11 ms·

Matrix is working on a P2P system. Last update that I am aware of is the one here, but there are likely newer updates: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/intro

Matrix is working on a P2P system. Last update that I am aware of is the one here, but there are likely newer updates: https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/ https://matrix.org/blog/2020/06/02/introducing-p-2-p-matrix/ Personally, I would like to use Briar on my Tailscale network, but the lack of Briar desktop app and the need to build custom Briar app to support Tailscale interface is a blocker. Or, a self-hosted Signal app.

LogonType10 5y ago
Is it federated or P2P? I don't think I can message someone on Matrix without an account on someone's federated server.
- chayleaf 5y ago
  just read the article at the link...
0xy 5y ago
Matrix is, unfortunately, a UX catastrophe compared to Telegram. Telegram has the best messaging app by UX and it's not even close. It's fast, reliable and it just works. Try getting your mother to use Matrix. Verifying sessions of chat participants is such a disgusting user experience I wonder if they employ /any/ graphic or UX designers.
- IceWreck 5y ago
  I agree. Telegram's UX is unparalleled. Coming to Matrix, the Element Web/Desktop app is ugly and has bad UI/UX. Its unintuitive to use. Fortunately, you have tons of choices with Matrix. Cinny on desktop has a very neat and clean UX. On Android, the Element app is good enough, but if not Fluffychat feels just like WhatsApp.
- nsotelo 5y ago
  Matrix is an open protocol and anyone's welcome to build a front-end, inspired by Telegram, that your mother would be happy using. Perhaps you meant the Element client?
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Matrix is not a protocol, it's a product. Its openness is more like a public API to a product developed by one organization. Disclosure: I work with real open protocols.
    - networkimprov 5y ago
      Could you define "real open protocol" vs "public API"? If the former entails an adopted RFC, isn't it common practice to prove need via a product before proposing a standard? Asking because I'm at work on a safer, decentralized protocol for email, TMTP.
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        Real open protocols are ones not coming from a single vendor / not controlled by a single entity. XMPP and email are open protocols, Matrix, Mattermost and RocketChat are not.
        networkimprov 5y ago
        Didn't XMPP originate with a single vendor? And JMAP? Didn't SMTP also originate in the field? Are you saying that the Matrix authors won't submit an RFC?
        Arathorn 5y ago
        Speaking as Matrix project lead: we'd love to submit an RFC (or W3C proposal) once Matrix has sufficiently stabilised. Right now it's moving very fast though (e.g. we're about to totally change the sync API so that it's O(1) rather than O(N) with number of conversations). In terms of contributions to the Matrix spec; from a quick eyeball at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/ https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/, there are 95 different authors, of which 31 work for Element (the company formed by the original team who created Matrix). Or to slice it another way, there are 498 spec change proposals there, of which 358 were written by folks at Element (so 70%). Meanwhile the protocol itself is defined by the independent and neutral Matrix.org Foundation non-profit (https://matrix.org/foundation https://matrix.org/foundation). In other words, accusations that Matrix is entirely defined or controlled by Element are untrue - by the time we created Element there was already significant contribution from the wider community, and these days there are loads of other individuals and companies like Beeper, Famedly and even Ericsson contributing to the spec. Edit: oh, and Rocket.chat is adopting Matrix too, which refutes the GP comment even more...

LogonType10 5y ago

Is it federated or P2P? I don't think I can message someone on Matrix without an account on someone's federated server.

chayleaf 5y ago
just read the article at the link...

0xy 5y ago

Matrix is, unfortunately, a UX catastrophe compared to Telegram. Telegram has the best messaging app by UX and it's not even close. It's fast, reliable and it just works. Try getting your mother to use Matrix. Verifying sessions of chat participants is such a disgusting user experience I wonder if they employ /any/ graphic or UX designers.

IceWreck 5y ago
I agree. Telegram's UX is unparalleled. Coming to Matrix, the Element Web/Desktop app is ugly and has bad UI/UX. Its unintuitive to use. Fortunately, you have tons of choices with Matrix. Cinny on desktop has a very neat and clean UX. On Android, the Element app is good enough, but if not Fluffychat feels just like WhatsApp.
nsotelo 5y ago
Matrix is an open protocol and anyone's welcome to build a front-end, inspired by Telegram, that your mother would be happy using. Perhaps you meant the Element client?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Matrix is not a protocol, it's a product. Its openness is more like a public API to a product developed by one organization. Disclosure: I work with real open protocols.
  - networkimprov 5y ago
    Could you define "real open protocol" vs "public API"? If the former entails an adopted RFC, isn't it common practice to prove need via a product before proposing a standard? Asking because I'm at work on a safer, decentralized protocol for email, TMTP.
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      Real open protocols are ones not coming from a single vendor / not controlled by a single entity. XMPP and email are open protocols, Matrix, Mattermost and RocketChat are not.
      - networkimprov 5y ago
        Didn't XMPP originate with a single vendor? And JMAP? Didn't SMTP also originate in the field? Are you saying that the Matrix authors won't submit an RFC?
        Arathorn 5y ago
        Speaking as Matrix project lead: we'd love to submit an RFC (or W3C proposal) once Matrix has sufficiently stabilised. Right now it's moving very fast though (e.g. we're about to totally change the sync API so that it's O(1) rather than O(N) with number of conversations). In terms of contributions to the Matrix spec; from a quick eyeball at https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/ https://spec.matrix.org/unstable/proposals/, there are 95 different authors, of which 31 work for Element (the company formed by the original team who created Matrix). Or to slice it another way, there are 498 spec change proposals there, of which 358 were written by folks at Element (so 70%). Meanwhile the protocol itself is defined by the independent and neutral Matrix.org Foundation non-profit (https://matrix.org/foundation https://matrix.org/foundation). In other words, accusations that Matrix is entirely defined or controlled by Element are untrue - by the time we created Element there was already significant contribution from the wider community, and these days there are loads of other individuals and companies like Beeper, Famedly and even Ericsson contributing to the spec. Edit: oh, and Rocket.chat is adopting Matrix too, which refutes the GP comment even more...