6 ms·

It makes sense. It's old, crufty mix of extensions, which nobody actually wants to be that modular for a chat client, because that just gets you into mess of wh

It makes sense. It's old, crufty mix of extensions, which nobody actually wants to be that modular for a chat client, because that just gets you into mess of what server/client supports

zaik 2mo ago
> mess of what server/client supports If you allow for independent implementations of the protocol this will always happen. Also, inventing another non-standard protocol creates even more incompatibility between clients and servers.
- opan 2mo ago
  IRC and email worked out pretty well I think.
  - tcfhgj 2mo ago
    e-mail stuck in time still not enceypting by defaul
  - singpolyma3 2mo ago
    Yes if you never add new features eventually everyone crystallizes
akho 2mo ago
Matrix is in the same place wrt feature mismatches. It's a quality of the problem, not of the solution. I actually think XMPP does a better, more structured job here.
- neilalexander 2mo ago
  XMPP leans heavily on capability negotiation and service discovery which makes it straightforward to degrade gracefully when feature mismatches occur. Matrix is significantly lacking in this regard.
  - shadowgovt 2mo ago
    Unfortunately, some of the features that can degrade are things like "the chat is actually secure."
    - opan 2mo ago
      I strongly prefer that with XMPP I can disable the encryption when it breaks to tell my friend I'm trapped under a boulder and bleeding out. With Matrix our chat is encrypted, I can't turn it off ever, if it stops working I can't communicate, my only option is to make a new room with encryption disabled and invite my friend hoping he sees the invite and accepts in time.
      - oivaksef 2mo ago
        I want to see this movie Edit: now I can't stop thinking about correlation vs causation - you being under the boulder bleeding out at the same time XMPP encryption suddenly stops working. Physical hardware certificate thinggy which got crushed?
      - Dormeno 2mo ago
        It's funny because I remember having an issue where my friend was sending me messages, and he couldn't read my messages, and my mobile client (Siskin) didn't let me turn off encryption for outgoing messages.
      - shadowgovt 2mo ago
        Recommendation: if you're trained under a boulder, use the device you're running an XMPP chat client on to call 911.
    - 306bobby 2mo ago
      That's how RCS's Universal Profile is too though as far as I understand with the new encryption standards. Id rather someone be able to reach out to me with a note the chat is insecure, rather than be unreachable at all
- tcfhgj 2mo ago
  > Matrix is in the same place wrt feature mismatches. not it isn't - still today there's no choice between incompatible room types or incompatible encryption algorithms and whatever else.
  - akho 2mo ago
    Calls are implemented differently across clients, threads only sometimes work. And, apparently from your comment, there's only ever going to be one encryption algorithm, because cryptography is a solved problem now?..
    - tcfhgj 2mo ago
      Don't Element Continuwuity, Synapse, Sable, FluffyChat and more all implement Matrix RTC, because this is most likely the future of video calls in Matrix (while not even officially part of the spec at this point)? > And, apparently from your comment, there's only ever going to be one encryption algorithm, because cryptography is a solved problem now?.. That's not from my comment. If there will be another one it likely will be integrated into THE specification such that it will NOT divide the ecosystem into "I prefer MEGOLM" and "I prefer to implement new thing".
  - selfhoster1312 2mo ago
    I don't have a horse in this race, but "incompatible room types" is precisely an issue i encountered on a selfhosted server. Agreed, that was for S2S federation and not C2S, but that was an issue.
vcccgjuf 2mo ago
Matrix is nearly as old today as XMPP was when the Matrix project was started, and Matrix is still such a pile of shit standard that there's STILL only one server implementation and one client. That's actually not how the standard was designed; if Matrix had been a successful project, according to their own goals, the ecosystem would look a lot more like XMPP than it does. Comparing XMPP at 11 years old to Matrix today makes it abundantly clear that the main thing Element LLC does is waste European public grant funds
- tcfhgj 2mo ago
  Actually, Matrix has a series of server and client implementations. Servers: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/servers/ https://matrix.org/ecosystem/servers/ Clients: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ Also, imho Matrix is a better standard than xmpp, because of what PunchHamster said and the better feature set. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion :)
  - opan 2mo ago
    I think GP was speaking hyperbolically, because most new features hit Element/Synapse first and other clients lag behind implementing them. If you care about more than the basics working, it's kind of just the illusion of choice.
    - ezst 2mo ago
      Probably, and also from the fact that although there's a plethora of matrix clients and servers on paper, none is as feature complete (or feature-complete to the point of usefulness, I might say) as "the one". XMPP has about one decent-to-great client per platform and multiple fully compatible and interoperable server implementations, and every single one of them is by different groups.
      - JadedBlueEyes 2mo ago
        I mean for alternative servers, 10% of people use Continuwuity and it looks pretty spec-complete [0] and more than enough to be useful. [0]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/issues/880 https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/issue...
shadowgovt 2mo ago
"Oh, I'm sorry, did you want it to work? You should have installed the 'it actually works' modules." Working with XMPP gave me a whole new appreciation for why people keep inventing their own chat protocols. I don't think this is an unsalvageable situation, but the protocol is desperately in need of an "XMPP: the Good Parts" doc.
- tredre3 2mo ago
  > the protocol is desperately in need of an "XMPP: the Good Parts" doc. It exists! https://docs.modernxmpp.org/ https://docs.modernxmpp.org/
- ValdikSS 2mo ago
  XEP-0479: XMPP Compliance Suites 2023 https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html
ValdikSS 2mo ago
Daniel (the author of the linked article) was one of the people to define profiles for human chatting: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html
account42 2mo ago
That just means the protocol is old enough to have accumulated that much technical debt, which is a sign of resilience.

