11 ms·

XMPP vs. Matrix

64 points by nibbusu 2y ago

I want to know everybody’s opinion on what’s better to use today, XMPP, or the Matrix protocol? Maybe also what’s easier to convert your friends and family to.

yobid20 2y ago
Neither. Xmpp is convoluted. Matrix is even worse.
- drpossum 2y ago
  If you expect this comment to be useful, this is where you offer an alternative.
- nibbusu 2y ago
  What would you recommend?
vaylian 2y ago
> Maybe also what’s easier to convert your friends and family to. You will need to pick a client that you can recommend to your friends and family, because they likely won't bother to look one up. If they are non-technical, then the client is what matters most for them and you need to decide what makes the most sense given their circumstances. On the matrix side I can recommend Element (https://element.io/ https://element.io/) which has a lot of eye candy. I'm not sure what to recommend for XMPP. You also need to pick a server for them, because again, they won't bother to choose one themselves. If you can, host a XMPP or matrix server yourself!
xxmarkuski 2y ago
My friends and I all selfhost own matrix homeservers and we use it to chat. It works reasonably well, but stil the administrative work required should not be underestimated, comparable to selfhosting e-mail. Regarding features, matrix is promising and definitly innovative, but espacially the mobile apps don't have the same level of usability like WhatsApp or novel features like Telegram. Techsavvy friends can definitly use it, but you don't want to become a managed service provider for your broader family. I use this ansible playbook to provision my server and related services (monitoring, bridges, ...) [0]. The bridges espacially make it fun to play around with. [0] https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy
kreetx 2y ago
Prefix title with "Ask HN:"!
- nibbusu 2y ago
  I’m really sorry, this was my first post and I completely forgot about it. Will do next time! And thank you for pointing this out. Definitely will remember that in the future.
pacija 2y ago
It's apples vs oranges. I selfhost and use both, ejabberd / conversations for xmpp and synapse / element for matrix. XMPP is traditional IM. I use it exclusively from Conversations client on Android / GrapheneOS and it is really instant, supports presence (knowing whether contact is actually online), rings for audio and video calls, gives feedback about whether user read the message etc. I use it mostly for 1:1 conversations, it has all but replaced SMS and phonecalls. I consider matrix more like 'fast forum'. Perhaps things changed but last I checked (from element on Android / GrapheneOS) there was no presence so I have no idea whether contact will get my message immediately or not. No confirmation that contact read the message. Audio and video calls not working, not even ringing when phone is locked. Quite laggy in message delivery. So, after some years of using both, XMPP is best for replacing one-to-one SMS, video and audio calls, while I enjoy hanging in public matrix rooms, treating them like '(not really) instant forums'.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  Matrix has presence but not all public servers enable it. https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#presence https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#presence
dngray 2y ago
Also relevant https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/ https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/ recently. It's quite critical of some of the code quality of common implementations as well as the fracturing across different clients. As for Matrix, probably element is the main client you want to use. I use Nheko on Linux.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  I have criticized omemo in the past -- it breaks backwards compatibility way too readily resulting in XMPP clients not being able to talk to each other in levels that I hadn't seen since the Jingle debacles. However I just can't stand this article's tone (the accompanying imagery doesn't help), and then he has the balls to complain about the rude response he gets from the spec authors (even showing it off as if to elicit empathy from the reader), when if anything my impression is that his article itself is way more disrespectful. He keeps criticizing one client while trying to pass it off as criticism of the specification (said client doesn't even implement the latest version of the specification, either), complains about the protocol changing too much and the protocol changing too little, and to top it off seems to promote Signal as the better alternative, completely missing the elephant in the room -- Signal being centralized with its decisions even more whimsical at the hands of one group only. Curiously, he does that right after criticizing omemo's choice to follow Signal's choices as lacking justification.
  - dngray 2y ago
