Le 3 août 2020 23:45:11 GMT+02:00, Msavoritias <marinus.savorit...@disroot.org> a écrit : >Okay First of all I am going to say once more that I am not talking >about Riot, Element or anything like that. I am talking about the >protocol. >Please read my messages.
But you're telling us about XMPP on mobile. Have you a functionnal alternative to Conversations on Android that has the same features ? >Third what I know is that Olm is based on Signal encryption. If you >say that Singnal encryption is not that good then I am afraid our >conversation ends here because it is clear you don't know what you are >talking about. That is not to say OMEMO is not good. OMEMO is based on Signal encryption, known as Axolotl, and is audited by experts (see https://conversations.im/omemo/). Then Olm and Megolm appeared, and Megolm is the most used in order to allow people to retrieve messages when changing their devices (so no forward secrecy). > >Also Element is functional. Like Conversations. Just like other clients >like Fluffy Chat and Dillo. Proprietary software is antifeature. >Also I am not talking about Synapse. There are other servers to choose >from. And the higher usage comes at the cost of features which XMPP >lacks. Personally I find that acceptable. But Synapse is the most used. > >What do you mean about advocating Google? The youtube widget? Recatpcha, is a best example. >This is not about beauty or anything like that. It is about >functionality and modern features that I have first hand experienced >users caring about. Which features are you talking about ??? >MSavoritias > >On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 01:01, Adrien Bourmault (neox on Freenode) ><n...@os-k.eu> wrote: >> Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and is >> not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not >> always a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it >> was evolutive and reliable. >> >> The XSF point of view is different from the Matrix/Vector one : the >> XSF is a non profit foundation, in the tracks of IETF. They made a >> protocol in the hope that it will be useful and that's it. You can't >> say the same for Vector. >> >> We shouldn't have that discussion since the company behind the Matrix >> protocol advocates for non free software, and open source when they >> want to be popular. >> >>> If Conversations are the benchmark for how much behind XMPP is in > >>> capabilities that a modern user wants, then I don't know if it can >>> be > overcomed. >> >> I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is developed by a >> very small team, practically one person, and you conclude that this >> app that evolves permanently has already shown all that could be >> shown ? Excuse me, but at this time there is no client for Matrix as >> functional as Conversations (since non free software usage or >> advocacy is for me an anti-feature worst than "lack of stickers") and >> XMPP server softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way more reliable >> and powerful than Synapse (which is subject to overconsumption I >> observed). >> >> It is clear that you like Matrix very well, but your arguments are >> wrong and subjective. >> >>> In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development >>> outside > of Conversations. >> >> I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and >> devs of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and >> are XSF members. There are many forks of both, and it provides >> additionnal choices for people. >> >> On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element. And >> it advocates for non free software, especially Google one. >> >>> I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So maybe it >>> finds some use there. >> >> Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to him ? Everyone should care >> about privacy, everyone should encrypt his communications. XMPP's >> modern encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more secure than Olm/Megolm >> (because it seems Vector thought that forward secrecy was an >> anti-feature lol). >> >> Do you think the FSF should advocate for that? With all the problems >> that Vector has, it would be a treason for people who trust the FSF. >> >> I can understand you like Element because it has stickers and it is >> beautiful. This is the same with other software that are unethical >> but beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity >> >> Librement, >> >> Le 1 août 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00, Denver Gingerich >> <den...@ossguy.com <mailto:den...