Ok, but what is XMPP?
www.youtube.com
Denshi explains the basics of XMPP: The future of decentralized messaging.Taken from a presentation I did on 2023/10/23.This presentation is made using Suckl...

I recently saw Alex’s video about XMPP and I got curious.

I am using Element and Schildichat a bit, trying Element X and curious about the new Development here. It seems vibrant, they rewrite stuff in rust, the Apps are fancy and all.

But I tried Conversations and it seems based too, has transparent encryption, it is damn fast, usable, supports groups and files and all. Probably doesnt use the latest fancy Android SDKs but it seems solid.

I was surprised about how fast it was, as Matrix drastically varies per server. But also I found many dead communities, and in general I dont see XMPP at all, while many Projects (if not using Discord, bruh…) have a Matrix room.

How secure is OMEMO in todays standards? Or OpenPGP, compared to Matrix or Signal Encryption? I heard it also has rotating keys and all.

There are other things, like permission systems, chosen federation, privacy, bridge support and more, that are interesting. Are there advanced modern WebUIs for XMPP you like?

I saw that it uses up waaay less resources, why is that? Really, is “simply encrypted mail” somehow worse in an important way?

Similar to IRC, where I never found nice usable apps for my taste, I thought XMPP was deprecated, but that doesnt seem so?

What can you tell me about XMPP, is it modern, secure, privacy friendly?

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    73·
    1 year ago

    Try contributing to the Matrix specs. It literally has a paywall (only contributing foundation members can do it) and basically any proposal that does not further the business goals of Element gets shot down by the overwhelming majority of Element employees or affiliates on the Matrix foundation board.

    So while the protocol is open to use, it does not really fulfill the typical requirement of openess in so far that it is also open for contributions and changes.

    This is totally different from the truly open standardisation process for XMPP where anyone can contribute freely and no single company dominates the process.

    Edit: the VC funding is for Element / New Vector, but that company fully controls the Matrix Foundation.

    • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
      61·
      1 year ago

      So is the Linux kernel not open because code has to go through review and may be rejected?

      Is Gnu software not open because you have to sign over copyright or may have code rejected for ideological reasons?

      Guido van Rossum was BDFL of Python until recently and had pretty much final say on anything that went into the langauge. So I guess Python isn’t open?

      Hopefully the XMPP Standards Foundation doesn’t just blindly merge in every pull request that comes their way! I’m sure there have been plenty of people that had to beg and still had their proposal rejected.

      You may not agree with the decisions being made about Matrix, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an open protocol or an open process. In fact it’s extremely transparent as another commenter linked to their proposal pull requests on GitHub.

      There’s plenty to criticize about Matrix. It may be overly complicated and over-engineered. If there is significant VC involvement, then the threat of enshittification is very real. Element is also quite slow in larger rooms and the search is pretty terrible at the moment.

      But, it’s dishonest to say it’s not open. I just don’t want other readers to think it’s somehow closed, when it isn’t. Discord is closed. Slack is closed. Matrix is not.

      Also, while being open is a good thing, it’s not a virtue unto itself. Visual Studio Code is an open editor but I stay away from it because I don’t trust Microsoft to not fuck it up. Likewise Chromium is open but I stay away from it because I trust Google even less.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        36·
        1 year ago

        You do not seem to understand the difference between source code of an implementation and the protocol specifications themselves.

        I think you need to read up on that first before we can continue this discussion.

        • TheAgeOfSuperboredom@lemmy.ca
          51·
          1 year ago

          Sorry, but that’s a bit of a rude conclusion to come to considering you know nothing about me or the fact that I’ve been writing software for over 20 years.

          Anyway, I think we’ve both said our piece and I’m happy to just disagree. You seem like a cool person and I’d rather not have us get upset over semantics.

          Take care! :)

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            12·
            1 year ago

            No hard feelings and I didn’t mean to be rude, but this was a rather factual observation.

            What you are saying is basically because you have 20 years experience of driving a taxi you know how to operate a train service. Those are just two totally different things.

    • chayleaf@lemmy.ml
      5·
      1 year ago

      no? anyone can send a spec proposal here. After discussion and implementation, it may well be accepted.

      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        25·
        1 year ago

        Sure, you can beg them to consider your proposal, but I hope you do realize that this isn’t the same as an open standardization process, right?

          • poVoq@slrpnk.net
            21·
            1 year ago

            The original objection was about it not being and “open protocol”, which is not the same as having the source code of an implementation under an open source license.

            That Matrix isn’t an open protocol has always been one of the core objections against it. This isn’t moving goal-posts, and if you fail to understand the original objection then why are you even commenting on it?

            • slacktoid@lemmy.mlEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              This is xmpps open standardization process. Its good. Its also similar to matrix in that you propose and people comment on it. They both have the core elements needed to be an open standardization process. So stop gatekeeping.

              • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                2·
                1 year ago

                No you fail to see the vital difference that the Matrix Foundation process is only open to paying members and that a single for-profit company is currently absolutly dominating the Foundation board that has the final say.

                On the XSF anyone can easily become a member and get voted in a fair democratic election into the council. I know that several members are just community members with no corporate backing and they have the same if not more weight in the decision making as everyone else.

                  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
                    21·
                    1 year ago

                    I just did, and you can look up the how little oversight and accountability there really here: https://matrix.org/membership/

                    To look up who the guardians and core spec team is you can scroll to the bottom here: https://matrix.org/about/ (Note that basically all of them are very closely affiliated the Element the for-profit company).

                    Tl;dr the Matrix Foundation is a sham to hide that Element the company calls all the shots and has no interested at all in an truly open standards process.