Comment on Matrix 2.0 Is Here!
matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 weeks agoCan you please explain why? A quick look at the spec for both protocols shows you that matrix is literally a hundred times more complex, so I don’t understand the basis of the contrary. The matrix creators have shown they are okay with increased complexity under the pretext of a more complete experience, but in reality, XMPP has achieved the same features with far less complexity.
If you’re speaking about self hosting, again, I don’t see how, as matrix is notorious for self hosting issues. XMPP’s snikket works out of the box and has all the commonly used features and plugins pre-baked. The underlying prosody implementation is a step down, but is also quite easy as long as you know what plugins and options to activate (and if you don’t, then use snikket).
iso@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
I don’t want to defend Matrix. I agree that it is not stable and lightweight. However, I believe it is simpler than XMPP. Wanna set up a server? Synapse. Need a client? Element. The default softwares are easy for new users to discover.
Also, the fact that Matrix has a single protocol means that in theory all servers and clients can work with each other (Although I know we are far from that at the moment). It is much better than XMPP’s XEPs in terms of simplicity.
matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
With all due respect, this is a very biased view
Wanna set up a server? Prosody (which has a hassle free out of the box experience through snikket)
Need a client? Conversations
The default softwares are easy to use for new users.
For matrix, however, you are forced to use synapse. You complain that xmpp is not a single protocol, but in reality, all the major implementations are compatible. Can you say the same about matrix? The other implementations aren’t even close to achieving this.
Xmpp’s extensions are a powerful feature, and the issues you think it presents do not exist with xmpp anymore, but is actually the status quo for Matrix.
iso@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
When I decided to try XMPP, I had to do a lot of research to decide which applications I should use for the server and client. I did not experience this in Matrix. And yes, I know Matrix is not stable. I am not against that. It’s just easier to get on board.
If we told two people to use these two software independently, they would start using Matrix much more faster than XMPP. I think this is enough to call it uncomplicated.
matcha_addict@lemy.lol 2 weeks ago
Answering this first so it doesn’t get buried down. Screen sharing wouldn’t be supported by xmpp since its just messaging, but I believe Jitsi has that feature. But for the rest, snikket and conversations (for android) I would recommend, yes.
Whatever is the first answer you get from a web search should be fine. Most sources recommend conversations for client, but all the other recommendations you’ll see are good too. For server, the easiest to setup is snikket, but all the other and up to date implementations should work okay, although they might need some configuration if you want all the modern messaging features.
Why do you think so? Let’s assume a user who doesn’t self host. XMPP clients are far more stable and error free, whereas matrix has random issues every now and then, especially with encryption and public groups.
XMPP clients are a lot more customizable and come in different models. Matrix has only one client that works well (and some forks of it that look roughly the same). I’d say that’s a win for XMPP for new users.
Now let’s say it’s a self hosting user. I don’t need to say much here, matrix is notorious for self hosting issues, and being a massive resource hog. XMPP, you have snikket, which works out of the box without issues and can be hosted on a raspberry pi even.
I may be biased here, so I urge you to tell me, in what way would a new user adopt matrix faster? I can tell you one. Matrix has corporate funding and has managed to advertise better. That’s their only win.