4 ms·

> i'd argue that the Matrix.org Foundation is just as 'recognized' as the XMPP Standards Foundation :) Recognized by whom? The XSF has standardized their core

by zinid 8y ago

> i'd argue that the Matrix.org Foundation is just as 'recognized' as the XMPP Standards Foundation :) Recognized by whom? The XSF has standardized their core in IETF. Is there something similar for Matrix.org Foundation? > trying to solve existing problems using new approaches is how things evolve. What new approaches? You're just recreating federated IM network using different wire format. How on earth is it innovative or new? Using HTTP+JSON instead of TCP+XML is something new? Bridging to other IM networks is something innovative? > Matrix is an entirely different type of technology to IRC or XMPP. It's more similar to NNTP or Git than either IRC or XMPP. I've heard this argument many times already, but the truth is that XMPP formally speaking is de juro an "XML routing protocol", but both XMPP and Matrix de facto are being used largely as IM protocols. > For better or worse, trying to solve existing problems using new approaches is how things evolve. Since you invented nothing new, you evolve nothing.

Arathorn 8y ago
> Recognized by whom? The foundations responsible for the protocols look to be pretty similar to me (both non-profit orgs), and would be equally recognized as such by the general public. Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so, and perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it. > How on earth is it innovative or new? > Since you invented nothing new, you evolve nothing. sigh - I wonder if the XMPP community would spend less time constantly complaining about Matrix if they understood what it was :/ The innovative bit of Matrix is that it's a replicated database of objects (events), similar to Git, but designed for syncing conversation history around in realtime. The events for a given room get replicated over all the participating nodes. There is no central server responsible for coordinating the room; instead all the participating ones do so equally. It's impossible to communicate with someone on a different node without effectively giving them a lazy-loaded HA replica of the room. Architecturally this is about as opposite of MUC (or MIX or FMUC or DMUC or whatever) as I can think of. It's NOTHING to do with HTTP+JSON versus TCP+XML - Matrix can use whatever transport and encoding floats your boat. For instance, at FOSDEM we showed Matrix running over CoAP+CBOR to try to spell this out: https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/matrix/ https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/matrix/.
- zinid 8y ago
  > Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so The first RFC was approved in 2004, after 5 years of XMPP development. The last RFC from XMPP WG is from 2015. > perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it So it's planned (TM). > I wonder if the XMPP community would spend less time constantly complaining about Matrix if they understood what it was :/ I wonder if Matrix community would stop spreading misinformation about the purpose of their protocol. > The innovative bit of Matrix is that it's a replicated database of objects (events), similar to Git, but designed for syncing conversation history around in realtime. The events for a given room get replicated over all the participating nodes. There is no central server responsible for coordinating the room; instead all the participating ones do so equally. It's impossible to communicate with someone on a different node without effectively giving them a lazy-loaded HA replica of the room. Architecturally this is about as opposite of MUC (or MIX or FMUC or DMUC or whatever) as I can think of. Given how bad your Synapse at this task you guys have failed miserably. But of course Dendrite is planned (TM) to resolve this.
  - jlkuester7 8y ago
    Chill dude. No need to get all butthurt. If you don't like Matrix, don't use it. The rest of us will also have make the same choice for ourselves and time will tell whether Matrix has a unifying or dividing effect on chat. I, for one, have been playing with Matrix and other protocols for awhile and have been impressed not only by the Matrix team's vision, but also by their ability to deliver on it consistently (though sometimes slower than all of us would like). The whole ecosystem has become much more polished over the past year (and the new Riot client is sweet!)
    - Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago
      Problem is, "team". It's not really decentralized at this moment, just software from the singular vendor. Of course, it moves faster than a really distributed protocol (in all senses of this word).
- dflock 8y ago
petre 8y ago
Except XMPP already has several mature client and server implementations since it was around for longer.
- fock 8y ago
  So I want: - multiuser chat (persistent) - voice-calls (let's have them 1on1) - file-transfer - concurrent clients Which mature clients and servers should I choose from, implementing all this (basic) stuff?
  - SamWhited 8y ago
    Let's assume this hypothetical client doesn't exist (I'm not actually sure if it does or not): are you suggesting it's better to start over and create an entirely new chat protocol instead of just writing a client that has the features you want? These features do all exist within existing open protocols, and clients do exist that implement some of these features (and probably all, but I'm not sure). So I don't see any reason to start over.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago
    All things you need will be covered by Xabber in second half of 2019, on ios, web, android.
    - fock 8y ago
      promised for 6 years... and remember this thing is commercial, not OS...: "Nonsense comments from clueless commentors. It's not our problem if you didn't update on feb14. Also, it's our app and we do whatever we want, please uninstall Xabber and use something else. You had no voice or rights here besides those that have been generously given by us. Now they are revoked."
  - petre 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)#Clients_supporting_Jingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)#Clients_supp...