    The main reason we won't list it on privacyguides.org is the encryption is not always on by default. There are two major problems, the implementations and the fact the spec isn't specific. I'm not particularly bothered by the imaginary, the dude is a furry what do you expect? Some furry bloggers do have pictures throughout their blog posts to split things up and lighten things. As for the reply from the spec author, I had a negative opinion of that. To me it looks like they just tried to copy signal's encryption so that people could claim that XMPP has E2EE, without any real design or thought of the implementation. One of the other things I hate about XMPP (and you mentioned it above with the jingle debacle), but there are other cases where there's multiple XEPs for the same thing. Some of them are widely used despite being marked as "experimental". The documents are not cohesive and is a mess which is probably why the implementations are also bad (unlike the Matrix spec). Encryption is just another one of those things, just like file transfer. If I was deciding on a new project to develop a client for XMPP would be the least attractive project for me to work on. Put it that way. Without enthusiastic developers that think this thing sounds cool there simply won't be any good software. The other thing also not mentioned is that the OMEMO encryption only applies to text messages and not all the other things, ie VOIP, status changes etc. There is a fair bit of metadata on the server side https://web.archive.org/web/20211215132539/https://infosec-handbook.eu/articles/xmpp-aitm/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211215132539/https://infosec-h... and attacks like this are just downright scary https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/ https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/ I used to use XMPP but haven't in about a decade. Nobody I know uses it either. (Even the couple of evangelists I knew moved to Matrix long ago)
Fell 2y ago
In order to answer this question it is important to understand the fundamental difference between XMPP and Matrix. XMPP was invented at a time, where communicating online meant sending a message from one device to another. However, the modern expectations for messaging apps are much more than that. Sending media, using multiple devices, deleting messages, editing messages, read receipts, notifications when typing, group chats, threads, and even managing communities are all things a modern messenger app should be able to do. The fundamental operating principle has shifted from mere message passing to synchronising a common state between all participants. If you think about it, nowadays, you're not chatting anymore. You're essentially collaboratively editing a shared chat history file, where the most common action is to add a message; usually at the bottom. This is what Matrix is at its core. It's a protocol to synchronise state, and that's part of why Matrix is so complex and hard to administrate. I personally think its the better base for the future of communication than XMPP, and I havent even mentioned encryption yet. Moving on to the practical part: Running a Matrix Synapse server is quite a commitment, but if all you want is talk to friends and family, then there are simpler options. Conduit and Dendrite are a bit easier to set up, and of course there are plenty of public homeservers you could sign up with. If you do commit to running Synapse however, you have the option to install bridges to almost any other messaging service. This way, your friends and family can keep using what they're used to (WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Facebook, ...), and you just use one single Matrix client to talk to all of them. That's what I do.
- jacooper 2y ago
  Synapse isn't as heavy as it used to be. It's quite lite and very stable, I would pick it over any other server, matrix has issues as it is, you don't want to add compatibility issues to the mix.
- erszcz 2y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm an XMPP server developer and work on [MongooseIM](https://github.com/esl/MongooseIM https://github.com/esl/MongooseIM). > XMPP was invented at a time, where communicating online meant sending a message from one device to another. However, the modern expectations for messaging apps are much more than that. Sending media, using multiple devices, deleting messages, editing messages, read receipts, notifications when typing, group chats, threads, and even managing communities are all things a modern messenger app should be able to do. XMPP provides all of these features and manages to keep up with commercial products really well. Everything Slack or Discord offer is there in the XMPP protocol. And if it wasn't, it could be relatively easily added, thanks to it being extensible. However, navigating the protocol and software supporting it requires a little bit of know-how. If the OP is interested in building a product incorporating instant messaging and the satellite features, I'd suggest partnering up with somebody with this know-how. Scalable servers would be MongooseIM or ejabberd, polished clients are Conversations or Movim. If it's a question about which protocol to use for a homeserver, then maybe something focused on ease of setup would work best, like Prosody. > The fundamental operating principle has shifted from mere message passing to synchronising a common state between all participants. So it should all be based on blockchain, shouldn't it? ;)
kfiven 2y ago
Haven't used XMPP much so can't comment on that but in case of Matrix, I use conduit (server) + cinny (client) and it's much lighter and better setup than the synapse and element. Conduit isn't super feature rich nor cinny but if you aim for rich text messages it works well.
- Tmpod 2y ago
  Cinny's latest update seemed really good and juicy, with lots of important features finally added. Haven't tried it proper yet tho. My issue with anything not Synapse (for now), is migration and atability. Conduit is still somewhat a young project in comparison, and I'm not entirely confident in the upgrade paths yet. They also use RocksDB (or sled), which furthers this "fear", perhaps irrationally so. I'd love to host my conduit server with confidence though, but I'd also need Matrix to properly support account migration. IMO it's one of the key features still missing and it's damaging its "decentralized" image.
