• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t like Matrix, but that’d be an improvement.

      (It supports bridging anyway, so one could use an XMPP-Matrix bridge and a Matrix-crapland bridge simultaneously)

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          From practice - performance of clients and of servers too.

          From emotion - it uses Web technologies.

          From some logic maybe - if they are doing something new, then why not distributed architecture like Tox (at least identities not tied to servers), and if they choose something architecturally similar to XMPP, why not use XMPP.

          However, emotion again, I really like Matrix APIs, these are definitely designed to be used by anyone at all.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            Oh no! Web based protocol! Not stability, ease of debugging, less block rate, and easy SSL protection! The horror!!

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Not stability,

              What does this even mean in the context of data you’d transfer in Matrix?

              ease of debugging

              Ease in which context? What’s so much harder to which you are comparing it?

              less block rate,

              Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.

              and easy SSL protection

              PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.

              The horror!!

              Nobody said that.

              And such an esteemed thing as Gnutella uses Web technologies.

              I just don’t like it. It’s my opinion. Just as you have yours.

              • Kairos@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                What does this even mean in the context of data you’d transfer in Matrix?

                It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol (referring to HTTP)

                Ease in which context? What’s so much harder to which you are comparing it?

                It’s a robust, well tested, and well known protocol.

                Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.

                Average company firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to Deny to any

                PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.

                What’s the better solution?

                I just don’t like it. It’s my opinion. Just as you have yours.

                Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it. Still better than anything else.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol (referring to HTTP)

                  XMPP by now is no less well-tested.

                  Average company firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to Deny to any

                  Average company firewall shouldn’t allow 80 and 443 to outside anyway.

                  Anyway, that could have been a fallback, it’s the only way instead.

                  Doing an IM over TCP I can understand. VoIP signalling over TCP is not serious.

                  What’s the better solution?

                  Look at Retroshare. In this particular regard (not its whole model of security, which is seemingly not good, but I’m not a specialist) it does things right, I think.

                  Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it.

                  And which are not in your opinion?

                  Still better than anything else.

                  Still not better than XMPP, so factually wrong. =)

                  • Kairos@lemmy.today
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    By firewall I mean outgoing. And XMPP is kind of a non-starter.

                    Peer to peer is also a non starter. You have to have some kind of email-like structure.

                    What’s so good with XMPP?

    • GregorTacTac@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      YESSSS! Let’s hope apple does have to adopt this, it would be so helpful when communicating with apple users

      • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It is only a suggestion. Like, if a gatekeeper wants to actually become open and adopt a protocol here we are showing you the path. But Apple is not like that, they would do absolute minimum and propably even less.