@ossguy.com>> a écrit : >>> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote: >>>> The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't >>>> have good >>>> clients for Mobile, >>> >>> You mention this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations has >>> "bad design". Most people I know love the design of Conversations, >>> so I have trouble seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP in >>> some way. >>> >>>> doesn't have modern features >>> >>> The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is "stickers". I'm >>> not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to have in a >>> protocol they want to promote. Are there other "modern features" >>> that XMPP is missing? >>> >>>> or even a coherent standard. >>> >>> As we've mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP. If you >>> want a client that supports the important standards, use Gajim or >>> Conversations. >>> >>>> So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we >>>> can >>>> attract new contributors that may want modern features. >>> >>> Per above, please tell us which "modern features" you mean. Thanks! >>> >>> Denver >>> <https://jmp.chat/> >> Matrix is a badly designed protocol (especially the s2s part) and >> is >> not more modern than XMPP. In computer science, be young is not >> always >> a quality for a protocol, and XMPP has proven many times it was >> evolutive and reliable. >> The XSF point of view is different from the Matrix/Vector one : >> the XSF >> is a non profit foundation, in the tracks of IETF. They made a >> protocol >> in the hope that it will be useful and that's it. You can't say the >> same for Vector. >> We shouldn't have that discussion since the company behind the >> Matrix >> protocol advocates for non free software, and open source when they >> want to be popular. >> > If Conversations are the benchmark for how much behind XMPP is >> in > >> capabilities that a modern user wants, then I don't know if it can >> be > >> overcomed. >> I can't understand what do you mean. Conversations is developed by >> a >> very small team, practically one person, and you conclude that >> this app >> that evolves permanently has already shown all that could be shown >> ? >> Excuse me, but at this time there is no client for Matrix as >> functional >> as Conversations (since non free software usage or advocacy is for >> me >> an anti-feature worst than "lack of stickers") and XMPP server >> softwares like Ejabberd or Prosody are way more reliable and >> powerful >> than Synapse (which is subject to overconsumption I observed). >> It is clear that you like Matrix very well, but your arguments are >> wrong and subjective. >> > In mobile at least there doesn't seem to be enough development >> outside > of Conversations. >> I can't agree. ChatSecure (for iOS) is a really active project and >> devs >> of both Conversations and ChatSecure are always in touch, and are >> XSF >> members. There are many forks of both, and it provides additionnal >> choices for people. >> On mobile, there is only one functionnal Matrix client : Element. >> And >> it advocates for non free software, especially Google one. >> > I know it is pretty popular with privacy folks though. So maybe >> it >> finds some use there. >> Have you ever read RMS ? Or listen to him ? Everyone should care >> about >> privacy, everyone should encrypt his communications. XMPP's modern >> encryption (known as OMEMO) is way more secure than Olm/Megolm >> (because >> it seems Vector thought that forward secrecy was an anti-feature >> lol). >> Do you think the FSF should advocate for that? With all the >> problems >> that Vector has, it would be a treason for people who trust the >> FSF. >> I can understand you like Element because it has stickers and it is >> beautiful. This is the same with other software that are unethical >> but >> beautiful. Free software is about freedom, not popularity >> Librement, >> >> Le 1 août 2020 19:34:56 GMT+02:00, Denver Gingerich >> <den...@ossguy.com <mailto:den...@ossguy.com>> >> a écrit : >> >> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 07:25:15PM +0200, Msavoritias wrote: >> >> The second point I was trying to raise is that XMPP doesn't have >> good >> clients for Mobile, >> >> You mention this repeatedly without explaining why Conversations >> has >> "bad design". Most people I know love the design of >> Conversations, >> so I have trouble seeing why Conversations is holding back XMPP >> in >> some way. >> >> doesn't have modern features >> >> The only feature you have explicitly mentioned is "stickers". I'm >> not sure why this is an important feature for FSF to have in a >> protocol they want to promote. Are there other "modern features" >> that XMPP is missing? >> >> or even a coherent standard. >> >> As we've mentioned, there are coherent standards for XMPP. If you >> want a client that supports the important standards, use Gajim or >> Conversations. >> >> So by that point I was advocating to have a Matrix server so we >> can >> attract new contributors that may want modern features. >> >> Per above, please tell us which "modern features" you mean. >> Thanks! >> Denver >> [1]<https://jmp.chat/> >> >> References >> >> 1. <https://jmp.chat/> >> _______________________________________________ >> libreplanet-discuss mailing list >> libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org >> <mailto:libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org> >> <https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss> >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