the_third_wave 2y ago
XMPP + OMEMO (E2E encryption), no doubt. Open standards, multiple implementations, cross-platform and it mostly just works. Light on the server, "maintenance-free". Conversations on Android, Gajim or Dino-IM on desktop. I tried Matrix but found it to be more complicated without adding significant functionality.
- dngray 2y ago
  > more complicated without adding significant functionality This simply is untrue. Having first class E2EE that covers VOIP and all features (eg Matrix, Signal etc) like that is obviously a benefit. Essentially you can't "use Matrix/Signal wrong" and realize later your communications weren't E2EE, you certainly can with XMPP.
  - Tmpod 2y ago
    While that's certainly the plan, Matrix is still not at the "can't use it wrong" stage Signal has gotten to. Verifying multiple devices is still inconsistent and often requires multiple tries (may be an issue with the matrix.org server, dunno) and "Unable to decrypt" errors are still somewhat a common sight. It has gotten much better in recent times, but not quite there just yet.
dvh 2y ago
If you want to develop fast, use neither and make your own protocol that suits your custom needs.
- dngray 2y ago
  Totally the right answer, or maybe using Talk over SSH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software)
bjoli 2y ago
My own experience is a two years old, but interoperability seemed not to work great. Messages frequently disappeared and all that. As long as you stayed on the same instance everything was dandy, but writing to someone one the matrix homeserver worked most of the time. Matrix as a protocol is more exciting than xmpp, but using xmpp (without omemo unless you are all on Conversations) is boring in a good way.
- pantalaimon 2y ago
  Unable to decrypt message
  - fsflover 2y ago
    https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/245 https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/245
rglullis 2y ago
Matrix if any of your friends and family are on iOS. As much as I'd like for XMPP to be more popular, only Android has a decent client. Element is far from perfect, but its shortcomings are platform-agnostic.
- zaik 2y ago
  Have you tried Monal on iOS? It has made the iOS experience a lot better recently.
wdkrnls 2y ago
I'm curious if anyone has a setup for emacs for either of these that supports audio/video calls. Emacs seems to have basic support for text chats on both protocols, but I wish I could use XMPP JMP.chat as my phone from Emacs and initiate video calls from Emacs as well. Is there some kind of audio/video server protocol analog to the language server protocol that let's plaintext and command line enthusiasts talk to each other without having to open that giant insecure web browser thing or a monolithic chat client?
fsflover 2y ago
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29961032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29961032
zaik 2y ago
I'm running an XMPP server for my family and have convinced most of my friends to get an XMPP address. I think XMPP is the more standard way to do messaging. I feel like all the projects that reinvent a basic thing such as instant messaging, instead of sticking to the internet standard are doing more harm than good.
jacooper 2y ago
Imo matrix is the better protocol, however the clients are still not great. Element X is a big step up but element call is still in a kind of limbo where it's beta on desktop yet default on X. The desktop client is capable but very very janky.
katzinsky 2y ago
I use XMPP and then Cheogram for people who don't want to figure it out. That way for people who don't care everything just works and for people who do they get a rich experience with E2EE. Unlike eg iOS/imessage I don't force them to use a different OS for this and I can talk to everyone from my laptop. Everything is 100% self hostable. I don't know why you would use Matrix. Self hosting is awful, the clients are a huge mess, and it was bootstraped by the Israel based company that runs US telephone surveillance (it's kind of insane that's done in another country.)
- Tmpod 2y ago
  > it was bootstraped by the Israel based company that runs US telephone surveillance That argument, again. It's been some 7 years since Amdocs withdrew all funding, forcing the devs to create their own independent thing. Since then, as far as I'm aware, the protocol has been developed in the open, with lots of external contributors. There's plenty of implementations, both client and server. How are its roots relevant? Are you going to say the internet is dubious because it was initially researched on by the US military? Anyway, your other points are relevant, though it would be nice to have some more details.
  - katzinsky 2y ago
    People certainly bring that up when they talk about TOR.
frabbit 2y ago
Also: what do we know about the people and institutions developing and promoting these standards and implementations? We've seen the appointment of people with biographies suggesting affinity with US interests, for example Katherine Maher to the Signal Foundation (and the departure of the Moxie Marlinspike.) I see a members list for the board overseeing the spec for Matrix, but does anyone know who they are[1]? And the spec is one thing, but who controls the development of the actually used clients and implementations? Please note I am not imputing anything w.r.t. Matrix/Element etc, but if we're bothered to put effort into E2EE then it is probably worth thinking about this aspect in addition to whether the technical basis is sound. The historical record is clear on government attempts to influence things from that end. I have the same sort of worries about GnuPG (and the SPoF that is the hard-working maintainer.) Maybe E2EE is not of concern to the OP, in which case disregard the above. 1. https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/ https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/
