6 ms·

> We really do have quite a crisis of non-interoperability Interoperability in communication software is impossible. I know this will upset a lot of people her

> We really do have quite a crisis of non-interoperability Interoperability in communication software is impossible. I know this will upset a lot of people here but its just what we have seen time and time again. Interoperable and standard software can not innovate because it is impossible to innovate since you need all vendors to agree and move in the same direction as you. Look at how ircv3 went. They promised the absolute bare minimum change to make irc slightly more modern and they weren't able to pull it off in time. Discord could not be interoperable with other systems because most of its features did not exist at the time it added them. Interoperability means catering to the lowest common denominator of feature sets. As discord has shown, siloed platforms are not the end, people will move to a new platform if it is clearly better. Discord was much much better than the rest so everyone moved. If someone else makes something much much better again they will move again.

ve55 6y ago
The way I generally imagine interoperability with larger and more complex applications is that providers can implement their own extensions and optional features, but that the most basic data elements are generally isomorphic. Would I expect Discord server permissions to be a shared protocol with ease, perhaps not. But every chat app we use has the same basic fields for a message such as 'id', 'timestamp', and 'text'. Our entire ecosystem under the chat application is based upon interoperability, from Ethernet to IP to TCP to HTTP to even HTML (note how you use a single web browser to use all of your favorite websites!), so I don't want to be too quick to rule out that it's impossible just because it is difficult. I would, however, agree that the incentives for it rarely exist. But with proper incentives, I'd say we could achieve some pretty amazing protocols for a lot of modern use cases.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  The problem is, this kind of thing becomes annoying for users very quickly. When you use Discord, you expect that everyone has all of the features available and that moderation tools work properly everywhere. Lets say your friend is using telegram which is bridged to discord, now you want to invite them to a private group in the discord server, oh but you can't because telegram doesn't support discord roles. And then on telegram you try to open an encrypted chat with someone on IRC, but their irc client doesn't support that. Users don't care about talking to people cross platform as much as they care about everything working properly. Its easy enough to have 3 messaging apps on your phone.
  - ve55 6y ago
    Mostly agree, although I do still think it's solvable in theory, e.g. if chat platforms had strong incentives to implement the same popular feature sets (for example, think of how many websites implement various optional HTML features such as metadata tags, since it helps them on social media, chat applications, search engine results, and so on).
    - SilverRed 6y ago
      I think a federated system is probably possible. If Matrix comes out with a killer server and client combo in the next few years, it could take off and really work. But I think if too many server implementations are created, they will end up in a state where its not possible to add new features anymore because a large percent of the user base won't be able to use them because their server implementation does not support them. Having compatibility between systems like between discord and telegram is just going to be a nightmare no matter what you do since they both want to decide on their own what the features should be.
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    You can use OTR [1] with some IRC clients to get E2EE. That said, you can also get E2EE on Discord if willing to violate their AUP using BetterDiscord [2] + DiscordCrypt [3]. That it violates their terms should be a signal they need your data to have value. [1] - https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ [2] - https://github.com/rauenzi/BetterDiscordApp https://github.com/rauenzi/BetterDiscordApp [3] - https://gitlab.com/leogx9r/DiscordCrypt https://gitlab.com/leogx9r/DiscordCrypt
flukus 6y ago
Not being the most popular at any given time does not mean it's impossible. IRC (and XMPP for that matter) has been around for a long time and it's still possible to run your own server or connect to someone elses, usually with a choice of multiple clients. How many "innovators" have been born and died in the time that IRC has been around? It seems to be that proprietary stacks are impossible long term, while IRC and open standards continue to exist and evolve, even if they aren't popular right now.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  IRC still exists but the age or IRC is long over. Sure, people still use it, but some people still use myspace. IRC is lacking most of the features that the average person considers the bare minimum level of features. Being able to see messages while your computer was turned off is bare minimum. Being able to use your phone to connect and receive push notifications is bare minimum. Being able to share a photo is bare minimum. Having a profile picture is bare minimum. Some of these features can be sort of had with client extensions or middle steps like irc bouncers but the average user does not care for this. It should just work and every other platform just works. The average user also doesn't care if the proprietary messaging platform of the day dies and is replaced with a new one because its easy to sign up again on the next platform
  - LinuxBender 6y ago
    FWIW you can give your IRC users an experience closer to Slack with TheLounge [1] or Convos [2]. [1] - https://github.com/thelounge/thelounge https://github.com/thelounge/thelounge [2] - https://github.com/convos-chat/convos https://github.com/convos-chat/convos
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
We have plenty of other successful interoperable standards. HEVC. Wifi. Even Javascript. Sure, perhaps bureaucracy has caused them to move more slowly than they could, but on the whole these forums produce good technologies. I'd offer an alternative explanation for why we haven't seen interoperable communication software—because proprietary systems make more money.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  Wifi, HEVC, and to some extent JS have a single owner or group which is able to make authoritative decisions which improves things. Its easy for the MPEG group to say, this is our new standard. Thats what it is, not debate. But imagine trying to come out with Email 2 and getting that to work on every email server and client.
chii 6y ago
> Interoperability in communication software is impossible emails have been interoperable since the beginning of time! It's only impossible because the business models formed after the explosion of the internet required that they own the platform for profit. And doing so requires that other platforms not intrude. Hence, the failure of interoperability.
- potatoman22 6y ago
  Emails aren't encrypted because they have to be interoperable.
  - blackoil 6y ago
    Not an expert in this, but if I can access any website using HTTPS, so should be possible for email? Do we have any technical blocker or is it simply that biggest players don't want it?
    - SilverRed 6y ago
      Email does use TLS for encryption to the server but once it hits the server (usually owned by a mega corp like google) it gets decrypted so they can read it. Email encryption is different because HTTPS certifies that you are connected to the owner of that domain name. How do I certify to you that the email you just received came from me and not someone pretending to be me? The only bullet proof secure way is if I visit you in person and hand you a copy of my public key and then you use that key to verify my emails. We have had tools to do this with email for over a decade but they are so inconvenient that no one uses it outside of a few privacy nuts.
      - berkes 6y ago
        Thanks for the namecalling. I use PGP quite often. And I know how hard it is and how much it lacks. But I'm no 'privacy nut'. A legitimate easy and underused option is how kraken employs it. I've uploaded my public key. They now send all transactional, security and other mail signed and encrypted. This is a solid solution to phishing. The only part 'missing' is how I get my pub key on my kraken account. For me it was an export+copy+paste. But it should probably as easy as an OAUTH alike flow between kraken and my mailprovider. 'Kraken wants to import your public key to sign and encrypt it's emails to you'. An UI thing.
ernesth 6y ago
Not sure if it's a counterpoint or an agreement, but Communication softwares are already not interoperable with themselves: * In discord, you need to install the "native" client to be able to share your screen or see other peoples' shared screen. The web client cannot. * Microsoft Teams in Firefox does not do Calls; "Native" Microsoft Teams in Linux cannot "raise hand"; Microsoft Teams in Chromium on Linux cannot do the background thing. Some of those may have evolved, I have only used Teams in chromium recently.
- Sander_Marechal 6y ago
  Lots of software does not do calls on Firefox because they rely on a broken alpha WebRTC implementation in chromium and don't work with the proper implementation in Firefox. Chromium is the new IE6 (and Safari is IE5.5)

