5 ms·

I figured someone would say that. I want actual cross-device, not Signal's weird "link your phone up to your MacBook" solution. So not Signal as it presently

by mocko 11y ago

I figured someone would say that. I want actual cross-device, not Signal's weird "link your phone up to your MacBook" solution. So not Signal as it presently stands. Also (last time I checked; maybe it has improved) Signal's support for inline media within conversations was light years behind Telegram. Don't get me wrong, I applaud Signal's focus on security, but its usability simply isn't there yet.

robryk 11y ago
> (...) not Signal's weird "link your phone up to your MacBook" solution What are the properties of this solution that you dislike?
- LeoPanthera 10y ago
  My main criticism is that it requires Chrome, which I don't want.
  - harry8 10y ago
    So use chromium? Or have your messages stored by a third party in clear text - which seems like a far worse option than having a browser you don't otherwise have to use at all, installed.
    - amk_ 10y ago
      There are other browsers than Chrome and Chromium, you know.
      - harry8 10y ago
        I think you missed the point. Use another browser by all means, I do. Chrome or Chromium is required to run the Signal desktop client.
        fabulist 10y ago
        No, you missed the point. They don't want Chrome, and if their aversion could be solved with small tweaks to the branding they'd have probably just gotten over it.
        harry8 10y ago
        If you don't want to use chrome or chromium to run one single app to have proper encryption on your desktop in addition to your mobile device - which doesn't need a browser at all, and as a result of that "aversion" would prefer your messages are kept in clear text on a server your aversion is not worth considering further. Or I'm wrong, what's the aversion that is more important than having your messages stored in clear text by a third party?
- antimatter 10y ago
  I may be wrong but doesn't this solution also require an Android device?
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    I believe compatibility with the iOS client is being worked on
mkohlmyr 11y ago
I can't reply to the post underneath yours but I very much agree with you and for me the reason I don't want the "link your phone to your macbook" solution is because my phone and it's number are very much not going to be permanent. I do however have an email address I intend to use for a very long time. I was actually looking for a chat solution earlier today and neither telegram nor signal fit the bill for these very reasons. I want telegrams nice-looking apps, with signals security. Could I use WhatsApp? Maybe, but Facebook owning it makes me uncomfortable.
- ahalam 10y ago
  Why aren't you using Wire (https://www.wire.com https://www.wire.com)? It is cross platform, end to end secure w/ open source audited crypto, focuses on app usability, and doesn't need a phone number to sign up.
  - mocko 10y ago
    Trust issues with the founders (Skype hardly had a great privacy record); inability to build own APK (because only the crypto is open source) means you can't be sure the code on GitHub is what you're really running.
  - mkohlmyr 10y ago
    I had honestly never heard of it before. It looks good, but the website is completely lacking any information about the company which again makes me feel a little bit uneasy. I might try it, though.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tripzilch 10y ago
  > I want telegrams nice-looking apps, with signals security. Could I use WhatsApp? Maybe, but Facebook owning it makes me uncomfortable. Exactly, bots are an interesting and cool idea, and they're obviously putting a lot of effort behind it. But it just pales in comparison to the huge leap WhatsApp took, by implementing Signal's encryption. TBH, I hadn't expected that move from WhatsApp at all--and I'm still a tiny bit skeptical, because it almost sounds a bit too good to be true :) I have been using Signal for a bit, too, but hadn't gotten around to read up on how Signal's encryption protocol works, but I intend to. This too seems almost too easy, to get zero configuration and hard security. Surely there must be some pitfalls or trade-offs I'm paying for that? Ok there's the verification codes, and I can see if the protocol properly tight and secure, that might get you there. But I expect that to still leave some minor pitfall(s), and I just kind of want to know what exactly those are. On the other hand, Telegram's Linux desktop client is just glorious. Sync is perfect and instant. The whole GUI runs super-snappy even on my 4-year old low-powered netbook. Which is something I can't say for WhatsWeb. Because it's so smooth and instant-sync I use as one of my primary means of sending text or data between my netbook and my phone. The other reason is that, my data is being slurped left and right by big foreign corporations operating under very nosy governments. Currently that is mainly the US government, given the software platforms I use. Even if I can't help those powers tapping my (meta)data, it still makes a lot of sense to divide up my data-trail between powers that are very unlikely to share this data with eachother. And then, about half of my friends are on Telegram. Many of them for the two reasons above, others because the rest is there :-P I personally don't mind using more than one IM-app/network either. I have all the "messaging" stuff (including GMail, btw) grouped in one of those "folder" like icons on my homescreen (Android/Cyanogenmod), giving very quick access to any I need. So yes, Telegram. Make with the hard encryption. I personally prefer it over bot-functionality, even though I think it is very shiny. But what I would really hate to see is an IM network with mediocre encryption "win" (popularity) over a network with much better encryption, just because it has a shiny bot platform.
harry8 10y ago
I find signal really very usable. Huge doubts over telegram's security - it isn't there yet and doesn't sound like they even want it to be. Telegram seems like noise if security is interesting to you.
Mo3 10y ago
What? Signal Desktop is out of closed beta now and it's very enjoyable.

by mocko 11y ago

robryk 11y ago

> (...) not Signal's weird "link your phone up to your MacBook" solution What are the properties of this solution that you dislike?