It makes sense. It's old, crufty mix of extensions, which nobody actually wants to be that modular for a chat client, because that just gets you into mess of what server/client supports

zaik 2mo ago

> mess of what server/client supports If you allow for independent implementations of the protocol this will always happen. Also, inventing another non-standard protocol creates even more incompatibility between clients and servers.

opan 2mo ago
IRC and email worked out pretty well I think.
- tcfhgj 2mo ago
  e-mail stuck in time still not enceypting by defaul
- singpolyma3 2mo ago
  Yes if you never add new features eventually everyone crystallizes

akho 2mo ago

Matrix is in the same place wrt feature mismatches. It's a quality of the problem, not of the solution. I actually think XMPP does a better, more structured job here.

neilalexander 2mo ago
XMPP leans heavily on capability negotiation and service discovery which makes it straightforward to degrade gracefully when feature mismatches occur. Matrix is significantly lacking in this regard.
- shadowgovt 2mo ago
  Unfortunately, some of the features that can degrade are things like "the chat is actually secure."
  - opan 2mo ago
    I strongly prefer that with XMPP I can disable the encryption when it breaks to tell my friend I'm trapped under a boulder and bleeding out. With Matrix our chat is encrypted, I can't turn it off ever, if it stops working I can't communicate, my only option is to make a new room with encryption disabled and invite my friend hoping he sees the invite and accepts in time.
    - oivaksef 2mo ago
      I want to see this movie Edit: now I can't stop thinking about correlation vs causation - you being under the boulder bleeding out at the same time XMPP encryption suddenly stops working. Physical hardware certificate thinggy which got crushed?
    - Dormeno 2mo ago
      It's funny because I remember having an issue where my friend was sending me messages, and he couldn't read my messages, and my mobile client (Siskin) didn't let me turn off encryption for outgoing messages.
    - shadowgovt 2mo ago
      Recommendation: if you're trained under a boulder, use the device you're running an XMPP chat client on to call 911.
  - 306bobby 2mo ago
    That's how RCS's Universal Profile is too though as far as I understand with the new encryption standards. Id rather someone be able to reach out to me with a note the chat is insecure, rather than be unreachable at all
tcfhgj 2mo ago
> Matrix is in the same place wrt feature mismatches. not it isn't - still today there's no choice between incompatible room types or incompatible encryption algorithms and whatever else.
- akho 2mo ago
  Calls are implemented differently across clients, threads only sometimes work. And, apparently from your comment, there's only ever going to be one encryption algorithm, because cryptography is a solved problem now?..
  - tcfhgj 2mo ago
    Don't Element Continuwuity, Synapse, Sable, FluffyChat and more all implement Matrix RTC, because this is most likely the future of video calls in Matrix (while not even officially part of the spec at this point)? > And, apparently from your comment, there's only ever going to be one encryption algorithm, because cryptography is a solved problem now?.. That's not from my comment. If there will be another one it likely will be integrated into THE specification such that it will NOT divide the ecosystem into "I prefer MEGOLM" and "I prefer to implement new thing".
- selfhoster1312 2mo ago
  I don't have a horse in this race, but "incompatible room types" is precisely an issue i encountered on a selfhosted server. Agreed, that was for S2S federation and not C2S, but that was an issue.

vcccgjuf 2mo ago

Matrix is nearly as old today as XMPP was when the Matrix project was started, and Matrix is still such a pile of shit standard that there's STILL only one server implementation and one client. That's actually not how the standard was designed; if Matrix had been a successful project, according to their own goals, the ecosystem would look a lot more like XMPP than it does. Comparing XMPP at 11 years old to Matrix today makes it abundantly clear that the main thing Element LLC does is waste European public grant funds

tcfhgj 2mo ago
Actually, Matrix has a series of server and client implementations. Servers: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/servers/ https://matrix.org/ecosystem/servers/ Clients: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/ Also, imho Matrix is a better standard than xmpp, because of what PunchHamster said and the better feature set. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion :)
- opan 2mo ago
  I think GP was speaking hyperbolically, because most new features hit Element/Synapse first and other clients lag behind implementing them. If you care about more than the basics working, it's kind of just the illusion of choice.
  - ezst 2mo ago
    Probably, and also from the fact that although there's a plethora of matrix clients and servers on paper, none is as feature complete (or feature-complete to the point of usefulness, I might say) as "the one". XMPP has about one decent-to-great client per platform and multiple fully compatible and interoperable server implementations, and every single one of them is by different groups.
    - JadedBlueEyes 2mo ago
      I mean for alternative servers, 10% of people use Continuwuity and it looks pretty spec-complete [0] and more than enough to be useful. [0]: https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/issues/880 https://forgejo.ellis.link/continuwuation/continuwuity/issue...

shadowgovt 2mo ago

"Oh, I'm sorry, did you want it to work? You should have installed the 'it actually works' modules." Working with XMPP gave me a whole new appreciation for why people keep inventing their own chat protocols. I don't think this is an unsalvageable situation, but the protocol is desperately in need of an "XMPP: the Good Parts" doc.

tredre3 2mo ago
> the protocol is desperately in need of an "XMPP: the Good Parts" doc. It exists! https://docs.modernxmpp.org/ https://docs.modernxmpp.org/
ValdikSS 2mo ago
XEP-0479: XMPP Compliance Suites 2023 https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html

ValdikSS 2mo ago

Daniel (the author of the linked article) was one of the people to define profiles for human chatting: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0479.html

account42 2mo ago

That just means the protocol is old enough to have accumulated that much technical debt, which is a sign of resilience.