Selfhosted

40183 readers

810 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.world

HybridSarcasm@lemmy.hybridsarcasm.xyz

156

Why is Matrix mentioned more often than XMPP in self hosted forums? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 6 months ago by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm looking into hosting one of these for the first time. From my limited research, XMPP seems to win in every way, which makes me think I must be missing something. Matrix is almost always mentioned as the de-facto standard, but I rarely saw arguments why it is better than XMPP?

Xmpp seems way easier to host, requiring less resources, has many more options for clients, and is simpler and thus easier to manage and reason about when something goes wrong.

So what's the deal?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Teams is relative.

At a previous job (Microsoft shop but in the public sector so 10 years behind), the standard messenger when I started was Skype for Business.

In case you've never used Skype for Business, it's "Skype" in branding only and actually has nothing to do with the Skype software that Microsoft purchased and is more like MSN Messenger.

Compared to that, Teams is a huge step up.

Also, at a Microsoft shop, you have to use what Microsoft provides even though it's usually balls.

It's 90% of the reason I now refuse to work anywhere that's bought into the Microsoft ecosystem. It's just so... mediocre

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not because you compare Teams to something worse that Teams isn't terrible.

[–] lightnegative@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well, as far as I'm concerned Skype for Business set the benchmark for terrible. Teams isn't even close to being that level of bad

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago

I agree, but we should always compare to what is better and strive for that. Otherwise we get the situation today where the argument to take a product over another is that it's less bad than the old one