tupolef 2y ago
I went from hosting XMPP to Matrix and then XMPP again in the last 10 years. - I'm now sure that I will never convert anyone to Matrix or host a Matrix server again. - Matrix big issues for me are that it's not really decentralized and this design impacts the server admin, the performances and the user's privacy. - I'm still not happy with XMPP clients for Linux, most are missing Omemo or automatic turn/stun discovery and Dino is in in alpha and bugged. - I'm sur that XMPP will have a community in 20 years, not sure about Matrix.
- Tmpod 2y ago
  Could you elaborate your points? I'm particularly interested in "Matrix isn't really decentralized" and on which XMPP client you're using on Linux. Thanks!
  - thewinnie 2y ago
    same, would like to learn more!
  - xmpp-enjoyer 2y ago
    I'm not the parent, but I use both XMPP and Matrix, and have some thoughts to both of these. > Matrix isn't really decentralized I think most of the concerns stem from the majority of the development in the ecosystem being driven by a single company. This manifests in a few ways: matrix.org is by far the biggest server. Element is by far the most popular client. Both were (until recently) maintained by the same company, and the client selects matrix.org as the default server. This was done to make onboarding easier, but it centralised power into one organisation. Theoretically, since Element does most of the development, if they want to push something into the protocol, the whole ecosystem really has to follow. Because most people are on matrix.org, and the protocol works by replicating state between involved servers, matrix.org gets a lot of metadata even from conversations that are not hosted on their server (as long as one person in the chat is on matrix.org). There are some flags which are enabled by default which automatically "phone home" to matrix.org even when you are running your own server. They are easy to turn off, but an annoyance for people who want to run completely separated instances. The standard way to join a chat is via a "matrix.to" link. This leaks some information to matrix.org even if the server is completely separate. By contrast, XMPP has no dominant player who drives most of the development, and no dominant server instance. I imagine this is because the protocol has been around for much longer (so there is more time for things to settle), and there is a very clear separation between the standards body and the software developers. There are popular clients that have some influence over the ecosystem, but nowhere near the extent as in Matrix. Now, XMPP has its problems too, but few of these stem from having too much centralisation. > which XMPP client you're using on Linux I personally use Dino (https://dino.im/ https://dino.im/). It offers a simple, clean experience, and looks really nice. There are also more fully-featured clients, like Gajim (https://gajim.org/ https://gajim.org/)
esbeeb 2y ago
I run Prosody XMPP server on a cheap VPS, and appreciate how it's a stock Debian package, greatly simplifying security updates. It's delightfully lightweight on the server. I use Conversations as a client in Android, and Gajim in Linux. The basics like OMEMO, file attachments, push-to-talk voice memos (in Conversations, but not Gajim) work well. All comms are at least client-to-server-encrypted, and the OMEMO-protected comms are end-to-end encrypted.
- esbeeb 2y ago
  actually, push-to-talk voice memos do work Gajim. An underrated feature! Prosody allows voice and video calls - I have a TURN server all set up with it - but QOS rules (which are beyond my control, and are the fault of the ISPs I use) can sometimes squash calls made. Gajim 1.9.3 (Flatpak) seems support voice and video calls to Conversations, but then it doesn't work. One Conversations smartphone can make voice and video calls to another Conversations smartphone.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
alt187 2y ago
I'd say you're taking the problem backwards. Your friends and family will follow you probably because you ask them, rather than because of any intrinstic feature of the protocol. So the real question is which one do you want to use? In terms of server software, XMPP is lighter, easier to manage and scales better. In terms of protocol, the Matrix protocol has an immense metadata problem. While encryption is sound, the metadata carried with every message is as good as plaintext. XMPP meanwhile provides pseudonymous rooms and minimal metadata leakage. In terms of direction, I trust the XMPP foundation more. The Vector foundation comes from a multinational and is clearly a startup. I don't think anything good can come from the tight coupling between Vector and Matrix, no matter how much Matthew tries. Vector also relicensed Element under a CLU (Contributor License Agreement). For me, it's a sword of Damocles. In terms of community, it's pretty personal but I don't like the people on Matrix at all. The XMPP users seem more friendly. Your mileage may vary though. It may also not matter if you only want to talk to your already existing friends. However, the best XMPP client is beautiful like the face of a dying man, and just as easy to use. Matrix is way ahead on client design.

