XSF Discussion - 2019-02-22

  1. alacer has joined
  2. Half-ShotX has left
  3. Half-ShotX has joined
  4. novnov has left
  5. j.r has left
  6. Half-ShotX has left
  7. alacer has left
  8. Half-ShotX has joined
  9. Half-ShotX has left
  10. wurstsalat has left
  11. lskdjf has joined
  12. Half-ShotX has joined
  13. lskdjf has left
  14. UsL has left
  15. UsL has joined
  16. Half-ShotX has left
  17. Half-ShotX has joined
  18. Half-ShotX has left
  19. frainz has left
  20. frainz has joined
  21. Half-ShotX has joined
  22. frainz has left
  23. Lance has left
  24. frainz has joined
  25. frainz has left
  26. Half-ShotX has left
  27. frainz has joined
  28. Half-ShotX has joined
  29. l has left
  30. frainz has left
  31. frainz has joined
  32. Half-ShotX has left
  33. rtq3 has left
  34. kokonoe has left
  35. Half-ShotX has joined
  36. kokonoe has joined
  37. Half-ShotX has left
  38. Half-ShotX has joined
  39. Half-ShotX has left
  40. remko has left
  41. Half-ShotX has joined
  42. Half-ShotX has left
  43. Half-ShotX has joined
  44. Half-ShotX has left
  45. Half-ShotX has joined
  46. Half-ShotX has left
  47. remko has joined
  48. Half-ShotX has joined
  49. UsL has left
  50. UsL has joined
  51. Half-ShotX has left
  52. Half-ShotX has joined
  53. lumi has left
  54. Half-ShotX has left
  55. Half-ShotX has joined
  56. Half-ShotX has left
  57. Lance has joined
  58. tux has left
  59. Half-ShotX has joined
  60. Half-ShotX has left
  61. Half-ShotX has joined
  62. wurstsalat has joined
  63. thorsten has left
  64. thorsten has joined
  65. Half-ShotX has left
  66. Half-ShotX has joined
  67. Half-ShotX has left
  68. thorsten has left
  69. remko has left
  70. Half-ShotX has joined
  71. mrDoctorWho has left
  72. Half-ShotX has left
  73. Half-ShotX has joined
  74. Neustradamus has left
  75. mrDoctorWho has joined
  76. Neustradamus has joined
  77. Lance has left
  78. Neustradamus has left
  79. Neustradamus has joined
  80. labdsf has left
  81. labdsf has joined
  82. Half-ShotX has left
  83. Half-ShotX has joined
  84. Half-ShotX has left
  85. Half-ShotX has joined
  86. remko has joined
  87. Yagiza has joined
  88. Half-ShotX has left
  89. Half-ShotX has joined
  90. Half-ShotX has left
  91. remko has left
  92. Half-ShotX has joined
  93. Half-ShotX has left
  94. Half-ShotX has joined
  95. labdsf has left
  96. labdsf has joined
  97. Half-ShotX has left
  98. Half-ShotX has joined
  99. Nekit has joined
  100. Lance has joined
  101. waqas has joined
  102. kokonoe has left
  103. Half-ShotX has left
  104. Half-ShotX has joined
  105. l has joined
  106. kokonoe has joined
  107. Half-ShotX has left
  108. Half-ShotX has joined
  109. thorsten has joined
  110. Lance has left
  111. Half-ShotX has left
  112. Half-ShotX has joined
  113. Half-ShotX has left
  114. Half-ShotX has joined
  115. novnov has joined
  116. lnj has joined
  117. Half-ShotX has left
  118. Half-ShotX has joined
  119. Nekit has left
  120. Nekit has joined
  121. Half-ShotX has left
  122. Half-ShotX has joined
  123. Half-ShotX has left
  124. waqas has left
  125. waqas has joined
  126. kokonoe has left
  127. l has left
  128. labdsf has left
  129. kokonoe has joined
  130. Half-ShotX has joined
  131. karoshi has joined
  132. novnov has left
  133. novnov has joined
  134. Tobias has joined
  135. oli has joined
  136. Tobias has left
  137. Tobias has joined
  138. novnov has left
  139. oli has left
  140. oli has joined
  141. bowlofeggs has left
  142. remko has joined
  143. novnov has joined
  144. rtq3 has joined
  145. Half-ShotX has left
  146. Half-ShotX has joined
  147. bowlofeggs has joined
  148. waqas has left
  149. efrit has joined
  150. j.r has joined
  151. oli has left
  152. oli has joined
