Don't we have enough half finished encrypted messengers? Matrix, Databag, that one project that ran the Signal protocol over APub...
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
28 points (96.7% liked)
Encrypted messaging
223 readers
1 users here now
This is a community to discuss FOSS encrypted communications.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Matrix is a protocol not a messenger. Hate to be that guy, but the difference is worth learning.
Protocols are like email, or torrents, or VoIP or www, they all run on the "internet" but are not the same.
Maybe you already know, but other readers may not.
Plus signal and matrix protocol implementing messengers don't suck, they are everywhere, element, signal, whatsapp, Google and Facebook messenger apparently..
Just platform uptake is hard due to network effect, but matrix and its tech has the biggest potential to break this with bridges imo.
www is not a protocol, it's just a common subdomain. I think you meant http.
Thank you, yes I meant the website browsing internet, so it's http or https for the world wide Web.
There isn't another protocol for websites though is there?
gemini
Technically, gopher. But it doesn't count.
There are websockets.
I thought WhatsApp used XMPP.
AFAIK they both use Signal developed by Open Whisper.
Just platform uptake is hard due to network effect, but matrix and its tech has the biggest potential to break this with bridges imo.
Why Matrix when we have XMPP?
More modern and offers broader usecases
More modern
Not a reason.
and offers broader usecases
Elaborate?
Felt like since matrix was newer, it was more setup for all the integrations and bridges and the e2ee out of the box.
But since you forced me to read again about xmpp I've come back with this comment.
"XMPP isn't nearly as bad as Matrix people say.
Ultimately, they both have ease-of-use issues. Neither of them withstand the "can my mom/grandma use this test."
Yes, I agree with that.
Actually in terms of integrations and bridges XMPP is better, it was built for that from the very beginning, when it was perceived that there'll be many-many proprietary IM networks and XMPP users will use bridges for those.
Sadly it's losing popularity, but I don't see Matrix popularity growing that fast or being that stable to say that it's more relevant.
Personally I don't like Matrix because all its clients I tried were for whatever reason very slow, fetching history was somehow a computatively-intensive task for them. So it's just purely user perspective.
But I've seen its API, and that seems very nice and easy to use.
While XMPP has that, eh, 2000s industrial feel with lots of XML and extensions with bland numbers. Still, it's now pretty clear which extensions are expected to be used by everyone, and it has nice clients like Psi.
- E2EE is baked into the standard rather than being a nonstandard protocol extension not supported by all clients
- Voice and video calling
- Not XML based
rather than being a nonstandard protocol extension
It is standard. The standard allows extensions. (EDIT: That one is standardized.) You should have checked first.
not supported by all clients
As if every Matrix client supported all of it. A very weird point.
Voice and video calling
XMPP has that too. You should have checked first.
Not XML based
Just as good as "not JSON based". Weird again.
It is standard. The standard allows extensions.
Yeah so does Matrix but that doesn't mean everything Element adds as an extension magically becomes standardized.
As if every Matrix client supported all of it.
All of them support E2EE.
XMPP has voice and video calling
Source? Closest thing I could find is "Jitsi exists and uses XMPP under the hood"
Just as good as "not JSON based"
Obvious bandwidth reduction and ease of parsing aside I think JSON is better because it forces you to be intentional about how you add a protocol extension.
forgot these:
Yeah so does Matrix but that doesn’t mean everything Element adds as an extension magically becomes standardized.
Not the same way, there are standardized XEPs for XMPP. One may not support and not use them, yes.
All of them support E2EE.
Well, every time I've used XMPP recently I've used OMEMO, so there's no practical difference. Every modern client supports it.
Source? Closest thing I could find is “Jitsi exists and uses XMPP under the hood”
Jingle - XEP-0166.
Obvious bandwidth reduction
XMPP has compression.
and ease of parsing
OK, suppose so, not being a developer I still think I'd just use libxml for this and json-c for that, but OK.
aside I think JSON is better because it forces you to be intentional about how you add a protocol extension.
WDYM?
They all kind of suck
And now we have another one that kind of sucks.
Mull works very well for me
...last I checked Mull was a fork of Firefox for Android
I've been interested in this and briar for Bluetooth messaging. I really think the idea is neat and would love a messaging app that can work completely offline as well as online.
Me too, the problem is that it is kind of a pain to use
I get that not being based in the US is a feature (and a requirement for me) but why is it one of the first things they communicate is they're based in France? France is no privacy-respecting state either.
I think you may want to look into something decentralized. I believe Berty is but it is very much not ready
Why not just work on improving Briar?