poll: if you aren't on matrix/xmpp or some other form of open-source comms (read: only discord/slack), why?

· · Web · 6 · 13 · 3

@hazel I wish there was an option to show results which doesn't count toward the option limit (but I guess forfeits the option to choose)

I only know one person on Discord so idk if that counts

@lwr82 I don't want a show results option tbh because it obfuscates the data

@hazel I mean, it would forfeit one's ability to vote in the poll if that were selected. that way the percentage would still account for voters and not view-n-vote

@hazel client UX is awful, getting people to switch is borderline impossible, and most if not none do voice/video comms

@luna matrix has pretty discord-like client ux and does voice/video, btw

@hazel That's very neat and at least makes me personally more interested in trying it

Still leaves points 1 and 2 tho :c

@hazel it's a number of problems really, but regarding XMPP, the clients are very crude and the protocol is still kinda stuck in the past, where IM meant sitting in front of your computer, logging on and sending text and maybe some files. It still has a lot of potential, though, despite being 20 years old

Matrix is nerd bullshit. I hate it. It's IRC 2.0 and that's not a compliment. It's a bad protocol and its developers like it that way

@hazel XMPP kinda has this problem too, but at least it's a very flexible protocol, so you can work around it. also it used to be the base of Whatsapp and Google Talk (to name a few), so it's very well tried and tested

not Matrix. they worry too much about pleasing IRC users and forget about stuff that's actually useful to normal users, like stickers. if you think stickers can be replaced by images, you're a nerd, but in a bad way

@hazel also, federation is atrocious. federation in XMPP is so natural and simple that you don't even need to think about it most of the time. it just works

Matrix needs two servers for federation


it's complicated enough to get people's heads around what federating means on mastodon, and we only need one server for that. how do you think it's a good design decision to require two servers in order to run

@hazel and choosing your own server (instead of just joining matrix.org) is treated as such a corner case too

when you compare it to mastodon, where eugen goes to great lengths to encourage people to join instances other than .social, or XMPP, which doesn't even have a flagship instance (not that I know of), the federation aspect in Matrix feels like an implementation detail that the developers don't want the user to think about

@hazel anyway, sorry for the rant, but it really pisses me off that the forefront of open chat protocols doesn't give a shit about users

@romariorios honestly i agree re:centralization and federation being an afterthought

also synapse is such shit

@romariorios @hazel It's the main implementation for the matrix protocol. It's written in python. There are others, but they doesn't seem to be complete

Look for the session Servers here:

@romariorios @hazel I thought matrix had stickers. Maybe it's not available on your client yet. I think it's missing in RiotX for example

@aldonogueira @hazel good to know, but last I heard, there was a lot of resistance to implement it

@hazel I used to be on only proprietary software, because I was not aware of the security issues and the clients were horrible and literally not a single soul in my peer group used it anyway. That all of this changed in the past 4 years or so is one of the reasons I'm using mastodon rn

Sign in to participate in the conversation
is not alive

timeline's always dead 'round these parts