Those solutions are still way too complex and corporate to my likes. :(
TCB13
I’ve been looking into some kind of simple SSO to handle this. I’m tired of entering passwords (even if it’s all done by the password manager) a single authentication point with a single user would be great.
Keycloak and friend are way too complex. Ideally I would like to have something in my nginx reverse proxies that would handle authentication at that level and tell the final app what user is logged on in some safe way.
XMPP is way more open and interoperable than all the solutions available, it works like email any user can can talk to any other and doesn’t depend on a some proprietary / closed service centrally owned by anyone. That’s a good selling point.
XMPP doesn’t really force users to sign up with email address, it just happens that XMPP addresses use the same format, many public servers will give you an address like username@server.example.org that is never mapped to a real email address and only works for XMPP. The decision to actually ask people for their real addresses is up to who owns the server and won’t be directly exposed on the XMPP network.
While I agree with your point just tell me what Matrix does better? It’s better at being overly complicated? Or at being more propriety?
Anything else other than Signal.
Why reinvent the wheel, tweak a protocol, implement a ton of software when you can just use the tested, tried and true XMPP?
It is as dead as we want. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel, probably the only thing that XMPP lacks is a bunch of money into a very good, cross-platform (but native) client like Telegram has that actually works 100% of the time and a bunch of large scale public servers to handle regular users who don't want to host their own. Also... easy registrations and setup on said client.
For a regular user and most privacy aware people, they just don't care if the protocol is Matrix, Signal or XMPP - they just want a good end user experience and a solid thing, that's what XMPP lacks today and it's all client side.
Bottom line is: XMPP as a protocol is great, lacks someone with vision and money to drive it into mass adoption.
No, Matrix isn’t the best in terms of privacy. It is a metadata disaster and most other platform are a lot more performant.
Matrix’s E2EE does not, however, encrypt everything. The following information is not encrypted: Message senders, Session/device IDs, Message timestamps, Room members (join/leave/invite events), Message edit events, Message reactions, Read receipts, Nicknames, Profile pictures
Matrix is developed by a for profit entity, a group of venture capitalists and having a spec doesn’t mean everything. The way Matrix is designed is to force into jumping through hoops and kind of draw all attention to Matrix itself instead of the end result.
XMPP is the true and the OG federated and truly open solution that is very extensible. XMPP is tested, reliable, secure and above all a truly open standard and decentralized it just lacks some investment in better mobile clients.
What most fail to see is that XMPP is the only solution that treats messaging and video like email: just provide an address and the servers and clients will cooperate with each other in order to maintain a conversation. Everything else is just an attempt at yet another vendor lock-in.
People need to get this through their heads, XMPP is the only solution for their problems.
I like Jabber and Monal a LOT and I hope they can replace the garbage that other IMs and Matrix is however the clients must be a bit better. Monal is a very good attempt, it is almost there but there are multiple pain points that won’t be acceptable for a regular user.
Hmm this is actually interesting, passkeys would indeed make things simpler.