Is Matrix a good choice?

[Dr. Trigon]

The thing I wonder is; we have a quite good solution XMPP - now why follow the hype just to get something that may be very dubious...?


Am 8. März 2022 11:27:58 MEZ schrieb "Daniele "Mte90" Scasciafratte" <mte90net at gmail.com>:
>Considering that FSFe is using Matrix I don't think that is a problem.
>
>Also this page was published in 2020 and in the meantime various things are changed (like protocol versions). Like Riot the client now changed name (I don't remember why honestly).
>Another thing is that is FOSS so should be easy to confirm the fact that send data to matrix central servers (and what kind of data anyway?). In my experience vector.im is used for login authenthication but I never studied how works.
>
>To me the real issues with Matrix are the UX that is very bad comparing to any other chat solution.
>
>Daniele Scasciafratte - OpenSource MultiVersal Guy
>daniele.tech <https://daniele.tech> - @Mte90Net <https://twitter.com/Mte90net> - GitHub <https://github.com/Mte90> - Italian Linux Society council member <http://www.ils.org/> - Mozillian <https://people.mozilla.org/p/Mte90>
>Mozilla Reps, Mozilla TechSpeakers, WordPress Core Contributor <https://profiles.wordpress.org/mte90>, FSFE member <https://fsfe.org/>,
>LibreItalia member <http://www.libreitalia.it/>, Wikimedia Italia member <https://www.wikimedia.it/> and LUG Rieti founder <http://lugrieti.linux.it/>.
>Il 27/02/22 09:13, Dr. Trigon ha scritto:
>> Has anybody read https://www.hackea.org/notas/matrix.html ? What is the position of fsfe regarding these issues?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion at lists.fsfe.org
>> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
>> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
>> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20220310/2f4c9337/attachment.htm>