4 ms·

ctrl+F "XMPP"… No? OKay, I'll be that guy. Multiple devices, multiple platforms, E2EE, gateways to other networks... my XMPP server handles all of that, and I

by nicoco 5y ago

ctrl+F "XMPP"… No? OKay, I'll be that guy. Multiple devices, multiple platforms, E2EE, gateways to other networks... my XMPP server handles all of that, and I convinced non-tech users to use it mainly because of the great Android client Conversations. Yes, there are some rough edges because there isn't a iOS client that matches Conversations in terms of user friendliness. But siskin-im in on its way there. I also have had complaints from friends but mainly because I am a shitty admin... Oh, and having your phone number as your username is something that really is important for you? Use Quicksy then.

dmitriid 5y ago
> and I convinced non-tech users to use it mainly because of the great Android client Conversations. And that's the only client in existence that supports the XEPs required for XMPP to be a viable alternative in the modern world. What about iOS? What about desktop? > I also have had complaints from friends but mainly because I am a shitty admin What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? How do I find the one that supports message carbons, file uploads, encryption, push notification, client state indications...
- MattJ100 5y ago
  > And that's the only client in existence that supports the XEPs required for XMPP to be a viable alternative in the modern world. That's not true, but admittedly that information is not trivial to find right now for end users. It's a known problem, and people are working on a nice comparison of XMPP client capabilities so people can make a more informed choice. > What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? How do I find the one that supports message carbons, file uploads, encryption, push notification, client state indications... https://compliance.conversations.im/ https://compliance.conversations.im/ or for something less overwhelming, https://joinjabber.org/ https://joinjabber.org/
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > That's not true, but admittedly that information is not trivial to find right now for end users. So, it's true for end users. > It's a known problem, and people are working on a nice comparison of XMPP client capabilities so people can make a more informed choice. There can't be more than a handful of usable XMPP clients in existence. The fact that "people are working" and "information is not trivial to find" speaks volumes about the state of XMPP clients. > or for something less overwhelming This is the reason XMPP is more-or-less dead for most users: "information is not trivial to find", "overwhelming" and so on. Meanwhile already in 2016 Daniel Gultsch wrote what's expected of a mobile client for XMPP, and this can be easily extended to all other clients. [1] Instead, 5 years later there's Conversations, "information is not trivial to find" and "check your server for compliance". [1] https://gultsch.de/xmpp_2016.html https://gultsch.de/xmpp_2016.html
    - MattJ100 5y ago
      > Instead, 5 years later there's Conversations, "information is not trivial to find" and "check your server for compliance". If you think nothing happened in 5 years then you're very much mistaken. As I said, the information should be more easily discoverable, and I linked you to some of the projects working on that aspect. You seem to confuse "not easily discoverable" with "doesn't exist", which are different things when it comes to the kind and amount of effort required to fix them. My own work is on Snikket, which is a project working on XMPP clients for all platforms with a modern feature baseline. My belief is that simply telling people to "use XMPP", and requiring them to find appropriate clients and servers is solving the problem from the wrong end. XMPP-based solutions should be attractive to people in their own right. Whether we like it or not, the average person does not (and will never) choose to use software because it "uses open standards".