ve55 6y ago

The way I generally imagine interoperability with larger and more complex applications is that providers can implement their own extensions and optional features, but that the most basic data elements are generally isomorphic. Would I expect Discord server permissions to be a shared protocol with ease, perhaps not. But every chat app we use has the same basic fields for a message such as 'id', 'timestamp', and 'text'. Our entire ecosystem under the chat application is based upon interoperability, from Ethernet to IP to TCP to HTTP to even HTML (note how you use a single web browser to use all of your favorite websites!), so I don't want to be too quick to rule out that it's impossible just because it is difficult. I would, however, agree that the incentives for it rarely exist. But with proper incentives, I'd say we could achieve some pretty amazing protocols for a lot of modern use cases.

SilverRed 6y ago
The problem is, this kind of thing becomes annoying for users very quickly. When you use Discord, you expect that everyone has all of the features available and that moderation tools work properly everywhere. Lets say your friend is using telegram which is bridged to discord, now you want to invite them to a private group in the discord server, oh but you can't because telegram doesn't support discord roles. And then on telegram you try to open an encrypted chat with someone on IRC, but their irc client doesn't support that. Users don't care about talking to people cross platform as much as they care about everything working properly. Its easy enough to have 3 messaging apps on your phone.
- ve55 6y ago
  Mostly agree, although I do still think it's solvable in theory, e.g. if chat platforms had strong incentives to implement the same popular feature sets (for example, think of how many websites implement various optional HTML features such as metadata tags, since it helps them on social media, chat applications, search engine results, and so on).
  - SilverRed 6y ago
    I think a federated system is probably possible. If Matrix comes out with a killer server and client combo in the next few years, it could take off and really work. But I think if too many server implementations are created, they will end up in a state where its not possible to add new features anymore because a large percent of the user base won't be able to use them because their server implementation does not support them. Having compatibility between systems like between discord and telegram is just going to be a nightmare no matter what you do since they both want to decide on their own what the features should be.
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  You can use OTR [1] with some IRC clients to get E2EE. That said, you can also get E2EE on Discord if willing to violate their AUP using BetterDiscord [2] + DiscordCrypt [3]. That it violates their terms should be a signal they need your data to have value. [1] - https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ https://otr.cypherpunks.ca/ [2] - https://github.com/rauenzi/BetterDiscordApp https://github.com/rauenzi/BetterDiscordApp [3] - https://gitlab.com/leogx9r/DiscordCrypt https://gitlab.com/leogx9r/DiscordCrypt

