this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
148 points (80.6% liked)

Asklemmy

44149 readers
1392 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Telegram is just actually superior in terms of features I don't get it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m selfhosting a Matrix server and have all my Chats from other apps also bridged to there.

Same here, but with XMPP in place of Matrix. For historical context, XMPP was invented about 25 years ago on the premise that people were already tired of having their instant messaging scattered over multiple protocols (rather than Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp, Discord, iMessage now, it was Yahoo, MSN, AIM, ICQ, … then), so bridging is very much front and center in the XMPP world. Over time, people also realized that bridging sucks in general (you either dumb down your client to the lowest common denominator which sucks for yourself, or your client isolates itself from the source protocol enough that it sucks for everyone else).
To add insult to injury, most modern protocols also forbid, by their ToS, the use of alternative clients (which very much includes bridges), and to the best of my knowledge WhatsApp, Signal and Discord will eventually suspend your account on this basis.
Matrix is still trying to carve a niche for itself in this space, and is failing IMO (judging by the quality/security of the bridges they have come-up with, and the recent libera.chat fiasco). I'd say that the situation in this regard in XMPP is only marginally better due to the fact that XMPP had a decade headstart to fail and try over, and I would not recommend using bridges on either of them if that can be avoided.

It XMPP better for group VC?

I'd say "it depends". Fun fact, Matrix uses jitsi-meet under the hood (which is XMPP + a media transcoding/multicasting component that doubles as a relay), and jitsi-meet is my recommendation for this use-case: as long as the central server has good bandwidth, you can really scale up your VC to many attendees. On top of that, XMPP has support for peer-to-peer group VC, with the benefit that hosting is simpler, it doesn't require any central component/relay (but the bandwidth cost is incurred on all participants and you won't go beyond a handful of attendees that way).

[–] usbpc@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To add insult to injury, most modern protocols also forbid, by their ToS, the use of alternative clients (which very much includes bridges), and to the best of my knowledge WhatsApp, Signal and Discord will eventually suspend your account on this basis.

Good thing that I'm in the EU and the big chat platforms will be forced to open up their API to third-party clients soon with the DMA.

But from my point of view bridging with matrix works well and I have all my chats in one place. And for me that is the only reason I'm sticking with matrix as only one other person I know is using matrix directly. While it would be ideal to get everyone on one decentralized chat platform that is also rather unrealistic... so I'm doing my part using Matrix and getting friends on it when it makes sense but not actively trying to get people on there that don't have a good reason to use it. And using XMPP mostly sounds like it is just around longer but not that much better, so switching now dosen't seem to make sense.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, if you are on either, you are fighting the good fight, so keep it up :)

And if you self-host, you'll find it dramatically easier to do on XMPP (that's how I ended-up here, after giving up on Matrix's shenanigans).

[–] usbpc@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep, if you are on either, you are fighting the good fight, so keep it up :)

I will! It is a really nice setup for me.

And if you self-host, you’ll find it dramatically easier to do on XMPP (that’s how I ended-up here, after giving up on Matrix’s shenanigans).

Interesting, but I got past that hurdle... and I made it extra hard for myself as I didn't use the ansible playbook but instead created my own docker setup (own as in writing a docker-compose.yml myself, not as in creating the containers from scratch). But this way I understand the system and could fix problems that I had myself rather nicely.

[–] u_tamtam@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Interesting, but I got past that hurdle…

I was thinking more of the "day to day admin" side of things rather than "getting it running for the first time": ejabberd really runs like clockwork, demands no effort, no attention, packs all the features you need, and uses close to no resource.
By that time, I've been hosting services for communities for decades, and a good argument in favour of keeping XMPP, no matter how much adoption it would eventually get was that ejabberd is one of most "fire & forget" software I've ever deployed. Right now I have an instance running with 500 users and it barely ticks above 150MB RSS.

In comparison to that, synapse for a dozen users, especially in the early days, was a burning hot mess. The whole stack is rather fragile and I was always worried about something breaking up, or resources going wild. If you are solo admin with users across timezones depending on you, that might matter a lot.