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

XMPP vs. Matrix

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#81

Post by esbeeb »

esbeeb wrote: post #54

I run Prosody XMPP server on a cheap VPS, and appreciate how it's a stock Debian package, greatly simplifying security updates. It's delightfully lightweight on the server. I use Conversations as a client in Android, and Gajim in Linux. The basics like OMEMO, file attachments, push-to-talk voice memos (in Conversations, but not Gajim) work well. All comms are at least client-to-server-encrypted, and the OMEMO-protect…

actually, push-to-talk voice memos do work Gajim. An underrated feature!

Prosody allows voice and video calls - I have a TURN server all set up with it - but QOS rules (which are beyond my control, and are the fault of the ISPs I use) can sometimes squash calls made.

Gajim 1.9.3 (Flatpak) seems support voice and video calls to Conversations, but then it doesn't work. One Conversations smartphone can make voice and video calls to another Conversations smartphone.

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#82

Post by gtirloni »

pacija wrote: post #5

It's apples vs oranges. I selfhost and use both, ejabberd / conversations for xmpp and synapse / element for matrix. XMPP is traditional IM. I use it exclusively from Conversations client on Android / GrapheneOS and it is really instant, supports presence (knowing whether contact is actually online), rings for audio and video calls, gives feedback about whether user read the message etc. I use it mostly for 1:1 conve…

Matrix has presence but not all public servers enable it.

https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#presence

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#83

Post by Semaphor »

johnisgood wrote: post #37
erszcz wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm an XMPP server developer and work on [MongooseIM]( https://github.com/esl/MongooseIM ). > XMPP was invented at a time, where communicating online meant sending a message from one device to another. However, the modern expectations for messaging apps are much more than that. Sending media, using multiple devices, deleting messages, editing messages, read receipts, notifications when typing, group chats…

Conversations is Android (and maybe iOS) only, right? I still use gajim (not pidgin).

I miss the old gajim, before they redesigned it to look like every other multi-user chat instead of one optimized for 1-1 messaging :(

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#84

Post by johnisgood »

Semaphor wrote: post #83
johnisgood wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversations is Android (and maybe iOS) only, right? I still use gajim (not pidgin).

I miss the old gajim, before they redesigned it to look like every other multi-user chat instead of one optimized for 1-1 messaging :(

I agree, that takes me back. I miss a lot of old things. Some things haven't changed though, I still use irssi in XTerm!

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#85

Post by ementally »

Tmpod wrote: post #71
ementally wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://simplex.chat/ has lesser metadata than Signal[1][2], Matrix and XMPP. SimpleX Chat is going to move to Groups V2[3] very soon to make the experience much better. [1]: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/improving-signals-... [2]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09799 [3]: https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat/issues/4620#iss...

SimpleX looks really interesting. Will have to read on it. Seems somewhat like "magic", is there any gotcha?

See "We plan to add:"

https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat?tab=readme-ov-f...

but the first 2 points were already implemented as shown in their Roadmap[1], so they are going to probably remove them

[1]: https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat?tab=readme-ov-f...

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#86

Post by singpolyma3 »

dngray wrote: post #13
AshamedCaptain wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have criticized omemo in the past -- it breaks backwards compatibility way too readily resulting in XMPP clients not being able to talk to each other in levels that I hadn't seen since the Jingle debacles. However I just can't stand this article's tone (the accompanying imagery doesn't help), and then he has the balls to complain about the rude response he gets from the spec authors (even showing it off as if to el…

The main reason we won't list it on privacyguides.org is the encryption is not always on by default. There are two major problems, the implementations and the fact the spec isn't specific. I'm not particularly bothered by the imaginary, the dude is a furry what do you expect? Some furry bloggers do have pictures throughout their blog posts to split things up and lighten things. As for the reply from the spec author,…

While it's true OMEMO isn't used for voice and video, that's because voice and video are already e2ee with the more appropriate srtp

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#87

Post by thewinnie »

