4 ms·

>>It seems like they are just trying to create feature parity with WA and Telegram. Which, honestly they are pretty near that already and the differences aren't

by shmel 4y ago

>>It seems like they are just trying to create feature parity with WA and Telegram. Which, honestly they are pretty near that already and the differences aren't worthwhile. Yeah, I don't know about that. I started using Signal about 6 years ago, I think. I remember back in the day there was a stable native Telegram desktop client that just worked (keeps working without single issue for years) and web WA client that just worked if the phone is online (mildly annoying, but very rarely a problem). Over time Signal developed an Electron-based client that annoyed me every time I use it. It requires relinking to the phone, it can't decrypt messages read from mobile, it can't send messages, it can send them, but the other party can't read them. I try it again every few months hoping that they fix these problems. Instead I get stickers and reactions =/ Yeah, I get it, multi-client encryption is hard, but WA seems to solve it using the same protocol. What I experience with Signal desktop client reminds me of Jabber OTP client compatibility issues 10 years ago. I almost stopped using Signal despite shiny E2EE. 90% of my texting is from desktop. I need it to work reliably. I don't care about stickers and reactions.

brewdad 4y ago
> Over time Signal developed an Electron-based client that annoyed me every time I use it. It requires relinking to the phone, it can't decrypt messages read from mobile, it can't send messages, it can send them, but the other party can't read them. While I agree the app is a resource hog for what it is, I haven't ever had to relink my phone after the first time unless I reinstalled the app or got a new phone (duh). As for unreadable messages, I use Signal daily and have never had that issue once. I have had that issue multiple times using Whatsapp however.
codethief 4y ago
>>It seems like they are just trying to create feature parity with WA and Telegram. > Yeah, I don't know about that. […] What I experience with Signal desktop client reminds me of Jabber OTP client compatibility issues 10 years ago. Like for the sibling commentator, the desktop client has been working for me largely flawlessly. Sure, doing backups on the desktop (and restoring them) would be nice, and no longer needing a phone number or needing to link it to a phone would be even nicer. Meanwhile, though, WhatsApp doesn't even have a desktop client to begin with and their web UI is still mediocre and unsafe. And let's not even speak about E2E encryption (or the general state of security) in Telegram. So yes, I would argue most of Signal's features are more than on par with WhatsApp and Telegram.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Whatsapp does have a desktop client, at least for Mac (also electron like Signal's) and you can use it on the web without even installing one. Much better than Signal which only has an electron client so you need to run a whole browser just for it. If it's browser based just let me run it in a tab.
29083011397778 4y ago
> multi-client encryption is hard It's taken a few years, and there may be a few bugs left that I don't know about (out of sight, out of mind), but Matrix uses the same double-ratchet encryption, and has solved multi-client encryption with cross-signing. Some clients may be imperfect, but this is the price we pay for being able to develop other clients - something Signal steadfastly refuses.

by shmel 4y ago

brewdad 4y ago

> Over time Signal developed an Electron-based client that annoyed me every time I use it. It requires relinking to the phone, it can't decrypt messages read from mobile, it can't send messages, it can send them, but the other party can't read them. While I agree the app is a resource hog for what it is, I haven't ever had to relink my phone after the first time unless I reinstalled the app or got a new phone (duh). As for unreadable messages, I use Signal daily and have never had that issue once. I have had that issue multiple times using Whatsapp however.

codethief 4y ago

>>It seems like they are just trying to create feature parity with WA and Telegram. > Yeah, I don't know about that. […] What I experience with Signal desktop client reminds me of Jabber OTP client compatibility issues 10 years ago. Like for the sibling commentator, the desktop client has been working for me largely flawlessly. Sure, doing backups on the desktop (and restoring them) would be nice, and no longer needing a phone number or needing to link it to a phone would be even nicer. Meanwhile, though, WhatsApp doesn't even have a desktop client to begin with and their web UI is still mediocre and unsafe. And let's not even speak about E2E encryption (or the general state of security) in Telegram. So yes, I would argue most of Signal's features are more than on par with WhatsApp and Telegram.

GekkePrutser 4y ago
Whatsapp does have a desktop client, at least for Mac (also electron like Signal's) and you can use it on the web without even installing one. Much better than Signal which only has an electron client so you need to run a whole browser just for it. If it's browser based just let me run it in a tab.

29083011397778 4y ago

> multi-client encryption is hard It's taken a few years, and there may be a few bugs left that I don't know about (out of sight, out of mind), but Matrix uses the same double-ratchet encryption, and has solved multi-client encryption with cross-signing. Some clients may be imperfect, but this is the price we pay for being able to develop other clients - something Signal steadfastly refuses.