3 ms·
Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host th
by chc4 11y ago
Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. That implies some company being behind the service to host that server, along with centralization and the ability of deanonymization. I'm sure there are clients that do support it, but I wouldn't want to use it. Proper Tox style would probably be to host your own bouncer server, like IRC, for that use.
I don't actually use XMPP, but a quick Google gives a list that do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messaging_clients#XMPP-related_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_instant_messagin... for example. Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? Why aren't you upset that I pointed at Tox, which is also a protocol with separate implementations? Your point about TCP, while meant to be a critism, is actually spot on: It is a protocol. Anyone can implement it and talk to all other XMPP (or Tox!) clients, unlike Skype which is completely proprietary and closed ecosystem.
Pointing at only one client shows favoritism and is disingenuous, since you could point out "<x> doesn't implement <y>!" when another client does, while if it's supported in the protocol it CAN be support by any of the clients.
You're actually right about the WebRTC point: it inherently doesn't support text, it's for p2p signaling. Most implementations do have a textbox for communication, however, and have the same benefit as Tox or XMPP: It's a protocol. Just because one site doesn't do it, doesn't mean any other site can't and inter-op with all other providers.
- Dylan16807 11y ago>Asynchronous messaging depends on a server to hold your messages for delivery when you go offline. You can get 90% of the benefit by having other clients in the chat act as relays for that chat. No centralization required. You'd only need a bouncer for specific situations, like mobile<->mobile chat with all desktop clients shut off. >Would you be upset if I said "IRC does that" if you asked for messaging? If I asked for just messaging, I would accept "IRC". But if I ask for video chat, and a tiny fraction of IRC clients did video chat, I would not accept "IRC" as an answer. If you want to name a protocol, the implementations need to have widespread support for the entire list of features. Theoretical support is not good enough. I agree that universal support is unnecessary, but widespread support is a must. It looks like "XMPP+Jingle" is a pretty good answer, but I'd have to look into it more.
- chc4 11y agoI don't actually have any idea about how group chats are implemented in Tox, but I don't see why you can't send messages to the people in the group to redistribute when people get back. It sounds like it might have history consistency issues, but maybe they already do that. I assumed you were talking about one-on-one message relaying, which is probably what most people would care about. That can't really be solved, since one of the goals of Tox is also to prevent 3rd parties from being able to tell who you are talking to. Can't do that if you have to broadcast to users "send this message to <x> when they get back"...
- Dylan16807 11y agoFrom what I could see group chats don't have it yet. And note that I said multiple clients, not multiple users. If you or your chat partner have their desktop turned on it should be able to take messages and forward them to your cell phone.