curious what the fediverse likes best

im gonna be honest I got scared away from xmpp because some rando on HN said that message ID's weren't even part of the core spec lmao

Show thread


@wintgenstein I spend way too much time lurking on /r/gamingcirclejerk lmao


@wintgenstein left-adj gaming shitpost subreddit, they spend most of their time dunking on racists

@heartles XMPP as a spec is quite the shitfest, but I'd opt for it over centralized solutions for IM, any day.

Need encryption? There's OMEMO.

@heartles basically it is like HTTP, features are opt-in – which allows both gradual rollout & bitching about not everything having the same feature set.

Similarly to HTTP, there exist multiple interoperable clients that do support a large amount of modern features.

@heartles XMPP itself is pretty nice, but so many parts of it are extentions (xep, xmpp extention protocol), all of which are just specs or something like that and sometimes reference implementations don't exist, to the point of it being basically basically impossible to have multiple clients and servers working together right because not everyone supports all features or sometimes they're implemented wrong so shit just doesn't work.

@heartles I remember the goddamn pain of using jabber on my phone and my pc at the same time and it never working right, because both the app and the PC client didn't implement the client priority right or at all.

It's a damn shame really, if there was a little more consensus in the community and people would go more for compatibility than features or whatever, I believe it could have become the one good, secure, self hosted chat client everyone wanted :T

This. So much.

I got a bunch of people to use XMPP but the number of times someone could not connect, messages arrived on the wrong device, file transfers didn't work or zrtp sessions failed meant that they stopped using it around the same time most providers stopped serving it.

Maybe, if somebody had taken a sensible subset of the specs, given it a name and a reference implementation, and convinced a critical mass of developers/providers -- maybe then it could have worked?

@x41 @heartles only once have I seen “implemented wrong” & it was my own fault.

Usually the question is just if some feature is supported & using a server/client that does not support features is not different from using any older client with most other chat protocols.

@x41 @heartles what I am trying to say is multiple clients & servers work with each other all the time.

@bootie_fringe @heartles no I get that they do, but theres always a little bit of fuckery going on and some things (especially Client priority) just never worked right. I know there are a few clients that don't blow now (though I think mobile only?), but it's too late, the damage is done, everyone at my old hackerspace I even mention jabber to immediately goes "oh no" :P

Idk if its changed in the last few years, but I don't think I'm gonna switch back any time soon :T

@pep could be wrong but i don't think a stream id is quite the same thing as a message id

but also i don't really care lmao

@heartles There is also a stream id, but the link points to stanza id (a message being a stanza).

@pep oop missed that

still tho this line: "It is up to the originating entity whether the value of the 'id' attribute is unique only within its current stream or unique globally."

this kinda disqualifies it from being able to be used as a message id tho, if you can't guarantee that it's unique

even if in practice its always made unique you could have the memester with the server that reuses ID's for different streams that claims they're within spec

@heartles I was just replying to your statement that XMPP has no message id as part of the core spec. Surely it's not perfect :)
Something to take into account also is that 10-20 years ago requirements were different. That's also why #XMPP is meant to be evolving.


I never was properly familiar with #IMAP but the parts of the spec quoted by that guy appear firmly grounded in the reality of operating across heterogeneous systems in a resilient kind of way.

It could be summarised as “trust none, expect the unexpected”.


Yes and no. I would gladly fail or reject a message if an implementation doesn't respect a MUST (normative text) in a specification.
Otherwise I'm always going to have to play catch-up with every implementation out there that doesn't have the expected behaviour. Why would we even have specifications in the first place.
And while there is place for some leeway here and there, on some important things -- such as IDs and their meaning -- fixing specifications that don't have normative enough text is also of course a desirable outcome 🙄

See also



> I would gladly fail or reject a message if an implementation doesn't respect a MUST

Does #IMAP say otherwise?

> See also…

There's a saying, rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

Why is that guy even trying to argue about such an abstract concept? Unless I'm missing some context, pointless doesn't begin to describe it.


@pep @heartles

And by the way, all very nice to wax it lyrical about “maintained protocols” and such. I should bring that guy to a control tower or a radar centre one day, see if he gets a dose of reality, especially when it comes to mission critical systems in strategic industries.

If your requirements demand it, the application id + stream id + stanza id will give you global uniqueness.

But what is your use case exactly?

Stanza id are not required to be globally unique simply because that's not necessary for the protocol to do its job.

Adding unnecessary complexity is known as gold-plating in the industry and is the mark of a bad engineer.


@heartles people actually use xmpp?

The whole standard hell is like a big no-no for me.

@yuki_is_bored @heartles many known chat networks were at one point based on XMPP. Nowadays lots of stuff still uses XMPP, but does not advertise it. mentions, among others:
• EA Origin
• Fortnite
• League of Legends
• Nintendo Switch

All of these have millions of users.

@heartles still salty about how much matrix is nerd bullshit

there is no good chat protocol anymore, it seems people don't even care. I almost didn't vote, but at least xmpp has a bit of potential, even though it is also nerd shit somewhat

@heartles Well, Wire is js based electron dependent nonsense. Discord is the worst. And matrix, xmpp, irc, and the fediverse are all functionally identical, with federated trust anchors. “Likes” would be a little strong for me. How about “hates less?”

@blub nothing in particular.

personally I want something that integrates well with the other chat services I use and that is FOSS, but this is more of an opinion poll for fedi

@heartles @blub last time I checked, XMPP integrated well via the transports mechanism. Has that changed?

@bootie_fringe @blub i have no idea i just put up this poll to see what people use/like lmao

@heartles @blub since XMPP has a wide range of clients, if you use it, the experience is strongly influenced by that client. FYI, I recommend:

• Gajim (GNU/Linux & other OSs)
• Conversations (Android/Linux)

@heartles I'm missing Rocket Chat in the list. It can federated, too.

@heartles damned typo, I meant "it can federate", of course.
But yeah, it's grown kind of challenging to keep track of all the software in the fediverse.

@heartles I want to use a good xmpp implementation someday in theory, but use discord for everything in practice; I have usability complaints about matrix and irc that seem kinda inextricable from the protocols, and nobody I know uses wire

@heartles all are garbage (never tried wire) but IRC has the benefit to be lightweight

@heartles not sure how is that possible, but it reminds me about Russian elections result...

@heartles A year ago i would have voted for xmpp. as old irc and icq+otr guy i loved xmpp. but for it easyness to use (client AND server side) matrix has the more modern and user friendly way to communicate imho

Sign in to participate in the conversation is a community for goth nerds, aka people who are interested in the intersections of math, art, programming, philosophy, and related topics. this does not include your techbro ass. we also enjoy a healthy amount of shitposting. if you are a techno-materialist, technocrat, or some flavor of capitalist, don't even bother applying. if you are interested in an account please fill out an application, detailing why you are interested in joining, what you have to bring to the community, and your prior, if any, accounts on the fediverse.