XMPP vs. Matrix

64 points by nibbusu 2y ago

I want to know everybody’s opinion on what’s better to use today, XMPP, or the Matrix protocol? Maybe also what’s easier to convert your friends and family to.

yobid20 2y ago

Neither. Xmpp is convoluted. Matrix is even worse.

drpossum 2y ago
If you expect this comment to be useful, this is where you offer an alternative.
nibbusu 2y ago
What would you recommend?

vaylian 2y ago

> Maybe also what’s easier to convert your friends and family to. You will need to pick a client that you can recommend to your friends and family, because they likely won't bother to look one up. If they are non-technical, then the client is what matters most for them and you need to decide what makes the most sense given their circumstances. On the matrix side I can recommend Element (https://element.io/ https://element.io/) which has a lot of eye candy. I'm not sure what to recommend for XMPP. You also need to pick a server for them, because again, they won't bother to choose one themselves. If you can, host a XMPP or matrix server yourself!

xxmarkuski 2y ago

My friends and I all selfhost own matrix homeservers and we use it to chat. It works reasonably well, but stil the administrative work required should not be underestimated, comparable to selfhosting e-mail. Regarding features, matrix is promising and definitly innovative, but espacially the mobile apps don't have the same level of usability like WhatsApp or novel features like Telegram. Techsavvy friends can definitly use it, but you don't want to become a managed service provider for your broader family. I use this ansible playbook to provision my server and related services (monitoring, bridges, ...) [0]. The bridges espacially make it fun to play around with. [0] https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy https://github.com/spantaleev/matrix-docker-ansible-deploy

kreetx 2y ago

Prefix title with "Ask HN:"!

nibbusu 2y ago
I’m really sorry, this was my first post and I completely forgot about it. Will do next time! And thank you for pointing this out. Definitely will remember that in the future.

pacija 2y ago

It's apples vs oranges. I selfhost and use both, ejabberd / conversations for xmpp and synapse / element for matrix. XMPP is traditional IM. I use it exclusively from Conversations client on Android / GrapheneOS and it is really instant, supports presence (knowing whether contact is actually online), rings for audio and video calls, gives feedback about whether user read the message etc. I use it mostly for 1:1 conversations, it has all but replaced SMS and phonecalls. I consider matrix more like 'fast forum'. Perhaps things changed but last I checked (from element on Android / GrapheneOS) there was no presence so I have no idea whether contact will get my message immediately or not. No confirmation that contact read the message. Audio and video calls not working, not even ringing when phone is locked. Quite laggy in message delivery. So, after some years of using both, XMPP is best for replacing one-to-one SMS, video and audio calls, while I enjoy hanging in public matrix rooms, treating them like '(not really) instant forums'.

gtirloni 2y ago
Matrix has presence but not all public servers enable it. https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#presence https://spec.matrix.org/v1.11/client-server-api/#presence

dngray 2y ago

Also relevant https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/ https://soatok.blog/2024/08/04/against-xmppomemo/ recently. It's quite critical of some of the code quality of common implementations as well as the fracturing across different clients. As for Matrix, probably element is the main client you want to use. I use Nheko on Linux.

AshamedCaptain 2y ago
I have criticized omemo in the past -- it breaks backwards compatibility way too readily resulting in XMPP clients not being able to talk to each other in levels that I hadn't seen since the Jingle debacles. However I just can't stand this article's tone (the accompanying imagery doesn't help), and then he has the balls to complain about the rude response he gets from the spec authors (even showing it off as if to elicit empathy from the reader), when if anything my impression is that his article itself is way more disrespectful. He keeps criticizing one client while trying to pass it off as criticism of the specification (said client doesn't even implement the latest version of the specification, either), complains about the protocol changing too much and the protocol changing too little, and to top it off seems to promote Signal as the better alternative, completely missing the elephant in the room -- Signal being centralized with its decisions even more whimsical at the hands of one group only. Curiously, he does that right after criticizing omemo's choice to follow Signal's choices as lacking justification.
- dngray 2y ago
  The main reason we won't list it on privacyguides.org is the encryption is not always on by default. There are two major problems, the implementations and the fact the spec isn't specific. I'm not particularly bothered by the imaginary, the dude is a furry what do you expect? Some furry bloggers do have pictures throughout their blog posts to split things up and lighten things. As for the reply from the spec author, I had a negative opinion of that. To me it looks like they just tried to copy signal's encryption so that people could claim that XMPP has E2EE, without any real design or thought of the implementation. One of the other things I hate about XMPP (and you mentioned it above with the jingle debacle), but there are other cases where there's multiple XEPs for the same thing. Some of them are widely used despite being marked as "experimental". The documents are not cohesive and is a mess which is probably why the implementations are also bad (unlike the Matrix spec). Encryption is just another one of those things, just like file transfer. If I was deciding on a new project to develop a client for XMPP would be the least attractive project for me to work on. Put it that way. Without enthusiastic developers that think this thing sounds cool there simply won't be any good software. The other thing also not mentioned is that the OMEMO encryption only applies to text messages and not all the other things, ie VOIP, status changes etc. There is a fair bit of metadata on the server side https://web.archive.org/web/20211215132539/https://infosec-handbook.eu/articles/xmpp-aitm/ https://web.archive.org/web/20211215132539/https://infosec-h... and attacks like this are just downright scary https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/ https://notes.valdikss.org.ru/jabber.ru-mitm/ I used to use XMPP but haven't in about a decade. Nobody I know uses it either. (Even the couple of evangelists I knew moved to Matrix long ago)

