4 ms·

OT: Awesome, great, APIs are good. Know what's better? Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something bet

by kh_hk 11y ago

OT: Awesome, great, APIs are good. Know what's better? Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something better should be developed. Is this the replacement of SMS? Not sure what people would have thought at the time if they could not send SMS to other mobile carriers. It saddens me even more to see public institutions moving their SMS infrastructure to the new 'carriers'. Protocols are not a new thing. Let's not go back to the time were computers could not talk to each other.

huskyr 11y ago
You're right, of course. Unfortunately, the trend right now doesn't seem to be open protocols. Until the pendulum swings back again, i'd like to think that i'm beter off with a platform that isn't being run by Facebook.
- kh_hk 11y ago
  That is true. What surprises me is how lazy and clueless mobile network operators seem to be despite the power they still hold. They have all the power they need to develop or implement modern messaging protocols. Granted they can't charge for it. Still seems a better option than pushing SMS, MMS and letting new players enter their yard. I am all up for letting mobile network operators just provide internet services. Surely the trend seems to be to flush everything down the Internet tubes and if that's the future, we need something better than a couple of companies that do not respect free choice.
  - rakoo 11y ago
    > They have all the power they need to develop or implement modern messaging protocols. Granted they can't charge for it And they do, at least here in europe: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/oranges-libon-messaging-app-lets-you-chat-with-people-who-dont-use-libon/ https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/oranges-libon-messaging-app-le...
jhasse 11y ago
Telegram has an open specification, called MTProto. I guess XMPP wasn't good enough, so they DID develop something "better" (better for this specific use case). Also federated services have their disadvantages, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's better.
- kh_hk 11y ago
  The only disadvantages I can see on a federated service are security and the cost of running it. Compared to the benefit of not restricting one-self to a platform, I would say federated is better.
  - jhasse 11y ago
    It's also technically more challenging.
runn1ng 11y ago
Anecdote: In our company, we recently switched from Jabber to Telegram. Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere), has both a usable mobile app and a usable web/desktop app, it has the "private" chat that's much easier to use than OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differntly and it never works right cross-client), and, as one co-worker noted, it finally looks like something from 21st century. TextSecure/Signal/what's the name now has - in addition to confusing branding cross-OS - strange SMS reliance and no working desktop app. I would prefer it to Telegram though, if they had some reliable destop application, but they don't.
- hobarrera 11y ago
  > Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere)[...] XMPP supports this, but regrettably, almost no clients implement these features. It's a huge shame that so many dev create brand new protocols+clients instead of implementing these features for existing XMPP clients. But I do admit that as-is, users can't pick up any existing XMPP client that supports this. :( > OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differently I've been using this daily for a few years now. I've always used pidgin, while almost none of my peers have. OTR is also standard, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
- kh_hk 11y ago
  That's why we should be worried. The ease of using Telegram over any other service is clear and that's why most companies and public institutions are moving their old messaging services to Telegram. Without wanting to say that Telegram's job is easy (it's not), it's too easy to run a centralized service and make it easy to use. Of course companies should use whatever is most cost effective to run their private communications. But when running a public communication channel restricting to a centralized service should not be an option.
  - runn1ng 11y ago
    I get it. And we actually did try to use Jabber for a long while. But the moment we tried Telegram, we just didn't want to move back.
ash 11y ago
> Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something better should be developed. Matrix project is an interesting effort to replace XMPP: http://matrix.org/ http://matrix.org/
- kh_hk 11y ago
  I got to know the Matrix project on the last FOSDEM and it definitely seemed a step on the right direction. I guess then it's all a matter of waiting for it to happen.
w00kie 11y ago
> Not sure what people would have thought at the time if they could not send SMS to other mobile carriers. Then you would have loved Japan before 2006. SMS was not a "thing" (although available hidden in the interface) and the phones would default to email.

by kh_hk 11y ago

huskyr 11y ago

You're right, of course. Unfortunately, the trend right now doesn't seem to be open protocols. Until the pendulum swings back again, i'd like to think that i'm beter off with a platform that isn't being run by Facebook.

kh_hk 11y ago
That is true. What surprises me is how lazy and clueless mobile network operators seem to be despite the power they still hold. They have all the power they need to develop or implement modern messaging protocols. Granted they can't charge for it. Still seems a better option than pushing SMS, MMS and letting new players enter their yard. I am all up for letting mobile network operators just provide internet services. Surely the trend seems to be to flush everything down the Internet tubes and if that's the future, we need something better than a couple of companies that do not respect free choice.
- rakoo 11y ago
  > They have all the power they need to develop or implement modern messaging protocols. Granted they can't charge for it And they do, at least here in europe: https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/oranges-libon-messaging-app-lets-you-chat-with-people-who-dont-use-libon/ https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/oranges-libon-messaging-app-le...

jhasse 11y ago

Telegram has an open specification, called MTProto. I guess XMPP wasn't good enough, so they DID develop something "better" (better for this specific use case). Also federated services have their disadvantages, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's better.

kh_hk 11y ago
The only disadvantages I can see on a federated service are security and the cost of running it. Compared to the benefit of not restricting one-self to a platform, I would say federated is better.
- jhasse 11y ago
  It's also technically more challenging.

runn1ng 11y ago

Anecdote: In our company, we recently switched from Jabber to Telegram. Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere), has both a usable mobile app and a usable web/desktop app, it has the "private" chat that's much easier to use than OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differntly and it never works right cross-client), and, as one co-worker noted, it finally looks like something from 21st century. TextSecure/Signal/what's the name now has - in addition to confusing branding cross-OS - strange SMS reliance and no working desktop app. I would prefer it to Telegram though, if they had some reliable destop application, but they don't.

hobarrera 11y ago
> Telegram is easier to use on multiple devices (it synchronized automatically and you don't have to worry that if you leave one device open, you won't get the message elsewhere)[...] XMPP supports this, but regrettably, almost no clients implement these features. It's a huge shame that so many dev create brand new protocols+clients instead of implementing these features for existing XMPP clients. But I do admit that as-is, users can't pick up any existing XMPP client that supports this. :( > OTR (Pidgin, Gadjim and Adium each implement OTR differently I've been using this daily for a few years now. I've always used pidgin, while almost none of my peers have. OTR is also standard, so I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
kh_hk 11y ago
That's why we should be worried. The ease of using Telegram over any other service is clear and that's why most companies and public institutions are moving their old messaging services to Telegram. Without wanting to say that Telegram's job is easy (it's not), it's too easy to run a centralized service and make it easy to use. Of course companies should use whatever is most cost effective to run their private communications. But when running a public communication channel restricting to a centralized service should not be an option.
- runn1ng 11y ago
  I get it. And we actually did try to use Jabber for a long while. But the moment we tried Telegram, we just didn't want to move back.

ash 11y ago

> Open specifications and federated services. It's called XMPP and if it's not enough, then something better should be developed. Matrix project is an interesting effort to replace XMPP: http://matrix.org/ http://matrix.org/

kh_hk 11y ago
I got to know the Matrix project on the last FOSDEM and it definitely seemed a step on the right direction. I guess then it's all a matter of waiting for it to happen.

w00kie 11y ago

> Not sure what people would have thought at the time if they could not send SMS to other mobile carriers. Then you would have loved Japan before 2006. SMS was not a "thing" (although available hidden in the interface) and the phones would default to email.