The home page gives no clue as to what "Matrix" is. It seems to be yet another "federation" system. Is this worth any attention?
Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
31–40 of 208 posts
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix isn't really hostile to competing server implementations. If it were, then they wouldn't have spent a long time and a lot of effort to finalize the Server-to-Server spec r0.1, which anyone can implement [1]. And just to add my personal anecdote, Matthew (CEO of New Vector, co-founder of Matrix.org) is present quite often in the Matrix HQ chat room, and willing to field questions from anyone. Perhaps with sligh…
To quote one of the follow up comments from the author: > If you go to matrix.org and look at the list of about a dozen or so servers: you will find that none of them actually work except the reference implementation, and maybe sometimes Construct. Even thus, the phrase "able to build" is questionable. I have spent months reverse-engineering their software and its interactions before, and after, it was at all documen…
The "good luck talking to your own federation" comment is being taken out of context. I can't find it in my history (so I assume it's been paraphrased), plus from memory I think it was the final line in an argument over how some bit of the protocol should be implemented. After failing to convince the guy that our approach was better than his proposal, I gave up with "okay, you can always do it your way, but you'll only be speaking to yourself" or something similar. I'm not sure this is evidence of being hostile to alternative servers, but if anything an encouragement for people to experiment with variations on the spec if they think they can do better :|
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19418111 for a detailed response to these accusations.
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#33I don't know about Matrix, but Riot, the default frontend, certainly isn't: https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/7062 Copy/paste is a pretty fundamental feature.
This only applies to text with embedded formatting, like bold and italic
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#34I don't know about Matrix, but Riot, the default frontend, certainly isn't: https://github.com/vector-im/riot-web/issues/7062 Copy/paste is a pretty fundamental feature.
I was the original reporter of linked bug. In fairness to Riot team, it appears to be an upstream bug with their rte: https://github.com/ianstormtaylor/slate/issues/2612
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#35I sincerely hope someone took the Telegram client code and add Matrix protocol to it.
Really, Telegram client is open source and the app is more usable than any other bloatware on the market.
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#36I hear about Matrix a lot, but I have no idea why I should use it. Can anyone explain why I should use Matrix?
Basically, because there's no alternative for a truly open, striving for security messenger software. It's imperfect, but, honestly, Matrix/Riot is as good as it gets for now. Both server and client software are open-source, and it is designed to be federated network, meaning if you don't trust their e2e encryption or whatever, you can just roll up your own server and use it to communicate with somebody. And it's pretty decent in terms of features already implemented, it's easy to write helper-bots, it has clients for all major OS. And, sadly, almost everyone still uses Telegram/Whatsapp instead, which is, I believe the main reason you (and everyone else asking) should start using it even if you don't feel like you have to, because none of your friends are currently on it.
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#37I had a pretty positive view of Matrix until I came across this post and the follow up responses from the developer behind an unofficial Matrix server implementation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19365968 I'd say tread carefully given their apparent hostility towards competing server implementations, which is literally the only thing that makes the protocol meaningfully "federated" to begin with. This part in…
I'm the project lead for Matrix (and CEO of New Vector, the company which hires most of the core Matrix team) and can try to clarify this. 1. We don't have any hostility to alternative server implementations; it would be utterly idiotic to sabotage the project by doing so. Instead, we promote them, even when they're written by people who for whatever reason have issues with the project. For instance, if you look at h…
Thank you for providing your side of the story. While I can no longer edit my post to point to this, I have upvoted this post to hopefully bring some visibility to it, and encourage others to do the same.
Until someone can provide a chat log of what was actually said in that conversation that led up to that comment, it's still going to be difficult for any outside observer to make up their own mind on whether or not those words were indeed taken out of context to the degree that you suggest. But I can appreciate that it could be frustrating to deal with someone who behaves as you claim, even if his intentions might be to keep the protocol open and secure.
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#38Lets Encrypt has been enabling bad behavior quite a bit lately. Here Matrix says they will no longer accept federation from peers that self sign their certs. Why? Because Lets Encrypt exists. That's the entire argument. They do not address the problems of centralization this creates.
no, the argument is that Let's Encrypt is doing a better job at trustworthiness than our previous attempt at using Perspectives to vouch for self-signed certificates, and so at least self-signed folk can have a fairly seamless upgrade to LE if they want. However, if you want better trust, you can always use a CA you trust more than Lets Encrypt (including a private one, if you're on a private federation, of course).
Could you please point me in the direction of someplace where this problem is better explained? I'm struggling to understand, how the certificate choice of the peer X should be a problem, given you send them only the information directly related to the peer X, so it seems like you shouldn't care if the traffic between you 2 is encrypted using X's key or MitM's key, because it's only their part of the network that potentially gets compromised. If so, it should be the choice of every given node, if they trust that part of the network they are connecting to, and, conclusively, if they want to accept a certificate they see for the first time, no matter if it's signed by any common CA or not.
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I in fact just installed it. They changed the text in the "search bar" present in the homescreen, which is a great improvement (it now says "filter rooms"). However this feature is only useful for really heavy users with tons of rooms, yet it's displayed front and center while the global search option which is fundamental for onboarding is still hidden. The full redesign has been postponed because they are rewri…
the recent mobile update is just a cosmetic redesign (getting rid of all the green!) You're completely right that RiotX is where the overall usability fixes are happening, including ones which would solve your problem here. Good news is that RiotX is evolving fast though - we're putting all our resources into it rather than Riot/Android, and then the same UX will be ported over to Riot/iOS. We're aiming to get a dail…
Thanks for the clarification. Those are great news!
Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?
#40Off-topic, but Whatsapp provides E2E for groups upto 256. Matrix can apparently provide E2E for bigger groups. Did they do scaling better?