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > You seem to confuse "not easily discoverable" with "doesn't exist" From the point of users this: "information is not trivial to find right now for end users" is equal to "doesn't exist". This is true for both clients and servers. When I asked "what if I don't want to run my own server", the very first link you provided me with was "Check the compliance of your server". Wat? I immediately closed the page, and I will never come back to it. These things simply do not exist for anyone except hardcore geeks who are willing to figure all this out. 20 years ago when I was young I would do that. Now I will just open Telegram. > My belief is that simply telling people to "use XMPP", and requiring them to find appropriate clients and servers is solving the problem from the wrong end. XMPP-based solutions should be attractive to people in their own right. Yes! That's so very true.
- nicoco 5y ago
  >What about iOS? Siskin [1] seems to be the best client for iOS right now. It's not as good as Conversations. >What about desktop? I am pretty happy with beagle (OSX) [2], Dino (Linux) [3] and Gajim (linux, windows, OSX) [4]. If in-browser is your thing, converse.js [5] or movim [6] come to mind. >What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? Use quicksy.im? [1] https://siskin.im https://siskin.im [2] https://beagle.im https://beagle.im [3] https://dino.im https://dino.im [4] https://gajim.org https://gajim.org [5] https://conversejs.org/ https://conversejs.org/ [6] https://movim.eu/ https://movim.eu/
f1refly 5y ago
While I'm with you on xmpp, calling Conversations "great" is dishonest. While the foundation is good and the xep support is great, the developer refuses to adapt the client to any conventional design standard, requiring the users to use either blabber or monocles to achieve some familarity. Besides that, message search is not able to link the message into context, while showing both timestamp and associated chat, requiring the user to go into the chat himself and scroll up until the message in question shows up.
- nicoco 5y ago
  I never use the search feature, so I believe you if you think it's bad. What are blabber's or monocles' selling points compared to Conversations? I couldn't find with a quick search, but I'm open to suggesting them instead of Conversations if their UI is better.
  - f1refly 5y ago
    I do not claim to be an export on this topic, but afaik blabbers initial selling point was to sort the settings in a way more accessible menu and overall adapt the app to the other messengers that dominate the market: Rounded, more bubbly text displays, more sensible menu integrations, the ubiquos little checkmarks to display delivery/read status etc. monocles started as a project to reverse/refine some features like the auto-link preview the blabber guy added which isn't necessarily wanted when in unknown group chats, because previewed links might be illegal in the users jurisdiction. Overall both are very frontend centric modifications, focusing on user comfort.
gefhfff 5y ago
Multiple devices... without sync Multiple platforms... but iOS a night mare with E2EE Gateways to other networks... Honestly I couldn't find working ones Why would you want to make a phone number your user ame - this way you are sharing it with almost everyone...
- nicoco 5y ago
  >without sync My message history in sync'ed between Conversations (Android), Dino (Linux), Gajim (also Linux) and beagle-im (Mac OS X). Not sure what you are referring to. >Gateways to other networks... Honestly I couldn't find working ones Anything supported by pidgin can be used as a gateway through spectrum2. I use telegram and mattermost this way. I admit that spectrum2 is a bit confusing to set up, but it works! >Why would you want to make a phone number your user ame - this way you are sharing it with almost everyone... I am with you on this! But to many non tech user, this seems to be important. Some get the feeling that they don't "create an account" when they use whatsapp or similar.

