3 ms·

It's more that Matrix is different to Jabber/XMPP. In Matrix, your chatrooms synchronise chat history between servers (rather than passing messages around), an

It's more that Matrix is different to Jabber/XMPP. In Matrix, your chatrooms synchronise chat history between servers (rather than passing messages around), and that history is replicated equally over the participating servers, a bit like Git. In XMPP, you pass messages between clients on different servers using a given server as a hub, and clients can choose to back up their message history on their local server. Which architecture you prefer probably depends on whether you think instant messaging should be about passing messages or archiving chat history.

ezst 3y ago
> In Matrix, your chatrooms synchronise chat history between servers (rather than passing messages around), and that history is replicated equally over the participating servers, a bit like Git. XMPP had FMUC (Federated Multi-User Chats) about 5 years before Matrix was even invented. It didn't see broader adoption in the XMPP world because the community figured that this isn't a problem worth solving, and/or that the incurred complexity isn't worth it. And worse, Matrix even hasn't found an adequate and scalable solution for this "proud" ambition (and probably never will). I don't expect that you could demonstrate in good faith that distributed state and its resolution are a net positive for Matrix, its community, its ecosystem, nor that it has opened new possibilities for the practical cases and users. We are back from the blockchain hype/hangover already, and I can't wait for the same thing to happen to Matrix: this was the wrong tool for the job. Just let it go.