  153. Half-ShotX has left
  154. Half-ShotX has joined
  155. UsL has left
  156. efrit has left
  157. Half-ShotX has left
  158. Half-ShotX has joined
  159. andy has joined
  160. rtq3 has left
  161. blabla has joined
  162. Half-ShotX has left
  163. Half-ShotX has joined
  164. goffi has joined
  165. alacer has joined
  166. novnov has left
  167. rtq3 has joined
  168. Half-ShotX has left
  169. Half-ShotX has joined
  170. karoshi has left
  171. karoshi has joined
  172. lnj has left
  173. mimi89999 has left
  174. mimi89999 has joined
  175. rtq3 has left
  176. Half-ShotX has left
  177. Half-ShotX has joined
  178. lnj has joined
  179. labdsf has joined
  180. lnj has left
  181. ralphm has left
  182. Half-ShotX has left
  183. Half-ShotX has joined
  184. melvo has joined
  185. Wiktor has left
  186. Wiktor has joined
  187. bowlofeggs has left
  188. bowlofeggs has joined
  189. Half-ShotX has left
  190. Half-ShotX has joined
  191. vaulor has left
  192. vaulor has joined
  193. Half-ShotX has left
  194. Half-ShotX has joined
  195. frainz has left
  196. frainz has joined
  197. 404.city has joined
  198. blabla has left
  199. frainz has left
  200. frainz has joined
  201. mimi89999 has left
  202. mimi89999 has joined
  203. lnj has joined
  204. Half-ShotX has left
  205. Half-ShotX has joined
  206. alacer has left
  207. alacer has joined
  208. alacer has left
  209. blabla has joined
  210. j.r has left
  211. andrey.g has left
  212. mimi89999 has left
  213. mimi89999 has joined
  214. alacer has joined
  215. Half-ShotX has left
  216. Half-ShotX has joined
  217. andrey.g has joined
  218. mimi89999 has left
  219. mimi89999 has joined
  220. remko has left
  221. alacer has left
  222. ralphm has joined
  223. blabla has left
  224. frainz has left
  225. frainz has joined
  226. Half-ShotX has left
  227. Half-ShotX has joined
  228. frainz has left
  229. frainz has joined
  230. frainz has left
  231. frainz has joined
  232. Half-ShotX has left
  233. frainz has left
  234. frainz has joined
  235. alacer has joined
  236. frainz has left
  237. frainz has joined
  238. alacer has left
  239. Half-ShotX has joined
  240. Half-ShotX has left
  241. frainz has left
  242. frainz has joined
  243. frainz has left
  244. frainz has joined
  245. Half-ShotX has joined
  246. frainz has left
  247. frainz has joined
  248. tux has joined
  249. remko has joined
  250. Half-ShotX has left
  251. blabla has joined
  252. Half-ShotX has joined
  253. karoshi has left
  254. karoshi has joined
  255. wurstsalat has left
  256. Nekit has left
  257. Nekit has joined
  258. melvo has left
  259. Half-ShotX has left
  260. Half-ShotX has joined
  261. lnj has left
  262. Half-ShotX has left
  263. Half-ShotX has joined
  264. Half-ShotX has left
  265. lnj has joined
  266. Steve Kille has joined
  267. ralphm has left
  268. blabla has left
  269. Half-ShotX has joined
  270. melvo has joined
  271. bowlofeggs has left
  272. Holger has left
  273. Holger has joined
  274. Half-ShotX has left
  275. Half-ShotX has joined
  276. lnj has left
  277. kokonoe has left
  278. lnj has joined
  279. rtq3 has joined
  280. kokonoe has joined
  281. melvo has left
  282. Half-ShotX has left
  283. Half-ShotX has joined
  284. Steve Kille has left
  285. kokonoe has left
  286. kokonoe has joined
  287. Half-ShotX has left
  288. Half-ShotX has joined
  289. yvo has joined
  290. Half-ShotX has left
  291. Half-ShotX has joined
  292. Half-ShotX has left
  293. Half-ShotX has joined
  294. vaulor has left
  295. vaulor has joined
  296. Andrew Nenakhov https://twitter.com/brunoborges/status/1098472238469111808?s=19
  297. Andrew Nenakhov About that recent matrix discussion )
  298. Zash > Pick your markup YAML ain't markup. Netiher is JSON.
