4 ms·

Are you planning to reduce the number of brand names that you operate ? Vector.im vs Riot.im vs Modular.im ? The FAQ of modular.im asks you to accept a TOS fro

Are you planning to reduce the number of brand names that you operate ? Vector.im vs Riot.im vs Modular.im ? The FAQ of modular.im asks you to accept a TOS from riot.im . The website demo is on riot.im, but the hosted product is modular.im . And when you write in to modular.im support, you get a reply from an @matrix.org person. Jobs are applied for on vector.im ...however riot.im twitter page says "formerly vector.im". Modular.im (your hosted slack alternative) page has NO feature list. People are expected to go to riot.im to understand features and play with the demo. In fact your hosted product modular.im has no links to even download the mobile/desktop clients. People get surprised when I tell them about riot/matrix having a hosted slack alternative that is significantly cheaper and is open-source+E2E. I believe one of the reasons is that have 4 websites rather than one. Not sure why this situation exists. It doesn't help when making a case for it in the community or company. Gitlab does this well. Please fix. I don't think you should be uncomfortable with the idea of mixing your open-source products with closed source code (for e.g. modular.im migration tools are closed source) - confusion is the bigger problem. You made the right choice in focusing on Synapse and letting Dendrite stall. You can build one reference implementation well and let others do as they please. You should do the same on the desktop client.

Arathorn 8y ago
Gitlab is a single company who makes a single product. Matrix is a protocol with a whole ecosystem. You simply can’t compare them like for like - a better comparison would be Matrix and Git... where nobody is surprised that a multitude of different companies exist within the Git ecosystem (Gitlab, Github, Gitkraken, etc) - some of which are multiple products with different names built by the same company (Github and VS Code for instance), and some of which have a different corporate name. For Matrix, the naming is actually pretty simple: Matrix is a protocol curated by the Matrix.org Foundation. Riot is a matrix client (which is just one of many in the Matrix ecosystem, hence not calling it “Matrix client” for the same reason that Firefox isn’t called “Web browser”. Modular is a matrix hosting service, which can support any Matrix client, and isn’t tied specifically to Riot, and should be one of many in future, hence not calling it “Matrix Hosting Services”, just as AWS don’t call themselves “Web Services”. As it happens, Riot and Modular are made by a startup called New Vector, which also hires most of the core Matrix team. We don’t expect anyone to know the name New Vector though, any more that we expect people to know that Slack’s legal entity was called Tiny Speck for years. It generally only comes up when hiring. So: yes, it’s surprising that there are 4 brands flying around here - and many many more if you consider the wider Matrix ecosystem of clients and servers etc. But it is completely inevitable. This is the primary difference between Matrix and (say) Rocket.Chat or Mattermost or Slack or Discord. The power and flexibility of an open ecosystem comes at the expense of needing to give the different parts different names, just like the Web does.
- sandGorgon 8y ago
  If you look at Gitlab, the intent is similar to yours and is no different. Just that the brand is managed much better. For example, Runner is an open source project that is used to run CI jobs. https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ . Omnibus is packaging tool (https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html) and Gitlab is the git tool itself. If you peek at the top right corner of the documentation site, you will see these three big headings. Here are your gitlab clients - https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ (including all the native apps) Gitlab CE is the open source software. This is similar to you having riot. Gitlab.com is the hosting service - similar to you having modular. There is no difference in intent or licensing... im talking about brand. For the end-user, the benefit in incalculable - one website (and Google search keyword) to find out all the options and all the information. I send people to Gitlab.com if they want to run it themselves OR if they want to buy the hosting service. In fact, Gitlab had org vs com domains for open source vs paid software .. when they then merged (https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/ https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/) There is no reason for you to identify Vector.im as separate from Riot.im as separate from Modular.im . For me as an end-user, it doesnt matter - Riot.im could have a link to download and a link to host and a link for about us. It is not about inevitability - you are outwardly branding stuff separately that is not needed and can be unified under a single umbrella to reduce confusion.
  - detaro 8y ago
    The intent is different. Gitlab wants to distribute and sell one unified thing, Matrix wants it to be clear the pieces are just that: pieces you can interchange with others. It's not important to how Gitlab represents itself to the outside that you maybe could replace Omnibus or the Runner with other software, for Matrix it's important.
    - sandGorgon 8y ago
      There is only one piece of software that is componentized and named here - riot.im which is a client. Your argument is a straw man argument because I don't see websites for Synapse or Dendrite..which is their core server. That is still part of matrix.org . Vector is the name of their company and modular is the name of their hosting service. So the argument about representation doesn't stand. The brand theory still holds.