Fell 2y ago

In order to answer this question it is important to understand the fundamental difference between XMPP and Matrix. XMPP was invented at a time, where communicating online meant sending a message from one device to another. However, the modern expectations for messaging apps are much more than that. Sending media, using multiple devices, deleting messages, editing messages, read receipts, notifications when typing, group chats, threads, and even managing communities are all things a modern messenger app should be able to do. The fundamental operating principle has shifted from mere message passing to synchronising a common state between all participants. If you think about it, nowadays, you're not chatting anymore. You're essentially collaboratively editing a shared chat history file, where the most common action is to add a message; usually at the bottom. This is what Matrix is at its core. It's a protocol to synchronise state, and that's part of why Matrix is so complex and hard to administrate. I personally think its the better base for the future of communication than XMPP, and I havent even mentioned encryption yet. Moving on to the practical part: Running a Matrix Synapse server is quite a commitment, but if all you want is talk to friends and family, then there are simpler options. Conduit and Dendrite are a bit easier to set up, and of course there are plenty of public homeservers you could sign up with. If you do commit to running Synapse however, you have the option to install bridges to almost any other messaging service. This way, your friends and family can keep using what they're used to (WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, Facebook, ...), and you just use one single Matrix client to talk to all of them. That's what I do.

jacooper 2y ago
Synapse isn't as heavy as it used to be. It's quite lite and very stable, I would pick it over any other server, matrix has issues as it is, you don't want to add compatibility issues to the mix.
erszcz 2y ago
Disclaimer: I'm an XMPP server developer and work on [MongooseIM](https://github.com/esl/MongooseIM https://github.com/esl/MongooseIM). > XMPP was invented at a time, where communicating online meant sending a message from one device to another. However, the modern expectations for messaging apps are much more than that. Sending media, using multiple devices, deleting messages, editing messages, read receipts, notifications when typing, group chats, threads, and even managing communities are all things a modern messenger app should be able to do. XMPP provides all of these features and manages to keep up with commercial products really well. Everything Slack or Discord offer is there in the XMPP protocol. And if it wasn't, it could be relatively easily added, thanks to it being extensible. However, navigating the protocol and software supporting it requires a little bit of know-how. If the OP is interested in building a product incorporating instant messaging and the satellite features, I'd suggest partnering up with somebody with this know-how. Scalable servers would be MongooseIM or ejabberd, polished clients are Conversations or Movim. If it's a question about which protocol to use for a homeserver, then maybe something focused on ease of setup would work best, like Prosody. > The fundamental operating principle has shifted from mere message passing to synchronising a common state between all participants. So it should all be based on blockchain, shouldn't it? ;)

kfiven 2y ago

Haven't used XMPP much so can't comment on that but in case of Matrix, I use conduit (server) + cinny (client) and it's much lighter and better setup than the synapse and element. Conduit isn't super feature rich nor cinny but if you aim for rich text messages it works well.

Tmpod 2y ago
Cinny's latest update seemed really good and juicy, with lots of important features finally added. Haven't tried it proper yet tho. My issue with anything not Synapse (for now), is migration and atability. Conduit is still somewhat a young project in comparison, and I'm not entirely confident in the upgrade paths yet. They also use RocksDB (or sled), which furthers this "fear", perhaps irrationally so. I'd love to host my conduit server with confidence though, but I'd also need Matrix to properly support account migration. IMO it's one of the key features still missing and it's damaging its "decentralized" image.

the_third_wave 2y ago

XMPP + OMEMO (E2E encryption), no doubt. Open standards, multiple implementations, cross-platform and it mostly just works. Light on the server, "maintenance-free". Conversations on Android, Gajim or Dino-IM on desktop. I tried Matrix but found it to be more complicated without adding significant functionality.