flukus 6y ago

Not being the most popular at any given time does not mean it's impossible. IRC (and XMPP for that matter) has been around for a long time and it's still possible to run your own server or connect to someone elses, usually with a choice of multiple clients. How many "innovators" have been born and died in the time that IRC has been around? It seems to be that proprietary stacks are impossible long term, while IRC and open standards continue to exist and evolve, even if they aren't popular right now.

SilverRed 6y ago
IRC still exists but the age or IRC is long over. Sure, people still use it, but some people still use myspace. IRC is lacking most of the features that the average person considers the bare minimum level of features. Being able to see messages while your computer was turned off is bare minimum. Being able to use your phone to connect and receive push notifications is bare minimum. Being able to share a photo is bare minimum. Having a profile picture is bare minimum. Some of these features can be sort of had with client extensions or middle steps like irc bouncers but the average user does not care for this. It should just work and every other platform just works. The average user also doesn't care if the proprietary messaging platform of the day dies and is replaced with a new one because its easy to sign up again on the next platform
- LinuxBender 6y ago
  FWIW you can give your IRC users an experience closer to Slack with TheLounge [1] or Convos [2]. [1] - https://github.com/thelounge/thelounge https://github.com/thelounge/thelounge [2] - https://github.com/convos-chat/convos https://github.com/convos-chat/convos

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

We have plenty of other successful interoperable standards. HEVC. Wifi. Even Javascript. Sure, perhaps bureaucracy has caused them to move more slowly than they could, but on the whole these forums produce good technologies. I'd offer an alternative explanation for why we haven't seen interoperable communication software—because proprietary systems make more money.

SilverRed 6y ago
Wifi, HEVC, and to some extent JS have a single owner or group which is able to make authoritative decisions which improves things. Its easy for the MPEG group to say, this is our new standard. Thats what it is, not debate. But imagine trying to come out with Email 2 and getting that to work on every email server and client.

chii 6y ago

> Interoperability in communication software is impossible emails have been interoperable since the beginning of time! It's only impossible because the business models formed after the explosion of the internet required that they own the platform for profit. And doing so requires that other platforms not intrude. Hence, the failure of interoperability.

potatoman22 6y ago
Emails aren't encrypted because they have to be interoperable.
- blackoil 6y ago
  Not an expert in this, but if I can access any website using HTTPS, so should be possible for email? Do we have any technical blocker or is it simply that biggest players don't want it?
  - SilverRed 6y ago
    Email does use TLS for encryption to the server but once it hits the server (usually owned by a mega corp like google) it gets decrypted so they can read it. Email encryption is different because HTTPS certifies that you are connected to the owner of that domain name. How do I certify to you that the email you just received came from me and not someone pretending to be me? The only bullet proof secure way is if I visit you in person and hand you a copy of my public key and then you use that key to verify my emails. We have had tools to do this with email for over a decade but they are so inconvenient that no one uses it outside of a few privacy nuts.
    - berkes 6y ago
      Thanks for the namecalling. I use PGP quite often. And I know how hard it is and how much it lacks. But I'm no 'privacy nut'. A legitimate easy and underused option is how kraken employs it. I've uploaded my public key. They now send all transactional, security and other mail signed and encrypted. This is a solid solution to phishing. The only part 'missing' is how I get my pub key on my kraken account. For me it was an export+copy+paste. But it should probably as easy as an OAUTH alike flow between kraken and my mailprovider. 'Kraken wants to import your public key to sign and encrypt it's emails to you'. An UI thing.

ernesth 6y ago

Not sure if it's a counterpoint or an agreement, but Communication softwares are already not interoperable with themselves: * In discord, you need to install the "native" client to be able to share your screen or see other peoples' shared screen. The web client cannot. * Microsoft Teams in Firefox does not do Calls; "Native" Microsoft Teams in Linux cannot "raise hand"; Microsoft Teams in Chromium on Linux cannot do the background thing. Some of those may have evolved, I have only used Teams in chromium recently.

Sander_Marechal 6y ago
Lots of software does not do calls on Firefox because they rely on a broken alpha WebRTC implementation in chromium and don't work with the proper implementation in Firefox. Chromium is the new IE6 (and Safari is IE5.5)