LeoPanthera 10y ago
My main criticism is that it requires Chrome, which I don't want.
- harry8 10y ago
  So use chromium? Or have your messages stored by a third party in clear text - which seems like a far worse option than having a browser you don't otherwise have to use at all, installed.
  - amk_ 10y ago
    There are other browsers than Chrome and Chromium, you know.
    - harry8 10y ago
      I think you missed the point. Use another browser by all means, I do. Chrome or Chromium is required to run the Signal desktop client.
      - fabulist 10y ago
        No, you missed the point. They don't want Chrome, and if their aversion could be solved with small tweaks to the branding they'd have probably just gotten over it.
        harry8 10y ago
        If you don't want to use chrome or chromium to run one single app to have proper encryption on your desktop in addition to your mobile device - which doesn't need a browser at all, and as a result of that "aversion" would prefer your messages are kept in clear text on a server your aversion is not worth considering further. Or I'm wrong, what's the aversion that is more important than having your messages stored in clear text by a third party?
antimatter 10y ago
I may be wrong but doesn't this solution also require an Android device?
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  I believe compatibility with the iOS client is being worked on

mkohlmyr 11y ago

I can't reply to the post underneath yours but I very much agree with you and for me the reason I don't want the "link your phone to your macbook" solution is because my phone and it's number are very much not going to be permanent. I do however have an email address I intend to use for a very long time. I was actually looking for a chat solution earlier today and neither telegram nor signal fit the bill for these very reasons. I want telegrams nice-looking apps, with signals security. Could I use WhatsApp? Maybe, but Facebook owning it makes me uncomfortable.

ahalam 10y ago
Why aren't you using Wire (https://www.wire.com https://www.wire.com)? It is cross platform, end to end secure w/ open source audited crypto, focuses on app usability, and doesn't need a phone number to sign up.
- mocko 10y ago
  Trust issues with the founders (Skype hardly had a great privacy record); inability to build own APK (because only the crypto is open source) means you can't be sure the code on GitHub is what you're really running.
- mkohlmyr 10y ago
  I had honestly never heard of it before. It looks good, but the website is completely lacking any information about the company which again makes me feel a little bit uneasy. I might try it, though.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tripzilch 10y ago
> I want telegrams nice-looking apps, with signals security. Could I use WhatsApp? Maybe, but Facebook owning it makes me uncomfortable. Exactly, bots are an interesting and cool idea, and they're obviously putting a lot of effort behind it. But it just pales in comparison to the huge leap WhatsApp took, by implementing Signal's encryption. TBH, I hadn't expected that move from WhatsApp at all--and I'm still a tiny bit skeptical, because it almost sounds a bit too good to be true :) I have been using Signal for a bit, too, but hadn't gotten around to read up on how Signal's encryption protocol works, but I intend to. This too seems almost too easy, to get zero configuration and hard security. Surely there must be some pitfalls or trade-offs I'm paying for that? Ok there's the verification codes, and I can see if the protocol properly tight and secure, that might get you there. But I expect that to still leave some minor pitfall(s), and I just kind of want to know what exactly those are. On the other hand, Telegram's Linux desktop client is just glorious. Sync is perfect and instant. The whole GUI runs super-snappy even on my 4-year old low-powered netbook. Which is something I can't say for WhatsWeb. Because it's so smooth and instant-sync I use as one of my primary means of sending text or data between my netbook and my phone. The other reason is that, my data is being slurped left and right by big foreign corporations operating under very nosy governments. Currently that is mainly the US government, given the software platforms I use. Even if I can't help those powers tapping my (meta)data, it still makes a lot of sense to divide up my data-trail between powers that are very unlikely to share this data with eachother. And then, about half of my friends are on Telegram. Many of them for the two reasons above, others because the rest is there :-P I personally don't mind using more than one IM-app/network either. I have all the "messaging" stuff (including GMail, btw) grouped in one of those "folder" like icons on my homescreen (Android/Cyanogenmod), giving very quick access to any I need. So yes, Telegram. Make with the hard encryption. I personally prefer it over bot-functionality, even though I think it is very shiny. But what I would really hate to see is an IM network with mediocre encryption "win" (popularity) over a network with much better encryption, just because it has a shiny bot platform.

harry8 10y ago

I find signal really very usable. Huge doubts over telegram's security - it isn't there yet and doesn't sound like they even want it to be. Telegram seems like noise if security is interesting to you.

Mo3 10y ago

What? Signal Desktop is out of closed beta now and it's very enjoyable.