PSA: reminder that also has a synapse/matrix server, if you're on here and interested in an address let me know

@orionwl XMPP is clearly the superior federated IM protocol! 😂

@kekcoin @orionwl Meh, basically way more mature server implementations. Synapse is a piece of garbage if you compare it with f.e. ejabberd.

@stevenroose @orionwl Nitpick: so it's not the *protocol* that's superior? Any opinion on that? I do like the principles behind Matrix but no idea if those are present in XMPP as well (just without a modern video introducing the concepts).

@kekcoin @orionwl Well XMPP's protocol has been proven to be quite resilient to changing user expectations. It's incredible extensible (as the name suggests) so basically anything can be added on top. I'm convinced all IM applications people use nowadays can be implemented using XMPP and could federate the features they have in common.
For as much as I've read into it, Matrix seems much more focused on getting it's current use-case right without leaving all that much room for the future.

@kekcoin @orionwl I guess that's kind of a product of our current time, as compared with how protocols were generally designed in the past.
That being said, I think Matrix has one feature that would be hard to implement in XMPP in a backwards-compatible way and that is group chats that don't have a single hosted server. Current XMPP group chats (MUC) and the next generation of group chats (MIX) both have a single "owning" server per group chat.

@kekcoin @orionwl So while of course it's possible to implement Matrix-style group chats in XMPP. (I believe there's actually 2 extension specifications that do exactly that), they are not backwards compatible so clients and servers will have to implement them and users with clients and servers that don't implement them won't be able to use them.

@kekcoin @orionwl However I think for a communications system, a federated status quo would already be an incredible improvement over the current status quo. I don't see a need to go beyond that, as XMPP has been proven to work in situations where there's a very low number of users per server (i.e. a world where many people self-host in small groups).

@kekcoin @orionwl
So to come to my point. I don't think we want everyone to go and start using "new chat app named X". We should want people's existing favorite chat app to federate with each other.
There is currently nothing except selfish interest that prevents WhatsApp, Hangouts, Signal, Telegram, Wire, ... to federate over . In such a situation, users of different services could have some features missing. But the basic features like chat would federate without a problem.

@kekcoin @orionwl
An interesting thread on this topic is Wire's issue on their decision for a inter-Wire federation protocol:

@stevenroose @orionwl

> the biggest argument would be that [XMPP]'s 20 years old and still around and being used.

Had not considered the lindy effect wrt. chat protocols before. Interesting thought.


And more to the point: still being used after 20 years by the same user. Namely, truly yours. 🙂

@stevenroose @orionwl

@0 @kekcoin @stevenroose
im definitely not up to date on the specifics of chat protocols, but i remember this :birdsite: thread where matrixdotorg themselves commented to explain some of the differences:

anyhow, most of the rust people seem to just want a "open source discord-like experience" and matrix+riot gets close to that


@orionwl @0 @kekcoin Isn't "message passing" the exact right type of protocol for chat? Having permanent histories of everything (which seems to imply) doesn't feel like the right thing for chat.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
unidentified instance

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!