4 ms·

It isn't because GnuPG doesn't work well or because it is too hard to use that people don't use it. They don't use it because other people don't use it. Why do

by rvern 10y ago

It isn't because GnuPG doesn't work well or because it is too hard to use that people don't use it. They don't use it because other people don't use it. Why do people use Facebook instead of Diaspora? It's not because Facebook is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Facebook. Why do people use Skype instead of XMPP? It's not because Skype is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Skype. Why do people use WhatsApp instead of GnuPG or OTR? It's not because WhatsApp is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use WhatsApp. It's always the same standard chicken and egg adoption problem. As shown in the article, GnuPG is used for package signing, commit signing, file encryption, and all sorts of things that don't involve many people. But when it's about communication, you can only use GnuPG if the people you want to communicate with use GnuPG too... and thus the adoption problem applies. And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft. So if we want people to use open source software and open protocols instead of living in walled gardens, we need to advertise them. Advertising works.

dispose13432 10y ago
>And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft. I know quite a few non-techies who use VLC, Firefox, LibreOffice, and other OS advertising-less projects. The difference is: 1. Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp solved problems others didn't and became big. Now it's too late to fight. Had Diaspora been around before FB, and as easy to work with (put name here, picture here, password here, friend here. You're all set up. Let's go), or XMPP been around before Skype (which is a very old program in internet time), or Kontalk,Signal, etc. been around before WhatsApp (find friends by number, not by username), they probably would have taken off (at least to some degree). Google came late onto the Desktop scene (Chromebooks) and are not successful while the incumbent (MS) is good. MS came late onto the mobile scene and failed, while the incumbent (Google) is good.
- daenney 10y ago
  > or XMPP been around before Skype It was. XMPP, aka Jabber, started late 1998, the first version of jabberd appeared in 1999, the standards group started in 2002 and the RFCs were ratified in 2004. Jabber.org, the first IM service on top op Jabber/XMPP opened its doors in 1999. Skype was first released in 2003, about 4 years after Jabber had already become a thing. Just because something was there first doesn't make it win nor does it mean it will remain the primary/principle protocol/option :).
  - Decade 10y ago
    >> or XMPP been around before Skype > It was. XMPP, aka Jabber, started late 1998… Skype was first released in 2003… But XMPP didn’t have VoIP until 2005.[0] More importantly, XMPP and SIP don’t have a great story for NAT traversal and privacy. And corporations are shying away from open standards, e.g. Google Hangouts federation, or when Apple FaceTime was supposed to be an open standard.[1] A very long time ago, before even Jabber was around, I played with PGPfone[2] on my 33 MHz laptop.[3] No FPU. 128-bit symmetric encryption. For voice, the processing power problem is solved to overkill. But PGPfone proved to be useless because it didn’t traverse NAT. The ultimate lesson from PGPfone: NAT is inherently repressive. It divides the Internet into haves and have-nots, and most everybody is a have-not. If you want to contact another have-not, you must do it through the graces of someone who has public IP address space. That is why I started advocating for IPv6 long before any of my peers.[4] [0]https://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and-jingle https://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and... [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_happened_to_making_facetime_an_open/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_hap... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPfone [3]http://lowendmac.com/pb/powerbook-190cs.html http://lowendmac.com/pb/powerbook-190cs.html [4]https://version6.ru/en/ipv6-for-freedom https://version6.ru/en/ipv6-for-freedom
- rvern 10y ago
  Sounds right, maybe Diaspora or XMPP would not become popular if they were advertised today. Software like VLC, Firefox, LibreOffice would because they're not communication platforms. Chance might play a larger role than advertising in the early game, for communication platforms.
cookiecaper 10y ago
I just need to jump in here and harp on the thing that I'm sure regular readers of HN are sick of seeing me harp in on all the time. :P The network effects of Facebook et al are entirely artificial! The beauty of the internet is that there are no real barriers to keep everyone in the same box. Instantaneous, exact communication is possible across the whole world now. "Other people can't hear me when I'm not using Facebook, so I have to use Facebook" is NOT an inherent problem in a digital system! The problem is, simply, that the law in the United States, Europe, and most of the rest of the world explicitly makes it illegal to provide third-party federation systems that would bring that permeability to the "walled gardens" of the modern web. The walls aren't really there. We don't need to install millions of miles of compatible cable to hook up diaspora and Facebook. We don't need the government to step in and do anything to stop the behemoths, we just need them to get out of the way. The web's natural mechanisms can solve this on their own if the USG stops putting developers and entrepreneurs in jail/financial ruin for trying to innovate. Users need to be allowed to access sites with a browsing device of their own choice instead of allowing vendors to cut off access based on the use of browsing devices that preserve content, and then we need to update our copyright and contract law so that normal use of these browsing devices doesn't constitute infringement or breach. Repeal the CFAA, fix the Copyright Act, retake the web from phony monopolies. Let's get these guys competing on merit again and make room for the revolutionary iterative improvements of the little guy.
