Is matrix good to use, seen a lot of drama around it. For example hackliberty.org left it because of lacking of security and moderation, do you still recommended it?
I have used XMPP for some time now and I tried Matrix for a bit, but have stuck with XMPP until now.
I found it practically very easy to set up a prosody XMPP server in a raspberry pi. In XMPP you have the core standard that is kept quite minimal and then you can extended your implementation using XMPP extension protocols (XEPs) in a highly modular fashion. This approach of building on top of a light core using well-documented extensions I like very much.
With Matrix, JSON is used instead of XML. I think that JSON is a nice format when trying to look under the hood at how the message data is structured. XML is a bit of a pain to look at in my opinion. And I think JSON might be more efficient in how it moves the data around. So, that is a big positive for me. But I Matrix appears to be more focused on being feature rich than on having a flexible modular structure. While it does have extensions, successful extensions do have a chance of being eventually integrated into the core protocol. This makes the core feel bloated to me, because I have very minimal requirements.
In terms of security, in XMPP you start with the core and then you select the type of encryption that you like (OpenPGP, OMEMO, etc). OMEMO encryption has plausible deniability built into its design, and for me, plausible deniability is a property that I consider important for messaging. The modular approach to XMPP also means that these are choices that one gets to make in an active manner, and the protocols are open protocols that come from outside of XMPP. With Matrix you get their encryption protocol as part of the core - it is a protocol that they designed and that you need to accept to use their tool with encryption. It is probably a good protocol, but I don’t think it has plausible deniability built in, and that’s a choice you did not get to make.
As for moderation, I don’t know. Do they mean moderation tools, or the actual absence of moderators and unmoderated communities? Because the latter is more a property of the people using the tool that the tool itself. You can have your own private communities.
If someone asks me, I could recommend Matrix but would rather recommend XMPP, depending on what they are looking for specifically.
My wife and I use it to chat privately and I host synapse inside our LAN so im not federated. Works perfectly for that, but I’ve heard a lot of people have issues with large groups.
Depends on the use case an server.
Google and facebook do not yet have public servers. You want a trudtworthy server such that noone abuses your metadata like the time of sending a message.
It’s very useful for companies like email but for real time communication. I’d prefer matrix over most other forms. In many companies and agencies matrix is getting introduced these days.
It’s not anonymuous just like signal isn’t perfectly anonymuous.
It’s just a public discord server but half baked. Its attempts to add “privacy” just slow it down and increase resource needs, and so it’s worse off than discord.
Their solution? Don’t turn on encryption for public rooms.
At least simplex is actively trying to solve the large encrypted groups issue.
Matrix is still in my “recommend” category for real time federation. With third room still being the coolest example of what that can mean so far. They build on the same libs that make Peertube work too for the video sharing aspect (not the video metadata sharing and socials that all ActivityPub).
I’m really excited to see dendrite make it to client devices for real p2p servers, maybe even as a micro service deployment. I do want to try out the Conduwuit too.
That said the metadata leakage is an issue to me and consider that a serious flaw depending on your threat model, and you want to extra steps to preserve your identity from an untrusted matrix network and/or stick to a private one you trust
Matrix literally syncs the entire data/metadata history to all other servers where someone pops in; chat is meant to have an ephemeral aspect to it. The whole network is de facto centralized on Matrix.org or the servers they host for others which means one org has access to almost everything—like the issue with Signal.
What’s scary to me is how expensive it is to run this eventual consistency model, which should not be a protocol requirement for this style of communication. It sucks so much RAM, so much storage, so wasteful—which causes medium-sized servers to shutdown on maintenance costs alone which causes more users to leave for the Matrix.org. These are not the characteristics of a revolutionary protocol—revolutionary is users & collectives to reasonably be self-hosting this stuff for their privacy & autonomy.
Matrix literally syncs the entire data/metadata history to all other servers where someone pops in
How else would you expect a decentralized and persistent chat room to work? If that stuff wasn’t synced among the servers that were invited to participate in a room, then it wouldn’t be decentralized; one server going down would kill the room (or at least lose data).
The only way I can think of is not to use servers at all, but go fully peer-to-peer. Matrix has done some proof-of-concept work toward this, but I’m not aware of any service that does it successfully while being practical for most people, yet.
chat is meant to have an ephemeral aspect to it.
There are use cases where that makes sense, but for general use? No thanks. When I lose my account password or my phone breaks, I want to be able to sign in on another device and still have my message history.
It sucks so much RAM, so much storage,
Synapse is indeed a heavy server implementation. Several lighter ones are in development, some of which people are using already.