dngray 2y ago
> more complicated without adding significant functionality This simply is untrue. Having first class E2EE that covers VOIP and all features (eg Matrix, Signal etc) like that is obviously a benefit. Essentially you can't "use Matrix/Signal wrong" and realize later your communications weren't E2EE, you certainly can with XMPP.
- Tmpod 2y ago
  While that's certainly the plan, Matrix is still not at the "can't use it wrong" stage Signal has gotten to. Verifying multiple devices is still inconsistent and often requires multiple tries (may be an issue with the matrix.org server, dunno) and "Unable to decrypt" errors are still somewhat a common sight. It has gotten much better in recent times, but not quite there just yet.

dvh 2y ago

If you want to develop fast, use neither and make your own protocol that suits your custom needs.

dngray 2y ago
Totally the right answer, or maybe using Talk over SSH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software)

bjoli 2y ago

My own experience is a two years old, but interoperability seemed not to work great. Messages frequently disappeared and all that. As long as you stayed on the same instance everything was dandy, but writing to someone one the matrix homeserver worked most of the time. Matrix as a protocol is more exciting than xmpp, but using xmpp (without omemo unless you are all on Conversations) is boring in a good way.

pantalaimon 2y ago
Unable to decrypt message
- fsflover 2y ago
  https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/245 https://github.com/element-hq/element-meta/issues/245

rglullis 2y ago

Matrix if any of your friends and family are on iOS. As much as I'd like for XMPP to be more popular, only Android has a decent client. Element is far from perfect, but its shortcomings are platform-agnostic.

zaik 2y ago
Have you tried Monal on iOS? It has made the iOS experience a lot better recently.

wdkrnls 2y ago

I'm curious if anyone has a setup for emacs for either of these that supports audio/video calls. Emacs seems to have basic support for text chats on both protocols, but I wish I could use XMPP JMP.chat as my phone from Emacs and initiate video calls from Emacs as well. Is there some kind of audio/video server protocol analog to the language server protocol that let's plaintext and command line enthusiasts talk to each other without having to open that giant insecure web browser thing or a monolithic chat client?

fsflover 2y ago

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29961032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29961032

zaik 2y ago

I'm running an XMPP server for my family and have convinced most of my friends to get an XMPP address. I think XMPP is the more standard way to do messaging. I feel like all the projects that reinvent a basic thing such as instant messaging, instead of sticking to the internet standard are doing more harm than good.

jacooper 2y ago

Imo matrix is the better protocol, however the clients are still not great. Element X is a big step up but element call is still in a kind of limbo where it's beta on desktop yet default on X. The desktop client is capable but very very janky.

katzinsky 2y ago

I use XMPP and then Cheogram for people who don't want to figure it out. That way for people who don't care everything just works and for people who do they get a rich experience with E2EE. Unlike eg iOS/imessage I don't force them to use a different OS for this and I can talk to everyone from my laptop. Everything is 100% self hostable. I don't know why you would use Matrix. Self hosting is awful, the clients are a huge mess, and it was bootstraped by the Israel based company that runs US telephone surveillance (it's kind of insane that's done in another country.)

Tmpod 2y ago
> it was bootstraped by the Israel based company that runs US telephone surveillance That argument, again. It's been some 7 years since Amdocs withdrew all funding, forcing the devs to create their own independent thing. Since then, as far as I'm aware, the protocol has been developed in the open, with lots of external contributors. There's plenty of implementations, both client and server. How are its roots relevant? Are you going to say the internet is dubious because it was initially researched on by the US military? Anyway, your other points are relevant, though it would be nice to have some more details.
- katzinsky 2y ago
  People certainly bring that up when they talk about TOR.

frabbit 2y ago

Also: what do we know about the people and institutions developing and promoting these standards and implementations? We've seen the appointment of people with biographies suggesting affinity with US interests, for example Katherine Maher to the Signal Foundation (and the departure of the Moxie Marlinspike.) I see a members list for the board overseeing the spec for Matrix, but does anyone know who they are[1]? And the spec is one thing, but who controls the development of the actually used clients and implementations? Please note I am not imputing anything w.r.t. Matrix/Element etc, but if we're bothered to put effort into E2EE then it is probably worth thinking about this aspect in addition to whether the technical basis is sound. The historical record is clear on government attempts to influence things from that end. I have the same sort of worries about GnuPG (and the SPoF that is the hard-working maintainer.) Maybe E2EE is not of concern to the OP, in which case disregard the above. 1. https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/ https://matrix.org/foundation/governing-board-elections/

