riot.im and I'm realy blown away by the good UI they have and how easy it is to get started to develop your own stuff.

It is a shame that nothing by the likes exists in the XMPP-sphere.

EDIT: As a side note: Daniel Gultsch from the conversations-fame is doing a great job by providing/developing a realy awesome XMPP client for android and pushing the standard forward.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#37

Post by brandon272 »

Faaak wrote: post #7
cdelsolar wrote: post #6

competition is healthy

Except when you've got so many clients and so many servers that the typical user gives up instead

IMO, users in an organization engaging in debate and discussion about the best system based on the merits of the system to use is productive.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#38

Post by ge0rg »

hackuser wrote: post #29

These would be my concerns about potential differences between Signal and an 'Easy XMPP' client; would someone who knows Signal say whether these are accurate?: * Signal users are not anonymous; Signal requires users' phone numbers. * Signal is centralized. Is there a way to run your own Signal server? * Signal uses Google Chrome on the desktop (and Android?) and Google Play Services (or some part of them) on Android…

Signal requires users' phone numbers.

True for Signal. XMPP is using JIDs which are functionally comparable to email addresses, and similarly anonymous (or not).

Is there a way to run your own Signal server?

The Signal client is open source, the server mostly so. You could create your own semi-Signal community, but it would not be able to talk to official-Signal users.

XMPP is designed for federation by default, and you can run your own server, akin to email. Though some server operators decide to disable or cripple the federation feature (Facebook, Gmail).

Would I need to trust Signal more than I would need to trust Jabber?

This is a complicated matter. You need to trust the server operators to handle metadata in both scenarios, but you can run your own server with XMPP. You need to trust the client developer, which is Signal in one case, or the developer of your choice (or yourself) in the other. You need to trust the device manufacturer/Google in both cases.

Re: Easy XMPP: What are we doing here?

#40

Post by jimmies »

lima wrote: post #26
izacus wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you can't have two phones, or a phone or a tablet, or two computers synchronizing. It also won't synchronize SMS conversations, it'll hijack the SMS datastore if you want to use the seamless mode and do a bunch of other annoying stuff :/

You can workaround it somewhat by using groups and join both of your devices. The cryptographic primitives for multi user messaging are there.

Your crypto-enthusiast friends will be like "why is our conversation CC'ed to another number?" and you'll have to explain to every single one of them that it is a multi-device workaround.

And then when the NSA decided that they need their number CC'ed, your friends won't ask you...

Post reply on HN