Comment on Apple’s iMessage is not a “core platform” in EU, so it can stay walled off
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 months agoFrom practice - performance of clients and of servers too.
From emotion - it uses Web technologies.
From some logic maybe - if they are doing something new, then why not distributed architecture like Tox (at least identities not tied to servers), and if they choose something architecturally similar to XMPP, why not use XMPP.
However, emotion again, I really like Matrix APIs, these are definitely designed to be used by anyone at all.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Oh no! Web based protocol! Not stability, ease of debugging, less block rate, and easy SSL protection! The horror!!
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
What does this even mean in the context of data you’d transfer in Matrix?
Ease in which context? What’s so much harder to which you are comparing it?
Are you certain that something TCP-based gives that? Latency sucks too.
PKI is crap. Just saying. Easy and wrong.
Nobody said that.
And such an esteemed thing as Gnutella uses Web technologies.
I just don’t like it. It’s my opinion. Just as you have yours.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 7 months ago
It means it’s a robust well-tested protocol
It’s a robust, well tested, and well known protocol.
Firewall: Allow 80 Allow 443 Allow 53 to <internal DNS server> Deny to any
What’s the better solution?
Yeah it has a lot of problems, but all the things you listed are the least of it. Still better than anything else.
rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
XMPP by now is no less well-tested.
Average company firewall shouldn’t allow 80 and 443 to outside anyway.
Anyway, that could have been a fallback, it’s the only way instead.
Doing an IM over TCP I can understand. VoIP signalling over TCP is not serious.
Look at Retroshare. In this particular regard (not its whole model of security, which is seemingly not good, but I’m not a specialist) it does things right, I think.
And which are not in your opinion?
Still not better than XMPP, so factually wrong. =)