Matrix is a protocol not a messenger. Hate to be that guy, but the difference is worth learning.
Protocols are like email, or torrents, or VoIP or www, they all run on the “internet” but are not the same.
Maybe you already know, but other readers may not.
Plus signal and matrix protocol implementing messengers don’t suck, they are everywhere, element, signal, whatsapp, Google and Facebook messenger apparently…
Just platform uptake is hard due to network effect, but matrix and its tech has the biggest potential to break this with bridges imo.
Yeah so does Matrix but that doesn’t mean everything Element adds as an extension magically becomes standardized.
As if every Matrix client supported all of it.
All of them support E2EE.
XMPP has voice and video calling
Source? Closest thing I could find is “Jitsi exists and uses XMPP under the hood”
Just as good as “not JSON based”
Obvious bandwidth reduction and ease of parsing aside I think JSON is better because it forces you to be intentional about how you add a protocol extension.
Actually in terms of integrations and bridges XMPP is better, it was built for that from the very beginning, when it was perceived that there’ll be many-many proprietary IM networks and XMPP users will use bridges for those.
Sadly it’s losing popularity, but I don’t see Matrix popularity growing that fast or being that stable to say that it’s more relevant.
Personally I don’t like Matrix because all its clients I tried were for whatever reason very slow, fetching history was somehow a computatively-intensive task for them. So it’s just purely user perspective.
But I’ve seen its API, and that seems very nice and easy to use.
While XMPP has that, eh, 2000s industrial feel with lots of XML and extensions with bland numbers. Still, it’s now pretty clear which extensions are expected to be used by everyone, and it has nice clients like Psi.
Matrix is a protocol not a messenger. Hate to be that guy, but the difference is worth learning.
Protocols are like email, or torrents, or VoIP or www, they all run on the “internet” but are not the same.
Maybe you already know, but other readers may not.
Plus signal and matrix protocol implementing messengers don’t suck, they are everywhere, element, signal, whatsapp, Google and Facebook messenger apparently…
Just platform uptake is hard due to network effect, but matrix and its tech has the biggest potential to break this with bridges imo.
www is not a protocol, it’s just a common subdomain. I think you meant http.
Thank you, yes I meant the website browsing internet, so it’s http or https for the world wide Web.
There isn’t another protocol for websites though is there?
gemini
Technically, gopher. But it doesn’t count.
There are websockets.
I thought WhatsApp used XMPP.
AFAIK they both use Signal developed by Open Whisper.
Why Matrix when we have XMPP?
It is standard. The standard allows extensions. (EDIT: That one is standardized.) You should have checked first.
As if every Matrix client supported all of it. A very weird point.
XMPP has that too. You should have checked first.
Just as good as “not JSON based”. Weird again.
Yeah so does Matrix but that doesn’t mean everything Element adds as an extension magically becomes standardized.
All of them support E2EE.
Source? Closest thing I could find is “Jitsi exists and uses XMPP under the hood”
Obvious bandwidth reduction and ease of parsing aside I think JSON is better because it forces you to be intentional about how you add a protocol extension.
XMPP has compression.
OK, suppose so, not being a developer I still think I’d just use libxml for this and json-c for that, but OK.
WDYM?
forgot these:
Not the same way, there are standardized XEPs for XMPP. One may not support and not use them, yes.
Well, every time I’ve used XMPP recently I’ve used OMEMO, so there’s no practical difference. Every modern client supports it.
Jingle - XEP-0166.
More modern and offers broader usecases
Not a reason.
Elaborate?
Felt like since matrix was newer, it was more setup for all the integrations and bridges and the e2ee out of the box.
But since you forced me to read again about xmpp I’ve come back with this comment.
Yes, I agree with that.
Actually in terms of integrations and bridges XMPP is better, it was built for that from the very beginning, when it was perceived that there’ll be many-many proprietary IM networks and XMPP users will use bridges for those.
Sadly it’s losing popularity, but I don’t see Matrix popularity growing that fast or being that stable to say that it’s more relevant.
Personally I don’t like Matrix because all its clients I tried were for whatever reason very slow, fetching history was somehow a computatively-intensive task for them. So it’s just purely user perspective.
But I’ve seen its API, and that seems very nice and easy to use.
While XMPP has that, eh, 2000s industrial feel with lots of XML and extensions with bland numbers. Still, it’s now pretty clear which extensions are expected to be used by everyone, and it has nice clients like Psi.