You joke, but Matrix has been working on protocol design specifically for the Digital Markets Act. If iMessage were to be ruled subject to the DMA, it might mean Apple having to interoperate with (a future version of) Matrix.
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.
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 <internal DNS server> 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. =)
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.
You joke, but Matrix has been working on protocol design specifically for the Digital Markets Act. If iMessage were to be ruled subject to the DMA, it might mean Apple having to interoperate with (a future version of) Matrix.
https://fosdem.org/2024/schedule/event/fosdem-2024-3345-opening-up-communication-silos-with-matrix-2-0-and-the-eu-digital-markets-act/
(The DMA part of that talk starts at 25:00.)
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)
What’s wrong with Matrix?
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.
Oh no! Web based protocol! Not stability, ease of debugging, less block rate, and easy SSL protection! The horror!!
What does this even mean in the context of data you’d transfer in Matrix?
Ease in which context? What’s so much harder to which you are comparing it?
Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.
PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.
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.
It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol (referring to HTTP)
It’s a robust, well tested, and well known protocol.
Average company firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to <internal DNS server> Deny to any
What’s the better solution?
Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it. Still better than anything else.
XMPP by now is no less well-tested.
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.
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.
And which are not in your opinion?
Still not better than XMPP, so factually wrong. =)
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?
YESSSS! Let’s hope apple does have to adopt this, it would be so helpful when communicating with apple users
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.