tupolef 2y ago

I went from hosting XMPP to Matrix and then XMPP again in the last 10 years. - I'm now sure that I will never convert anyone to Matrix or host a Matrix server again. - Matrix big issues for me are that it's not really decentralized and this design impacts the server admin, the performances and the user's privacy. - I'm still not happy with XMPP clients for Linux, most are missing Omemo or automatic turn/stun discovery and Dino is in in alpha and bugged. - I'm sur that XMPP will have a community in 20 years, not sure about Matrix.

Tmpod 2y ago
Could you elaborate your points? I'm particularly interested in "Matrix isn't really decentralized" and on which XMPP client you're using on Linux. Thanks!
- thewinnie 2y ago
  same, would like to learn more!
- xmpp-enjoyer 2y ago
  I'm not the parent, but I use both XMPP and Matrix, and have some thoughts to both of these. > Matrix isn't really decentralized I think most of the concerns stem from the majority of the development in the ecosystem being driven by a single company. This manifests in a few ways: matrix.org is by far the biggest server. Element is by far the most popular client. Both were (until recently) maintained by the same company, and the client selects matrix.org as the default server. This was done to make onboarding easier, but it centralised power into one organisation. Theoretically, since Element does most of the development, if they want to push something into the protocol, the whole ecosystem really has to follow. Because most people are on matrix.org, and the protocol works by replicating state between involved servers, matrix.org gets a lot of metadata even from conversations that are not hosted on their server (as long as one person in the chat is on matrix.org). There are some flags which are enabled by default which automatically "phone home" to matrix.org even when you are running your own server. They are easy to turn off, but an annoyance for people who want to run completely separated instances. The standard way to join a chat is via a "matrix.to" link. This leaks some information to matrix.org even if the server is completely separate. By contrast, XMPP has no dominant player who drives most of the development, and no dominant server instance. I imagine this is because the protocol has been around for much longer (so there is more time for things to settle), and there is a very clear separation between the standards body and the software developers. There are popular clients that have some influence over the ecosystem, but nowhere near the extent as in Matrix. Now, XMPP has its problems too, but few of these stem from having too much centralisation. > which XMPP client you're using on Linux I personally use Dino (https://dino.im/ https://dino.im/). It offers a simple, clean experience, and looks really nice. There are also more fully-featured clients, like Gajim (https://gajim.org/ https://gajim.org/)

esbeeb 2y ago

I run Prosody XMPP server on a cheap VPS, and appreciate how it's a stock Debian package, greatly simplifying security updates. It's delightfully lightweight on the server. I use Conversations as a client in Android, and Gajim in Linux. The basics like OMEMO, file attachments, push-to-talk voice memos (in Conversations, but not Gajim) work well. All comms are at least client-to-server-encrypted, and the OMEMO-protected comms are end-to-end encrypted.

esbeeb 2y ago
actually, push-to-talk voice memos do work Gajim. An underrated feature! Prosody allows voice and video calls - I have a TURN server all set up with it - but QOS rules (which are beyond my control, and are the fault of the ISPs I use) can sometimes squash calls made. Gajim 1.9.3 (Flatpak) seems support voice and video calls to Conversations, but then it doesn't work. One Conversations smartphone can make voice and video calls to another Conversations smartphone.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

alt187 2y ago

I'd say you're taking the problem backwards. Your friends and family will follow you probably because you ask them, rather than because of any intrinstic feature of the protocol. So the real question is which one do you want to use? In terms of server software, XMPP is lighter, easier to manage and scales better. In terms of protocol, the Matrix protocol has an immense metadata problem. While encryption is sound, the metadata carried with every message is as good as plaintext. XMPP meanwhile provides pseudonymous rooms and minimal metadata leakage. In terms of direction, I trust the XMPP foundation more. The Vector foundation comes from a multinational and is clearly a startup. I don't think anything good can come from the tight coupling between Vector and Matrix, no matter how much Matthew tries. Vector also relicensed Element under a CLU (Contributor License Agreement). For me, it's a sword of Damocles. In terms of community, it's pretty personal but I don't like the people on Matrix at all. The XMPP users seem more friendly. Your mileage may vary though. It may also not matter if you only want to talk to your already existing friends. However, the best XMPP client is beautiful like the face of a dying man, and just as easy to use. Matrix is way ahead on client design.