I see the matrix is more popular than xmpp, but why?
Don’t use either, they’re unreliable services and not enough people use them. Stick to IRC.
A more general chat platform will really want end-to-end encryption which IRC doesn’t have. Matrix & XMPP offer decentralized rooms so you don’t have to create an account & join each server to chat, but rather your server can connect to another server.
You don’t have to solve every problem in a single application. If you need privacy, use iMessage or Signal.
Public chat is by definition not secure, anyone can be sitting in the room logging, so it’s not that essential as long as client-server uses TLS. Modern IRC does have SDCC chat, but not all clients will use it, so stick to secure messengers.
iMessage doesn’t exist outside the US in practice. Signal is centralized, requires a SIM and a Android or iOS primary device (i.e. you must have a phone & it must use the duopoly OS) making it a low recommendation from me.
TLS is fine for an open, public room, but not all chat rooms are public tho. Folks DM each other too an a chat platform & their talks definitely shouldn’t be un-E2EE as it probably shouldn’t be the server operator’s business.
You don’t have to solve every problem in a single application.
I know what you are saying, but also why not? In the case of XMPP, it is meant to be extended to solve any communication task provided someone can engineer the theory into practice (which is usually a money limitation not a technical one).
If you can’t afford an iPhone, that’s tough, but I live in the US where it’s 56%, and around the world it’s 28%, which is not “doesn’t exist”. And in any case Signal exists for the others. Yes, if you use a freecycled GNU/Linux phone with not-sold-in-Shenzhen wireless chipset not supported by any carrier so it has to be hardwired to ethernet, you’ll have a harder time.
And if you do try to do everything at once, you fail at everything. Which is what happened after Google EEE’d and crushed XMPP, it’s unsupported in full by anyone. There’s no money in open source networking, it’s near impossible to fund the people who work on critical infrastructure, let alone new toys.
Meanwhile, there’s a system that’s been working for 35 years.
Awful take
What an L-ass take. Nobody is stating IRC is bad, but stating that it’s flawed for a entire swath applications (encrypted chat) & at that rate you could say e-mail & mailing lists are older & could serve the same purpose (see what DeltaChat is trying to do).
If you think folks should be forced into Apple or Google products just for instant messaging you are a goober since chat doesn’t require that level of lock-in (see IRC as you noted existing & working before phones). Some folks don’t even want phones for being annoyances or don’t like a series of monitoring radios/sensors on their person phoning home at all times & making them get one just to talk to you due to you not wanting to pick a platform with broader reach is a dick move. …& that’s without getting into the class issues of telling folks “just buy a smart phone” ̇
XMPP isn’t crushed either. It’s used massively in commercial applications, especially in the video game industry that need… a presence & messaging protocol that is also extensible to their product needs. Extension & maintenance happens all the time from these applications opening up parts of their code bases for feedback/adoption. Has XMPP waned in personal usage post-Google’s dick move, sure, but it didn’t die & if anything has been gaining in popularity as folks look for chat alternatives with a large feature set & are self-hostable + decentralized to prevent lock-in–especially once they see how Matrix is too expensive to run.
You made an obviously incorrect claim, and now you’ve doubled down on “nobody should have a phone or computer”, which is… no longer in reality. Thanks for not having a productive conversation.
PLONK
Incorrect claim about what? That Apple’s chat system has very minor usage outside the US (+ Canada)? Last I checked, the majority of the population is not American… with my specific phrasing “in practice” holding true. Having a phone & having a computer are two separate things due to Google+Apple’s control. They do not want to let you use the device as a general compute device & almost nobody can use it for general compute so one could definitely prefer one & not the other since they unfortunately, in practice, are two separate categories. You should be able to chat with a phone & without a phone, with a personal computer & without–any platform that requires you must use one or the other is a bad technology.
unreliable?
typical “my opinion is objective reality” comment. Matrix works well, as does XMPP. Looking over my own experience as user and admin as well as other users and admins, matrix has about the same reliability as the large IMs like Whatsapp and Signal.
Matrix does definitely not have the same reliability as WhatsApp or Signal. I’ve used it for around 3 years now with a group of tech savvy friends.
It’s still a regular occurrence that we get cannot decrypt errors, sometimes the app doesn’t show new messages in the chat but they are visible in the preview, also the app can be soooo slow.
Also, I know it’s not user error. If you check the Matrix development and follow their blog posts they already acknowledged the issues and are working on fixes. But for now it’s just wishful thinking when one calls them reliable alternatives for mainstream use. I’m not hating and will keep using the project because I truly think they are doing amazing work.
I have had about three whatsapp outages in the last year I used it regularly. They have been regional/global outages, visible on outage tracking websites. I have had zero outages with matrix (bar one that I have caused myself by misconfiguring and the server restarting).
Depending on the time you have used matrix you will have a lot earlier experiences than I do. Yes, sometimes I cant figure out why something is not working but the service itself runs like clockwork.
The issue here is perspective. Whatsapp is proprietary software which runs on company servers. Matrix is a mostly community/non profit led effort and just doesnt have the manpower or money to develop in high speed. For that matter, the protocol is in its infancy.
Its just unrealistic to say whatsapp is „more reliable“.
Last I heard whatsapp was owned by Meta. I have an account for one vendor in Mexico for work. And I’m sure sucked as much web info I could offer in exchange.
I don‘t think you understand my point. Let me be a bit more high level. It’s not about the three major outages WhatsApp had this year for like 30 mins. or whatever.
A perfectly set up Matrix server with more than enough resources allocated has issues decrypting messages when there’s a few hundred people and that’s without federation. This is still happening to today, fully updated server and clients.
As I said, I know they are working with a lot less resources than Meta. But at the moment the implementation doesn’t even do the most basic thing, deliver messages reliably. I know their new encryption library is supposed to do a better job but it’s just the cold hard truth that it’s not up there with the big messengers yet. Denying that doesn’t do the project any good.
I got your point before but thanks for elaborating. The hundreds of people on an unfederated server arent my concern. The thousands of people I and others are talking to on a daily basis are my concern.
There are usecases where matrix apparently doesnt work well but I havent seen them. I absolutely wasnt able to decrypt a message or two but that is explainable by the sheer amount of devices and clients I have. One was always able to decrypt stuff.
The point you are making stands on sand because you‘re saying matrix isnt up to snuff to whatsapp. I‘m saying if you count its situation it is ten times better at least.
I‘m fine to just disagree with you and walk away but I‘m not gonna pretend whatsapp is some godsend. Its a billion dollar project that is shockingly bad for the resources put in and matrix (and probably xmpp) is unbelievably good considering the resources and nature of the service.