Tmpod wrote: post #57
tupolef wrote: post #51

I went from hosting XMPP to Matrix and then XMPP again in the last 10 years. - I'm now sure that I will never convert anyone to Matrix or host a Matrix server again. - Matrix big issues for me are that it's not really decentralized and this design impacts the server admin, the performances and the user's privacy. - I'm still not happy with XMPP clients for Linux, most are missing Omemo or automatic turn/stun discover…

Could you elaborate your points? I'm particularly interested in "Matrix isn't really decentralized" and on which XMPP client you're using on Linux. Thanks!

same, would like to learn more!

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#88

Post by xmpp-enjoyer »

Semaphor wrote: post #83
johnisgood wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversations is Android (and maybe iOS) only, right? I still use gajim (not pidgin).

I miss the old gajim, before they redesigned it to look like every other multi-user chat instead of one optimized for 1-1 messaging :(

For those who still like the classic style of messengers, Psi [1] offers an old-school, extremely customisable interface, and is still actively maintained. It integrates nicely with all the desktop platforms as well.

[1] https://psi-im.org/

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#89

Post by xmpp-enjoyer »

Tmpod wrote: post #57
tupolef wrote: post #51

I went from hosting XMPP to Matrix and then XMPP again in the last 10 years. - I'm now sure that I will never convert anyone to Matrix or host a Matrix server again. - Matrix big issues for me are that it's not really decentralized and this design impacts the server admin, the performances and the user's privacy. - I'm still not happy with XMPP clients for Linux, most are missing Omemo or automatic turn/stun discover…

Could you elaborate your points? I'm particularly interested in "Matrix isn't really decentralized" and on which XMPP client you're using on Linux. Thanks!

I'm not the parent, but I use both XMPP and Matrix, and have some thoughts to both of these.

> Matrix isn't really decentralized

I think most of the concerns stem from the majority of the development in the ecosystem being driven by a single company. This manifests in a few ways:

matrix.org is by far the biggest server. Element is by far the most popular client. Both were (until recently) maintained by the same company, and the client selects matrix.org as the default server. This was done to make onboarding easier, but it centralised power into one organisation.

Theoretically, since Element does most of the development, if they want to push something into the protocol, the whole ecosystem really has to follow.

Because most people are on matrix.org, and the protocol works by replicating state between involved servers, matrix.org gets a lot of metadata even from conversations that are not hosted on their server (as long as one person in the chat is on matrix.org).

There are some flags which are enabled by default which automatically "phone home" to matrix.org even when you are running your own server. They are easy to turn off, but an annoyance for people who want to run completely separated instances.

The standard way to join a chat is via a "matrix.to" link. This leaks some information to matrix.org even if the server is completely separate.

By contrast, XMPP has no dominant player who drives most of the development, and no dominant server instance. I imagine this is because the protocol has been around for much longer (so there is more time for things to settle), and there is a very clear separation between the standards body and the software developers. There are popular clients that have some influence over the ecosystem, but nowhere near the extent as in Matrix.

Now, XMPP has its problems too, but few of these stem from having too much centralisation.

> which XMPP client you're using on Linux

I personally use Dino (https://dino.im/). It offers a simple, clean experience, and looks really nice.

There are also more fully-featured clients, like Gajim (https://gajim.org/)

Re: XMPP vs. Matrix

#90

Post by Semaphor »

xmpp-enjoyer wrote: post #88
Semaphor wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I miss the old gajim, before they redesigned it to look like every other multi-user chat instead of one optimized for 1-1 messaging :(

For those who still like the classic style of messengers, Psi [1] offers an old-school, extremely customisable interface, and is still actively maintained. It integrates nicely with all the desktop platforms as well. [1] https://psi-im.org/

Kinda. The normal version hasn’t seen a release in 4 years, only the experimental psi+ version is maintained, and it is unclear which features it actually supports as all (at least in the wiki in English) information is heavily outdated.
Post reply on HN