4 ms·

I'm not bad mouthing anything. It's just that Matrix doesn't solve any problems XMPP hasn't already solved or could have solved with an extension. Matrix is bas

I'm not bad mouthing anything. It's just that Matrix doesn't solve any problems XMPP hasn't already solved or could have solved with an extension. Matrix is basically a pointer to a stream of messages. You could have easily made this into a XEP. In fact there have been ideas in the XMPP community called MAM subscriptions that are basically the same thing. Even if that extension would have been a radical change in C2S communication as long as S2S stays the same you could have built your protocol on an existing infrastructure. I mean I rather have people use matrix than a closed system like WhatsApp or Signal. But I honestly don't see the point for developing a new protocol other than JSON over HTTP fits better into the zeitgeist and NIH syndrome.

Arathorn 10y ago
Claiming that matrix needs 5-10 years to be 'usable' seemed to be unnecessarily and unproductively negative, hence my objection to badmouthing when we could instead be working together productively :) The last thing decentralised comms needs is in-fighting. I think the root of the contention here is that you don't seem to understand what Matrix does - this is probably my fault for failing to explain it better to you in person at FOSDEM. It is not a pointer to a stream of messages. The whole point is to store arbitrary data (e.g. room history and state) as a directed acyclic graph shared over all the participating servers. It's a big distributed datastructure with eventual consistency semantics which happens to be usable for chat. Or any other kind of real-time requirements. If you wanted to compare it to a XEP, then FMUC would be a better comparison than MAM subscriptions. And yes, you're right that one could have built it on top of the XEP stack of standards, just like FMUC did. We could also have layered it on top of IRC. Or IMAP. Or NNTP. Or ZMQ. Or MSRP. Or Psyc etc. Instead, we chose to layer on HTTP in order to keep it as simple as possible - we simply don't need most of the abstractions that XMPP provides. And we believe it's easier for a protocol to get traction if it has a single monolithic spec which defines feature compatibility profiles for interop than if it's a huge collection of optional extensions. In the end, these are both subjective opinions, but I see no harm in there being two different philosophies out there for solving the problem of interoperable communication. Especially as it's not a competition, given both can 'win' by bridging together.
- inputmice 10y ago
  I'm just wondering what makes someone look at an XMPP client like Conversations and say: "This is fundamental flawed let's completely reinvent the wheel. There is no way we can ever get a good UX out of this" Matrix might not be a bad protocol for Instant Messaging. But neither is XMPP. And XMPP already has an established infrastructure of public servers and a fairly large user base which will take Matrix at least 5-10 years to build up (That's were the 5-10 years were coming from).
  - Arathorn 10y ago
    So from 2012-2013 we maintained a service that ran on XMPP. It wasn't a fun experience. Had Conversations existed back then it might how shown us the light of how to build create a good and modern experience on top of XMPP. Instead, we swapped it out for a proprietary HTTP-based precursor to Matrix (called Glow), which worked astonishingly well for what we needed. So in 2014 we decided to build Matrix with the primary goals of: 1. decentralising the conversation so no single entity owns or controls it: being a federated communication database rather than a messaging platform. 2. making bridging a first class citizen (hence the name Matrix; it's designed to matrix together other conversations) 3. providing a deliberately monolithic spec to try to avoid fragmentation and help us evolve it relatively rapidly. Now, I have huge respect for you in showing that it's possible to build a good UX on top of XMPP. And we don't think XMPP is fundamentally flawed. But we wanted to try a completely different architecture and design and see if it flies. As per the earlier comment I see it very similar to NNTP and SMTP. They can be both used to power conversations, but architecturally they couldn't be more different, and the world is big enough for both. Genuine question: any idea how big the public XMPP federation is in terms of active servers and active users? Would be interested to know how Matrix compares.

Arathorn 10y ago

Claiming that matrix needs 5-10 years to be 'usable' seemed to be unnecessarily and unproductively negative, hence my objection to badmouthing when we could instead be working together productively :) The last thing decentralised comms needs is in-fighting. I think the root of the contention here is that you don't seem to understand what Matrix does - this is probably my fault for failing to explain it better to you in person at FOSDEM. It is not a pointer to a stream of messages. The whole point is to store arbitrary data (e.g. room history and state) as a directed acyclic graph shared over all the participating servers. It's a big distributed datastructure with eventual consistency semantics which happens to be usable for chat. Or any other kind of real-time requirements. If you wanted to compare it to a XEP, then FMUC would be a better comparison than MAM subscriptions. And yes, you're right that one could have built it on top of the XEP stack of standards, just like FMUC did. We could also have layered it on top of IRC. Or IMAP. Or NNTP. Or ZMQ. Or MSRP. Or Psyc etc. Instead, we chose to layer on HTTP in order to keep it as simple as possible - we simply don't need most of the abstractions that XMPP provides. And we believe it's easier for a protocol to get traction if it has a single monolithic spec which defines feature compatibility profiles for interop than if it's a huge collection of optional extensions. In the end, these are both subjective opinions, but I see no harm in there being two different philosophies out there for solving the problem of interoperable communication. Especially as it's not a competition, given both can 'win' by bridging together.

inputmice 10y ago
I'm just wondering what makes someone look at an XMPP client like Conversations and say: "This is fundamental flawed let's completely reinvent the wheel. There is no way we can ever get a good UX out of this" Matrix might not be a bad protocol for Instant Messaging. But neither is XMPP. And XMPP already has an established infrastructure of public servers and a fairly large user base which will take Matrix at least 5-10 years to build up (That's were the 5-10 years were coming from).
- Arathorn 10y ago
  So from 2012-2013 we maintained a service that ran on XMPP. It wasn't a fun experience. Had Conversations existed back then it might how shown us the light of how to build create a good and modern experience on top of XMPP. Instead, we swapped it out for a proprietary HTTP-based precursor to Matrix (called Glow), which worked astonishingly well for what we needed. So in 2014 we decided to build Matrix with the primary goals of: 1. decentralising the conversation so no single entity owns or controls it: being a federated communication database rather than a messaging platform. 2. making bridging a first class citizen (hence the name Matrix; it's designed to matrix together other conversations) 3. providing a deliberately monolithic spec to try to avoid fragmentation and help us evolve it relatively rapidly. Now, I have huge respect for you in showing that it's possible to build a good UX on top of XMPP. And we don't think XMPP is fundamentally flawed. But we wanted to try a completely different architecture and design and see if it flies. As per the earlier comment I see it very similar to NNTP and SMTP. They can be both used to power conversations, but architecturally they couldn't be more different, and the world is big enough for both. Genuine question: any idea how big the public XMPP federation is in terms of active servers and active users? Would be interested to know how Matrix compares.