We now have a Matrix chat room setup with an IRC bridge if you want to join

Hm. I red about Matrix. Why is it using HTTP for something so complex? It's like trying to retrofit a steam engine into combustion one.

Just make a new protocol instead of using one that doesn't fit well.


Last edited by Shmerl on 23 Jan 2017 at 1:35 am UTC

HTTP is a protocol for (hyper)text transport, and there's a lot of existing code and libraries to reuse, so maybe it isn't the worst idea ever. Although they could have used one of the existing text chat protocols as a basis instead.

Anyone know a slick Matrix desktop client that's worth a try? There's a [list of clients](https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now.html#clients) in alpha/beta on the Matrix site, but no comparison. I'll test the mobile client on my Sailfish phone, but seems like Android apps running on the the compat layer tend to drain the battery on this old thing.

Is there one for Sailfish? I can test it too. On a side note, it takes Jolla forever to open up SailfishOS UI, so I'm starting to contemplate a switch to Plasma Mobile (though it seems way less usable at present).


Last edited by Shmerl on 23 Jan 2017 at 3:58 am UTC

Is there one for Sailfish? I can test it too. On a side note, it takes Jolla forever to open up SailfishOS UI, so I'm starting to contemplate a switch to Plasma Mobile (though it seems way less usable at present).

I meant I'll test the Android app. That's why I mentioned the compatibility layer. It takes Jolla forever to do anything and everything.

Oh, it seems Riot also provides a Linux desktop app built on electron. I'll give that one a try. Looks a lot like the Discord client.

EDIT: At first glance the Riot desktop client is not quite as slick as Discord, but it's not too bad. Now someone write a Discord bridge so I only need one chat app. :)

Yeah I know Discord's proprietary. Might just dump it if Matrix works out.


Last edited by tuubi on 23 Jan 2017 at 5:47 am UTC

So, we now have Mumble, Discord and Matrix, right? (Well, to be fair, we hard IRC before).

It's the first time I hear about this protocol. It looks quite nice, and if it enables a variety of web clients to run a modern chat, why not?
I wish there was some matrix client built into the KDE IM functionality. Well, maybe time for a feature request/patch?

the best result would be 30% using mumble ,40% matrix, and 30% disocrd. really needed

Why not a XMPP MUC (eventually bridged with the IRC)?

I wish there was some matrix client built into the KDE IM functionality. Well, maybe time for a feature request/patch?

Well, if there's a libpurple (Pidgin) plugin, then telepathy-haze should bridge the gap.

I wish there was some matrix client built into the KDE IM functionality. Well, maybe time for a feature request/patch?

I just use Pidgin with the Matrix plugin, seems to work pretty damn well.

Thumbs for Matrix!

I'm not sure if any client other than Riot (Web, Android, iOS) supports e2e atm

Riot is pretty nifty as is, but there are still some issues with encryption on multiple devices.


Last edited by iskaputt on 23 Jan 2017 at 8:07 pm UTC

I'll test the mobile client on my Sailfish phone, but seems like Android apps running on the the compat layer tend to drain the battery on this old thing.

When it's not installed from the Google Play Store, the app is actually pulling the data and the default sync delay is quite short (something like 0 second :D), so you can go in the settings and put "Delay between two sync requests" to 120 seconds.

Why not a XMPP MUC (eventually bridged with the IRC)?

I think we can say now that XMPP is a failure... It makes 10 years that I'm waiting for it to have something more than just text. The extensions should have been the solution, but in the end it doesn't work and the few that added audio and video chat (Google, etc) have closed their extension because it's impossible to federate. So in the end, I don't see XMPP as a viable solution.

On other front, I've closed the room to the guest because it started to become very difficult to tell which guest was a zombie or not (Matrix needs to improve on that, issue is entered already).

Not convinced. IRC will stay forever, this will go away in a year. I'd rather everyone went tox instead.

Well use it for a year then ;)

I think we can say now that XMPP is a failure... It makes 10 years that I'm waiting for it to have something more than just text.

Anything can be a failure, when no one works on it. Why not improve it? And if not, who is working on nicely designed new protocols? And design has to be seriously good, to make it a better alternative. Which IMHO, implies using a protocol build on top of TCP/IP, instead of plugging HTTP in the middle.

The extensions should have been the solution, but in the end it doesn't work and the few that added audio and video chat (Google, etc) have closed their extension because it's impossible to federate. So in the end, I don't see XMPP as a viable solution.

I don't see how any new protocol will solve this particular problem any better. If Google stopped federating with XMPP, why would they federate with new protocol XYZ? This is not a technical problem, but a sickening political one. Perverted lock-in / walled garden mentality poisoned most of the big instant messaging services today. And unlike e-mail, we all remain in some dark ages when it comes to IM.


Last edited by Shmerl on 24 Jan 2017 at 5:40 am UTC

Not convinced. IRC will stay forever, this will go away in a year. I'd rather everyone went tox instead.

It's been around since 2014, it has already been here for a few years now.

Anything can be a failure, when no one works on it. Why not improve it? And if not, who is working on nicely designed new protocols? And design has to be seriously good, to make it a better alternative. Which IMHO, implies using a protocol build on top of TCP/IP, instead of plugging HTTP in the middle.

I think that was with you that I discussed that. HTTP is the standard now. All the apps are using it and when we talk about text chat or even rich text chat, I don't really think the difference between TCP/IP and HTTP is relevant. But the simplicity of HTTP surpass the performance of TCP/IP. And it has the advantage that you don't have to reinvent a whole new protocol for each and every extension of your app.

Considering that because HTTP is a sub-protocol of TCP/IP, then TCP/IP is a better choice is simply noob talking. It's like saying that a game will be faster if we were writing directly in assembly, it's plain wrong (and I know that very very well, it's my job).

I won't extend more on that, so please write an application in TCP/IP, write another one with HTTP. Compare the network performances between them, and compare the code size as well, and then (and only then) I'll be interested to talk a bit more about it with you.

I won't extend more on that, so please write an application in TCP/IP, write another one with HTTP. Compare the network performances between them, and compare the code size as well, and then (and only then) I'll be interested to talk a bit more about it with you.

Easier to make doesn't make it a good design. HTTP is not well suited for many use cases, and looks like a kludge when used for duplex communication especially. I agree of course that designing and making new protocols is not a trivial task, I don't however see it as reinventing the wheel. HTTP wasn't meant to replace TCP/IP, but often used that way.

It's the case of "when you have a hammer (HTTP), everything looks like a nail".


Last edited by Shmerl on 24 Jan 2017 at 6:05 pm UTC

88.119.151.82

Not convinced. IRC will stay forever, this will go away in a year. I'd rather everyone went tox instead.

It's been around since 2014, it has already been here for a few years now.

It's not around for anyone until (s)he hears of it. And this is the first time I've heard of it so...

I applaud it for openness but HTTP (and the underlying TCP tbh) are dead weights these days