4 ms·

I still don't understand why Matrix was made when XMPP is already a thing; if you're not happy with the existing standard participate in the process, don't just

I still don't understand why Matrix was made when XMPP is already a thing; if you're not happy with the existing standard participate in the process, don't just make up a new one. https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

xena 10y ago
https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differen... This explains why
Arathorn 10y ago
They have completely different architectures and philosophies. Matrix is a decentralised conversation database - it's all about synchronising communication history between the different silos. It has a single monolithic spec, for better or worse, so you know that if your client and server supports the Matrix v0.1.0 spec, they will work with all the features available for the particular use case (e.g. mobile voip). XMPP instead is federated messaging and presence (and a whole bunch of stuff on top). It's passing stanzas between servers rather than synchronising historical stanzas between servers. The specs are highly modular and extensible and built out of XEPs. It's just a totally different way of approaching the problem of open communications. You could make the comparison that XMPP is a bit like SMTP, and Matrix is a bit like NNTP (Usenet). They both fulfil the same end goal - letting folks communicate openly over the internet. But they have totally different designs and there's room on the 'net for both. After all, you can just bridge XMPP to Matrix and everyone wins! :)
btown 10y ago
They do address this: https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differen... There's a larger narrative, I think, about how standardization bodies that are focused on backwards-compatibility can move more slowly than a newly-built ecosystem. While the web has huge commercial players dedicated to making it a first-class experience in an interoperable way, it's unclear that XMPP has the same impetus to evolve. Google Wave could have saved XMPP, but look how that turned out. I think it's very reasonable for Matrix to unfetter themselves from XMPP politics in a world where Slack the Quadricorn is the gold standard.
scrollaway 10y ago
> I still don't understand why Matrix was made when XMPP is already a thing Have you tried... thinking about it a bit more? I could come up with roughly 20 different reasons without trying very hard. For someone involved in XMPP, that is one hell of a thing to say. Seriously, calling out XKCD927 on a massive project like Matrix is extremely disrespectful to its contributors. Tell me, what could Matrix have done to save XMPP? Publish a hundred different XEPs nobody would ever bother to implement? Make broken clients/servers that don't follow the spec just to try fix a protocol that lost? Magically fix everything and tell people "No really guys, XMPP is better now I swear!"? They went and tried a new approach and they're doing really well with it... have some respect for that.
- dlmetcalf 10y ago
  I actually think it's very good thing that people are asking that question (why not fix XMPP)!! We know from Bob Metcalfe's Law, that starting new networks has a very high cost, either in adoption/migration, lost investments in past standards, duplication of efforts when multiple need to be supported, or when they fail to gain critical mass. There's a limited pool of attention and resources and it's right for people to be instinctively cautious and have the discussions. For me, the more I learn about Matrix, the more persuaded I am that it really does have merit. If I were a Matrix developer, I wouldn't feel disrespected. I'd be super glad that people are asking questions and genuinely seeking to test that the idea is right. From their dialogue with the community that I've seen so far, the developers are doing great and seem to thoroughly appreciate there's been a lot of false starts by various groups over the years. TLDR;) - It may be obvious to you, but it's GOOD people are having the conversation. Questions and even dissent should be embraced. It's not about disrespect, it's about testing & validating new ideas.
  - dlmetcalf 10y ago
    I should add, that the ability to bridge networks, means that XMPP, IRC and others won't/don't need to be cut off from Matrix either. That's kind of the point and interop is one of the big features it will have going.

xena 10y ago

https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differen... This explains why

Arathorn 10y ago

They have completely different architectures and philosophies. Matrix is a decentralised conversation database - it's all about synchronising communication history between the different silos. It has a single monolithic spec, for better or worse, so you know that if your client and server supports the Matrix v0.1.0 spec, they will work with all the features available for the particular use case (e.g. mobile voip). XMPP instead is federated messaging and presence (and a whole bunch of stuff on top). It's passing stanzas between servers rather than synchronising historical stanzas between servers. The specs are highly modular and extensible and built out of XEPs. It's just a totally different way of approaching the problem of open communications. You could make the comparison that XMPP is a bit like SMTP, and Matrix is a bit like NNTP (Usenet). They both fulfil the same end goal - letting folks communicate openly over the internet. But they have totally different designs and there's room on the 'net for both. After all, you can just bridge XMPP to Matrix and everyone wins! :)

btown 10y ago

They do address this: https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-difference-between-matrix-and-xmpp https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differen... There's a larger narrative, I think, about how standardization bodies that are focused on backwards-compatibility can move more slowly than a newly-built ecosystem. While the web has huge commercial players dedicated to making it a first-class experience in an interoperable way, it's unclear that XMPP has the same impetus to evolve. Google Wave could have saved XMPP, but look how that turned out. I think it's very reasonable for Matrix to unfetter themselves from XMPP politics in a world where Slack the Quadricorn is the gold standard.

scrollaway 10y ago

> I still don't understand why Matrix was made when XMPP is already a thing Have you tried... thinking about it a bit more? I could come up with roughly 20 different reasons without trying very hard. For someone involved in XMPP, that is one hell of a thing to say. Seriously, calling out XKCD927 on a massive project like Matrix is extremely disrespectful to its contributors. Tell me, what could Matrix have done to save XMPP? Publish a hundred different XEPs nobody would ever bother to implement? Make broken clients/servers that don't follow the spec just to try fix a protocol that lost? Magically fix everything and tell people "No really guys, XMPP is better now I swear!"? They went and tried a new approach and they're doing really well with it... have some respect for that.

dlmetcalf 10y ago
I actually think it's very good thing that people are asking that question (why not fix XMPP)!! We know from Bob Metcalfe's Law, that starting new networks has a very high cost, either in adoption/migration, lost investments in past standards, duplication of efforts when multiple need to be supported, or when they fail to gain critical mass. There's a limited pool of attention and resources and it's right for people to be instinctively cautious and have the discussions. For me, the more I learn about Matrix, the more persuaded I am that it really does have merit. If I were a Matrix developer, I wouldn't feel disrespected. I'd be super glad that people are asking questions and genuinely seeking to test that the idea is right. From their dialogue with the community that I've seen so far, the developers are doing great and seem to thoroughly appreciate there's been a lot of false starts by various groups over the years. TLDR;) - It may be obvious to you, but it's GOOD people are having the conversation. Questions and even dissent should be embraced. It's not about disrespect, it's about testing & validating new ideas.
- dlmetcalf 10y ago
  I should add, that the ability to bridge networks, means that XMPP, IRC and others won't/don't need to be cut off from Matrix either. That's kind of the point and interop is one of the big features it will have going.