- cyberpunk 10y ago
  I'm not sure that's the whole problem. The walled garden is a financial incentive for tech companies mainly, isn't it? It seems like it's going to a hard thing to shift; so far it's been a 'who cares' for most of us, but it's really going to start hitting once VR gets big, at least -- as far as I daydream about such things.. Lets' get in a time machine, what I'd really like to see is an open protocol for VR ala 'snow crash' governed in the same sort of way HTTP is, while we're early days now I think we can probably assume that VR, somewhere down the line potentially 'browser replacement' in reach but I'm not really sure that can ever really happen though when we're building lots of isolated gardens which speak different languages -- as the way things currently are? Do you think the motivations of e.g sony or htc not to go down the same path http did are because of the CFAA and over-regulation instead of money reasons? It seems to me short sighted quick returns, lock in and incompat are going to play bigger roles than govt reg in the next decades in stifling progress -- I'd like to hear your take..
zedred 10y ago
> It isn't because GnuPG doesn't work well or because it is too hard to use that people don't use it. They don't use it because other people don't use it. Sure, GnuPG works "well," for engineers. This post is written by an engineer, but engineers are no longer the majority of computer users. If you want to develop mass market products today, coming to terms with that is pretty important. To even try to draw a comparison between WhatsApp and XMPP+OTR is absurd. For an engineer, maybe the latter is passable, but the billions of people around the world who want to chat on their mobile device, don't understand what a key exchange is, don't understand why they can't immediately see everyone in their address book they can chat with, and don't want to run their own server, it definitely isn't passable. > Why do people use Facebook instead of Diaspora? It's not because Facebook is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Facebook. > Why do people use Skype instead of XMPP? It's not because Skype is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Skype. > Why do people use WhatsApp instead of GnuPG or OTR? It's not because WhatsApp is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use WhatsApp. I'm sorry but this is just not true. Network effects are important, but there's a reason that people are using these networks to begin with. They work really well. Something like WhatsApp may seem simple, but every little interaction within the app is perfectly polished in a way that GnuPG, OTR, or any XMPP client is definitely not. > And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft. As far as I can tell, WhatsApp never spent a single dollar on advertising. Their entire growth strategy seems to have been word of mouth. These companies have hundreds or thousands of engineers who work on these products full time every day, driving the products forward, making them better and better. That is not something an open source client is ever going to be able to compete with. It just isn't.
- rvern 10y ago
  I'm not convinced... > I'm sorry but this is just not true. Network effects are important, but there's a reason that people are using these networks to begin with. They work really well. There's a reason they use these networks to begin with, but I don't think it has much to do with them working really well. The network has to work well enough, but past that, marketing, chance and being an early player are all factors that I suspect are more important than how good the product is. > As far as I can tell, WhatsApp never spent a single dollar on advertising. Their entire growth strategy seems to have been word of mouth. Yes, there are other ways to get through the initial growth than advertising. Such as chance, or being there before everyone else. But the "word of mouth" is part of the network effect I am talking about, and it comes after the initial growth. They had to get some initial growth somehow. > These companies have hundreds or thousands of engineers who work on these products full time every day, driving the products forward, making them better and better. That is not something an open source client is ever going to be able to compete with. It just isn't. That doesn't match my experience and I don't see a reason it would. If we were talking about a web browser, maybe, but an instant messaging client is something pretty simple that it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of engineers to get right and make into a good product. Since an open source project won't have the strong incentives a company will have that are against the interests of the users (making it into walled garden, centralized, proprietary software that doesn't use open protocols), it won't take much for the open source client to be better. There is not much correlation in my experience between how good software is and how much money the company that created it has or how many employees it has working on that software.