Arathorn 8y ago

Gitlab is a single company who makes a single product. Matrix is a protocol with a whole ecosystem. You simply can’t compare them like for like - a better comparison would be Matrix and Git... where nobody is surprised that a multitude of different companies exist within the Git ecosystem (Gitlab, Github, Gitkraken, etc) - some of which are multiple products with different names built by the same company (Github and VS Code for instance), and some of which have a different corporate name. For Matrix, the naming is actually pretty simple: Matrix is a protocol curated by the Matrix.org Foundation. Riot is a matrix client (which is just one of many in the Matrix ecosystem, hence not calling it “Matrix client” for the same reason that Firefox isn’t called “Web browser”. Modular is a matrix hosting service, which can support any Matrix client, and isn’t tied specifically to Riot, and should be one of many in future, hence not calling it “Matrix Hosting Services”, just as AWS don’t call themselves “Web Services”. As it happens, Riot and Modular are made by a startup called New Vector, which also hires most of the core Matrix team. We don’t expect anyone to know the name New Vector though, any more that we expect people to know that Slack’s legal entity was called Tiny Speck for years. It generally only comes up when hiring. So: yes, it’s surprising that there are 4 brands flying around here - and many many more if you consider the wider Matrix ecosystem of clients and servers etc. But it is completely inevitable. This is the primary difference between Matrix and (say) Rocket.Chat or Mattermost or Slack or Discord. The power and flexibility of an open ecosystem comes at the expense of needing to give the different parts different names, just like the Web does.

sandGorgon 8y ago
If you look at Gitlab, the intent is similar to yours and is no different. Just that the brand is managed much better. For example, Runner is an open source project that is used to run CI jobs. https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ https://docs.gitlab.com/runner/ . Omnibus is packaging tool (https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/README.html) and Gitlab is the git tool itself. If you peek at the top right corner of the documentation site, you will see these three big headings. Here are your gitlab clients - https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ https://about.gitlab.com/partners/ (including all the native apps) Gitlab CE is the open source software. This is similar to you having riot. Gitlab.com is the hosting service - similar to you having modular. There is no difference in intent or licensing... im talking about brand. For the end-user, the benefit in incalculable - one website (and Google search keyword) to find out all the options and all the information. I send people to Gitlab.com if they want to run it themselves OR if they want to buy the hosting service. In fact, Gitlab had org vs com domains for open source vs paid software .. when they then merged (https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/ https://about.gitlab.com/2014/03/07/moved-to-dot-com/) There is no reason for you to identify Vector.im as separate from Riot.im as separate from Modular.im . For me as an end-user, it doesnt matter - Riot.im could have a link to download and a link to host and a link for about us. It is not about inevitability - you are outwardly branding stuff separately that is not needed and can be unified under a single umbrella to reduce confusion.
- detaro 8y ago
  The intent is different. Gitlab wants to distribute and sell one unified thing, Matrix wants it to be clear the pieces are just that: pieces you can interchange with others. It's not important to how Gitlab represents itself to the outside that you maybe could replace Omnibus or the Runner with other software, for Matrix it's important.
  - sandGorgon 8y ago
    There is only one piece of software that is componentized and named here - riot.im which is a client. Your argument is a straw man argument because I don't see websites for Synapse or Dendrite..which is their core server. That is still part of matrix.org . Vector is the name of their company and modular is the name of their hosting service. So the argument about representation doesn't stand. The brand theory still holds.