by nicoco 5y ago

dmitriid 5y ago

> and I convinced non-tech users to use it mainly because of the great Android client Conversations. And that's the only client in existence that supports the XEPs required for XMPP to be a viable alternative in the modern world. What about iOS? What about desktop? > I also have had complaints from friends but mainly because I am a shitty admin What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? How do I find the one that supports message carbons, file uploads, encryption, push notification, client state indications...

MattJ100 5y ago
> And that's the only client in existence that supports the XEPs required for XMPP to be a viable alternative in the modern world. That's not true, but admittedly that information is not trivial to find right now for end users. It's a known problem, and people are working on a nice comparison of XMPP client capabilities so people can make a more informed choice. > What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? How do I find the one that supports message carbons, file uploads, encryption, push notification, client state indications... https://compliance.conversations.im/ https://compliance.conversations.im/ or for something less overwhelming, https://joinjabber.org/ https://joinjabber.org/
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > That's not true, but admittedly that information is not trivial to find right now for end users. So, it's true for end users. > It's a known problem, and people are working on a nice comparison of XMPP client capabilities so people can make a more informed choice. There can't be more than a handful of usable XMPP clients in existence. The fact that "people are working" and "information is not trivial to find" speaks volumes about the state of XMPP clients. > or for something less overwhelming This is the reason XMPP is more-or-less dead for most users: "information is not trivial to find", "overwhelming" and so on. Meanwhile already in 2016 Daniel Gultsch wrote what's expected of a mobile client for XMPP, and this can be easily extended to all other clients. [1] Instead, 5 years later there's Conversations, "information is not trivial to find" and "check your server for compliance". [1] https://gultsch.de/xmpp_2016.html https://gultsch.de/xmpp_2016.html
  - MattJ100 5y ago
    > Instead, 5 years later there's Conversations, "information is not trivial to find" and "check your server for compliance". If you think nothing happened in 5 years then you're very much mistaken. As I said, the information should be more easily discoverable, and I linked you to some of the projects working on that aspect. You seem to confuse "not easily discoverable" with "doesn't exist", which are different things when it comes to the kind and amount of effort required to fix them. My own work is on Snikket, which is a project working on XMPP clients for all platforms with a modern feature baseline. My belief is that simply telling people to "use XMPP", and requiring them to find appropriate clients and servers is solving the problem from the wrong end. XMPP-based solutions should be attractive to people in their own right. Whether we like it or not, the average person does not (and will never) choose to use software because it "uses open standards".
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > You seem to confuse "not easily discoverable" with "doesn't exist" From the point of users this: "information is not trivial to find right now for end users" is equal to "doesn't exist". This is true for both clients and servers. When I asked "what if I don't want to run my own server", the very first link you provided me with was "Check the compliance of your server". Wat? I immediately closed the page, and I will never come back to it. These things simply do not exist for anyone except hardcore geeks who are willing to figure all this out. 20 years ago when I was young I would do that. Now I will just open Telegram. > My belief is that simply telling people to "use XMPP", and requiring them to find appropriate clients and servers is solving the problem from the wrong end. XMPP-based solutions should be attractive to people in their own right. Yes! That's so very true.
nicoco 5y ago
>What about iOS? Siskin [1] seems to be the best client for iOS right now. It's not as good as Conversations. >What about desktop? I am pretty happy with beagle (OSX) [2], Dino (Linux) [3] and Gajim (linux, windows, OSX) [4]. If in-browser is your thing, converse.js [5] or movim [6] come to mind. >What if I don't want to run my own XMPP server? Use quicksy.im? [1] https://siskin.im https://siskin.im [2] https://beagle.im https://beagle.im [3] https://dino.im https://dino.im [4] https://gajim.org https://gajim.org [5] https://conversejs.org/ https://conversejs.org/ [6] https://movim.eu/ https://movim.eu/

f1refly 5y ago

While I'm with you on xmpp, calling Conversations "great" is dishonest. While the foundation is good and the xep support is great, the developer refuses to adapt the client to any conventional design standard, requiring the users to use either blabber or monocles to achieve some familarity. Besides that, message search is not able to link the message into context, while showing both timestamp and associated chat, requiring the user to go into the chat himself and scroll up until the message in question shows up.

nicoco 5y ago
I never use the search feature, so I believe you if you think it's bad. What are blabber's or monocles' selling points compared to Conversations? I couldn't find with a quick search, but I'm open to suggesting them instead of Conversations if their UI is better.
- f1refly 5y ago
  I do not claim to be an export on this topic, but afaik blabbers initial selling point was to sort the settings in a way more accessible menu and overall adapt the app to the other messengers that dominate the market: Rounded, more bubbly text displays, more sensible menu integrations, the ubiquos little checkmarks to display delivery/read status etc. monocles started as a project to reverse/refine some features like the auto-link preview the blabber guy added which isn't necessarily wanted when in unknown group chats, because previewed links might be illegal in the users jurisdiction. Overall both are very frontend centric modifications, focusing on user comfort.

gefhfff 5y ago

Multiple devices... without sync Multiple platforms... but iOS a night mare with E2EE Gateways to other networks... Honestly I couldn't find working ones Why would you want to make a phone number your user ame - this way you are sharing it with almost everyone...

nicoco 5y ago
>without sync My message history in sync'ed between Conversations (Android), Dino (Linux), Gajim (also Linux) and beagle-im (Mac OS X). Not sure what you are referring to. >Gateways to other networks... Honestly I couldn't find working ones Anything supported by pidgin can be used as a gateway through spectrum2. I use telegram and mattermost this way. I admit that spectrum2 is a bit confusing to set up, but it works! >Why would you want to make a phone number your user ame - this way you are sharing it with almost everyone... I am with you on this! But to many non tech user, this seems to be important. Some get the feeling that they don't "create an account" when they use whatsapp or similar.