by rvern 10y ago

dispose13432 10y ago

>And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft. I know quite a few non-techies who use VLC, Firefox, LibreOffice, and other OS advertising-less projects. The difference is: 1. Facebook, Skype and WhatsApp solved problems others didn't and became big. Now it's too late to fight. Had Diaspora been around before FB, and as easy to work with (put name here, picture here, password here, friend here. You're all set up. Let's go), or XMPP been around before Skype (which is a very old program in internet time), or Kontalk,Signal, etc. been around before WhatsApp (find friends by number, not by username), they probably would have taken off (at least to some degree). Google came late onto the Desktop scene (Chromebooks) and are not successful while the incumbent (MS) is good. MS came late onto the mobile scene and failed, while the incumbent (Google) is good.

daenney 10y ago
> or XMPP been around before Skype It was. XMPP, aka Jabber, started late 1998, the first version of jabberd appeared in 1999, the standards group started in 2002 and the RFCs were ratified in 2004. Jabber.org, the first IM service on top op Jabber/XMPP opened its doors in 1999. Skype was first released in 2003, about 4 years after Jabber had already become a thing. Just because something was there first doesn't make it win nor does it mean it will remain the primary/principle protocol/option :).
- Decade 10y ago
  >> or XMPP been around before Skype > It was. XMPP, aka Jabber, started late 1998… Skype was first released in 2003… But XMPP didn’t have VoIP until 2005.[0] More importantly, XMPP and SIP don’t have a great story for NAT traversal and privacy. And corporations are shying away from open standards, e.g. Google Hangouts federation, or when Apple FaceTime was supposed to be an open standard.[1] A very long time ago, before even Jabber was around, I played with PGPfone[2] on my 33 MHz laptop.[3] No FPU. 128-bit symmetric encryption. For voice, the processing power problem is solved to overkill. But PGPfone proved to be useless because it didn’t traverse NAT. The ultimate lesson from PGPfone: NAT is inherently repressive. It divides the Internet into haves and have-nots, and most everybody is a have-not. If you want to contact another have-not, you must do it through the graces of someone who has public IP address space. That is why I started advocating for IPv6 long before any of my peers.[4] [0]https://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and-jingle https://slashdot.org/story/05/12/16/070245/google-jabber-and... [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_happened_to_making_facetime_an_open/ https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/1xuzif/what_ever_hap... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPfone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGPfone [3]http://lowendmac.com/pb/powerbook-190cs.html http://lowendmac.com/pb/powerbook-190cs.html [4]https://version6.ru/en/ipv6-for-freedom https://version6.ru/en/ipv6-for-freedom
rvern 10y ago
Sounds right, maybe Diaspora or XMPP would not become popular if they were advertised today. Software like VLC, Firefox, LibreOffice would because they're not communication platforms. Chance might play a larger role than advertising in the early game, for communication platforms.

cookiecaper 10y ago

I just need to jump in here and harp on the thing that I'm sure regular readers of HN are sick of seeing me harp in on all the time. :P The network effects of Facebook et al are entirely artificial! The beauty of the internet is that there are no real barriers to keep everyone in the same box. Instantaneous, exact communication is possible across the whole world now. "Other people can't hear me when I'm not using Facebook, so I have to use Facebook" is NOT an inherent problem in a digital system! The problem is, simply, that the law in the United States, Europe, and most of the rest of the world explicitly makes it illegal to provide third-party federation systems that would bring that permeability to the "walled gardens" of the modern web. The walls aren't really there. We don't need to install millions of miles of compatible cable to hook up diaspora and Facebook. We don't need the government to step in and do anything to stop the behemoths, we just need them to get out of the way. The web's natural mechanisms can solve this on their own if the USG stops putting developers and entrepreneurs in jail/financial ruin for trying to innovate. Users need to be allowed to access sites with a browsing device of their own choice instead of allowing vendors to cut off access based on the use of browsing devices that preserve content, and then we need to update our copyright and contract law so that normal use of these browsing devices doesn't constitute infringement or breach. Repeal the CFAA, fix the Copyright Act, retake the web from phony monopolies. Let's get these guys competing on merit again and make room for the revolutionary iterative improvements of the little guy.