by zinid 8y ago

Arathorn 8y ago

> Recognized by whom? The foundations responsible for the protocols look to be pretty similar to me (both non-profit orgs), and would be equally recognized as such by the general public. Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so, and perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it. > How on earth is it innovative or new? > Since you invented nothing new, you evolve nothing. sigh - I wonder if the XMPP community would spend less time constantly complaining about Matrix if they understood what it was :/ The innovative bit of Matrix is that it's a replicated database of objects (events), similar to Git, but designed for syncing conversation history around in realtime. The events for a given room get replicated over all the participating nodes. There is no central server responsible for coordinating the room; instead all the participating ones do so equally. It's impossible to communicate with someone on a different node without effectively giving them a lazy-loaded HA replica of the room. Architecturally this is about as opposite of MUC (or MIX or FMUC or DMUC or whatever) as I can think of. It's NOTHING to do with HTTP+JSON versus TCP+XML - Matrix can use whatever transport and encoding floats your boat. For instance, at FOSDEM we showed Matrix running over CoAP+CBOR to try to spell this out: https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/matrix/ https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/matrix/.

zinid 8y ago
> Obviously XSF contributed XMPP to the IETF after 10 years or so The first RFC was approved in 2004, after 5 years of XMPP development. The last RFC from XMPP WG is from 2015. > perhaps we'll end up contributing Matrix to IETF or W3C or whoever too if they'll have it So it's planned (TM). > I wonder if the XMPP community would spend less time constantly complaining about Matrix if they understood what it was :/ I wonder if Matrix community would stop spreading misinformation about the purpose of their protocol. > The innovative bit of Matrix is that it's a replicated database of objects (events), similar to Git, but designed for syncing conversation history around in realtime. The events for a given room get replicated over all the participating nodes. There is no central server responsible for coordinating the room; instead all the participating ones do so equally. It's impossible to communicate with someone on a different node without effectively giving them a lazy-loaded HA replica of the room. Architecturally this is about as opposite of MUC (or MIX or FMUC or DMUC or whatever) as I can think of. Given how bad your Synapse at this task you guys have failed miserably. But of course Dendrite is planned (TM) to resolve this.
- jlkuester7 8y ago
  Chill dude. No need to get all butthurt. If you don't like Matrix, don't use it. The rest of us will also have make the same choice for ourselves and time will tell whether Matrix has a unifying or dividing effect on chat. I, for one, have been playing with Matrix and other protocols for awhile and have been impressed not only by the Matrix team's vision, but also by their ability to deliver on it consistently (though sometimes slower than all of us would like). The whole ecosystem has become much more polished over the past year (and the new Riot client is sweet!)
  - Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago
    Problem is, "team". It's not really decentralized at this moment, just software from the singular vendor. Of course, it moves faster than a really distributed protocol (in all senses of this word).
dflock 8y ago

petre 8y ago

Except XMPP already has several mature client and server implementations since it was around for longer.

fock 8y ago
So I want: - multiuser chat (persistent) - voice-calls (let's have them 1on1) - file-transfer - concurrent clients Which mature clients and servers should I choose from, implementing all this (basic) stuff?
- SamWhited 8y ago
  Let's assume this hypothetical client doesn't exist (I'm not actually sure if it does or not): are you suggesting it's better to start over and create an entirely new chat protocol instead of just writing a client that has the features you want? These features do all exist within existing open protocols, and clients do exist that implement some of these features (and probably all, but I'm not sure). So I don't see any reason to start over.
- Andrew_nenakhov 8y ago
  All things you need will be covered by Xabber in second half of 2019, on ios, web, android.
  - fock 8y ago
    promised for 6 years... and remember this thing is commercial, not OS...: "Nonsense comments from clueless commentors. It's not our problem if you didn't update on feb14. Also, it's our app and we do whatever we want, please uninstall Xabber and use something else. You had no voice or rights here besides those that have been generously given by us. Now they are revoked."
- petre 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)#Clients_supporting_Jingle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)#Clients_supp...