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

Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

matrix.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 208 posts

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#61

Post by iknowstuff »

StudentStuff wrote: post #46
Arathorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

It'd be great if there were usable non-Riot clients that fully supported end to end cryptography. At this point Signal has better alternative clients in Pyre.chat and Signal-Weechat than Matrix has, as the existing alternative clients are almost all MVPs missing major features like e2e. The lack of a simple, common library is a real sticking point. Each client & bot shouldn't have to implement the baseline network pr…

Good idea. A library written in Rust and compiled to WASM for Riot would be a good fit.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#62

Post by vbezhenar »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #55

I'm not very much into chat apps and protocols, but isn't it possible to just revive XMPP? Ten years ago we used Adium and Pidgin, and federated chat seemed like a solved problem. I understand XMPP with its extensions and use of XML fragments might be complex, but it sounds like matrix or another new protocol isn't easier. In a way, those willing to invest time into F/OSS chat apps have done the best they could with…

Nobody buried XMPP. Write good server and client, comparable with proprietary protocols by features and it might work.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#64

Post by Arathorn »

StudentStuff wrote: post #46
Arathorn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

It'd be great if there were usable non-Riot clients that fully supported end to end cryptography. At this point Signal has better alternative clients in Pyre.chat and Signal-Weechat than Matrix has, as the existing alternative clients are almost all MVPs missing major features like e2e. The lack of a simple, common library is a real sticking point. Each client & bot shouldn't have to implement the baseline network pr…

So, other clients with fully working E2E encryption include: Seaglass, Weechat, Pattle and nheko (although it needs to implement attachments, but they is easy). The weechat and nheko implementations are independent implementations (ie not the same as the Riot ones).

We are starting work this week on closing the E2E gap for all the rest.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#65

Post by Arathorn »

speedplane wrote: post #56
Arathorn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Totally agreed. https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/matthew/msc177... is the core of the plan.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#66

Post by Freak_NL »

nicklaf wrote: post #50
Gigablah wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you want messages to span the entire screen? https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/108801/what-is-the-be...

Because: window managers! http://i.imgur.com/4K0pa6m.jpg That said...I must confess that irssi uses a non-trivial amount of margin space as well!

The user list on the right can be closed, and the channel list on the left can be collapsed.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#67

Post by Arathorn »

dboreham wrote: post #42
thinkloop wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- no vendor lock-in - decentralized - encrypted/private/secure - open-source It's like irc or email for private decentralized encrypted chat.

Matrix isn't really decentralized. It's federated.

In Matrix the conversations really are decentralised, not federated, over the servers - they are replicated over the nodes just as you would with git or a blockchain. Meanwhile we’re actively working on running servers clientside, at which point it becomes fully p2p as well as decentralised if you want that.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#68

Post by Arathorn »

krick wrote: post #38
Arathorn wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pot…

https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/master/docs/MSC17... is the best explanation. You can’t just make it a per-node decision otherwise everything would splitbrain.

Re: Matrix 1.0 – Are We Ready Yet?

#69

Post by ndnxhs »

Animats wrote: post #31

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 itself can be used for a few things. The main one being instant messaging but it can be used for a bunch of different things. At its core its a way for clients to exchange json messages in a way that doesn't require everyone to be on the same server.

People have built other stuff like blogs on top of it and you could use it for stuff like IoT devices.

It also comes with end to end encryption.

Post reply on HN