cyberpunk 10y ago
I'm not sure that's the whole problem. The walled garden is a financial incentive for tech companies mainly, isn't it? It seems like it's going to a hard thing to shift; so far it's been a 'who cares' for most of us, but it's really going to start hitting once VR gets big, at least -- as far as I daydream about such things.. Lets' get in a time machine, what I'd really like to see is an open protocol for VR ala 'snow crash' governed in the same sort of way HTTP is, while we're early days now I think we can probably assume that VR, somewhere down the line potentially 'browser replacement' in reach but I'm not really sure that can ever really happen though when we're building lots of isolated gardens which speak different languages -- as the way things currently are? Do you think the motivations of e.g sony or htc not to go down the same path http did are because of the CFAA and over-regulation instead of money reasons? It seems to me short sighted quick returns, lock in and incompat are going to play bigger roles than govt reg in the next decades in stifling progress -- I'd like to hear your take..

zedred 10y ago

> It isn't because GnuPG doesn't work well or because it is too hard to use that people don't use it. They don't use it because other people don't use it. Sure, GnuPG works "well," for engineers. This post is written by an engineer, but engineers are no longer the majority of computer users. If you want to develop mass market products today, coming to terms with that is pretty important. To even try to draw a comparison between WhatsApp and XMPP+OTR is absurd. For an engineer, maybe the latter is passable, but the billions of people around the world who want to chat on their mobile device, don't understand what a key exchange is, don't understand why they can't immediately see everyone in their address book they can chat with, and don't want to run their own server, it definitely isn't passable. > Why do people use Facebook instead of Diaspora? It's not because Facebook is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Facebook. > Why do people use Skype instead of XMPP? It's not because Skype is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use Skype. > Why do people use WhatsApp instead of GnuPG or OTR? It's not because WhatsApp is better, works well, or is easier to use... It's because other people use WhatsApp. I'm sorry but this is just not true. Network effects are important, but there's a reason that people are using these networks to begin with. They work really well. Something like WhatsApp may seem simple, but every little interaction within the app is perfectly polished in a way that GnuPG, OTR, or any XMPP client is definitely not. > And the reason people initially used Facebook, Skype, and WhatsApp is not that they were easier to use or better. It's advertising. Notice how all of these are proprietary software made by companies with the means to advertise their software? You can bet people would use GnuPG, Diaspora, and XMPP if they had been advertised by companies like Facebook and Microsoft. As far as I can tell, WhatsApp never spent a single dollar on advertising. Their entire growth strategy seems to have been word of mouth. These companies have hundreds or thousands of engineers who work on these products full time every day, driving the products forward, making them better and better. That is not something an open source client is ever going to be able to compete with. It just isn't.

rvern 10y ago
I'm not convinced... > I'm sorry but this is just not true. Network effects are important, but there's a reason that people are using these networks to begin with. They work really well. There's a reason they use these networks to begin with, but I don't think it has much to do with them working really well. The network has to work well enough, but past that, marketing, chance and being an early player are all factors that I suspect are more important than how good the product is. > As far as I can tell, WhatsApp never spent a single dollar on advertising. Their entire growth strategy seems to have been word of mouth. Yes, there are other ways to get through the initial growth than advertising. Such as chance, or being there before everyone else. But the "word of mouth" is part of the network effect I am talking about, and it comes after the initial growth. They had to get some initial growth somehow. > These companies have hundreds or thousands of engineers who work on these products full time every day, driving the products forward, making them better and better. That is not something an open source client is ever going to be able to compete with. It just isn't. That doesn't match my experience and I don't see a reason it would. If we were talking about a web browser, maybe, but an instant messaging client is something pretty simple that it doesn't take hundreds or thousands of engineers to get right and make into a good product. Since an open source project won't have the strong incentives a company will have that are against the interests of the users (making it into walled garden, centralized, proprietary software that doesn't use open protocols), it won't take much for the open source client to be better. There is not much correlation in my experience between how good software is and how much money the company that created it has or how many employees it has working on that software.