3 ms·

My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general. Whether you have a use for those features is a different point -- those features are clearly alr

by cyphar 9y ago

My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general. Whether you have a use for those features is a different point -- those features are clearly already useful to quite a few people. But to answer your question, self-hosting would be useful in making sure that internal communication isn't shared with a third-party. e2e could also be useful (depending on what you work on) if you want to just use the public servers. Not to mention that you can use Matrix like bog-standard instant messaging (replacing the need for other messaging applications through bridges), where those sorts of features are also useful.

s73v3r_ 9y ago
"My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general." But that's not the point you made. For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate.
- cyphar 9y ago
  > But that's not the point you made. I'm pretty sure it is the point I made when I said: "There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack". Maybe it was badly worded, but the original comment was talking about open protocols being not as good as Slack's protocol (which is why they have their own and aren't use open protocols). My response explained that there are open protocols that are better (in that they have more features), and that Slack not using them is not evidence that they aren't better (rather it's an indication that Slack won't give up the one thing it has full control over). > For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate. I'm not sure I agree that's the only requirement for something to be "better in general". You would probably agree with me that HTTPS is "better in general" than HTTP. Why? To users there is no practical difference other than it being more secure -- which you've ruled out as being something users care about. Things can still be better while being transparent to most users, while the extra features are useful for a subset of users. Not every protocol improvement needs to revolutionise how people use a particular technology.

by cyphar 9y ago

s73v3r_ 9y ago

"My point was that the protocol is superior to Slack in general." But that's not the point you made. For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate.

cyphar 9y ago
> But that's not the point you made. I'm pretty sure it is the point I made when I said: "There are open protocols like Matrix which are superior to Slack". Maybe it was badly worded, but the original comment was talking about open protocols being not as good as Slack's protocol (which is why they have their own and aren't use open protocols). My response explained that there are open protocols that are better (in that they have more features), and that Slack not using them is not evidence that they aren't better (rather it's an indication that Slack won't give up the one thing it has full control over). > For it to be better in general, it has to improve the way people communicate. I'm not sure I agree that's the only requirement for something to be "better in general". You would probably agree with me that HTTPS is "better in general" than HTTP. Why? To users there is no practical difference other than it being more secure -- which you've ruled out as being something users care about. Things can still be better while being transparent to most users, while the extra features are useful for a subset of users. Not every protocol improvement needs to revolutionise how people use a particular technology.