  299. Half-ShotX has left
  300. Half-ShotX has joined
  301. Guus Can we stop comparing ourselves to Matrix? Let them be.
  302. Ge0rG YAML. Where MAC address strings become sexagesimal (yes, this is a word. no, it's not a dirty word): https://yaml.org/type/int.html > canonical: 685230 > sexagesimal: 190:20:30
  303. cookie has joined
  304. jubalh has joined
  305. jubalh do jids have to be lowercase?
  306. Ge0rG jubalh: no, but IIRC you need to lowercase the bare JID part for comparisons
  307. oli has left
  308. Half-ShotX has left
  309. Half-ShotX has joined
  310. Ge0rG TL;DR: it's a deep deep rabbit hole... start at https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7622#section-3.1
  311. cookie has left
  312. zinid the whole idea of case-insensitivity is broken completely
  313. Zash That's the PRECIS version?
  314. zinid putting it on servers is the worst thing invented
  315. Zash Does anyone implement PRECIS yet?
  316. zinid Zash, not me πŸ™‚
  317. Zash It is indeed a deep rabbit hole, and you will find only sadness at the bottom.
  318. zinid I barely can understand what is written in the PRECIS spec
  319. zinid like some alien wrote that for dogs
  320. Zash Hm? IIRC it's not too different from STRINGPREP
  321. zinid well I didn't read stringprep either, just took a ready-to-use table
  322. MattJ I think a problem with PRECIS is that it varies by Unicode version
  323. MattJ which is a good idea in theory (no table to go out of data, all the work is done by the maintainers of Unicode)
  324. MattJ But in practice it will cause interop problems on the network, as everyone will be using different versions
  325. Zash Didn't that problem exist already?
  326. MattJ Also some JIDs that are valid one year will become invalid the next year
  327. Zash Do you remember robot face?
  328. zinid Zash, I think there is a problem with emojis in resources
  329. zinid does it count?
  330. MattJ Zash, different issue
  331. blabla has joined
  332. MattJ Related, but different
  333. Zash Sadness.
  334. Ge0rG Emojis in resources are also Unicode code points which may or may not be supported by a given XMPP implementation
  335. Ge0rG Joining a MUC as πŸ€– will make certain clients quit and some servers drop s2s.
  336. Ge0rG And don't even think about sending a MUC message from that nickname
  337. MattJ But that's not a problem with the definition of stringprep, is it?
  338. zinid I like how virtually nobody understands exactly why there is a problem with emojis in resources πŸ˜€
  339. Yagiza has left
  340. Zash That was a problem with some library allowing things by default and some others disallowing by default?
  341. zinid I honestly have no idea
  342. jubalh Ge0rG, thx
  343. Half-ShotX has left
  344. Half-ShotX has joined
  345. MattJ Zash, right
  346. Yagiza has joined
  347. Ge0rG And then there are things like https://discourse.igniterealtime.org/t/smack-disconnects-if-priority-is-out-of-range/73401
  348. remko has left
  349. rtq3 has left
  350. rtq3 has joined
  351. Link Mauve Ge0rG, https://issues.prosody.im/921
  352. Half-ShotX has left
  353. Half-ShotX has joined
  354. Ge0rG Link Mauve: what if prosody receives that via s2s? Drop the link?
  355. Ge0rG Link Mauve: what about <show>fubar</show> or the invalid MUC JIDs on conference.jabber.org?
  356. Zash Drop the link and report them to the authorities
  357. Ge0rG is in a world of sad. https://discourse.igniterealtime.org/t/gajim-presence-can-dos-xmpptcpconnection/84179/5
  358. pep. Zash, authorities in a decentralized world :
  359. pep. Zash, authorities in a decentralized world :P
  360. zinid pep., let's encrypt
  361. pep. True
  362. Link Mauve Ge0rG, fix the emitting server’s software, then use 0157 to tell the sysadmin of the emitting server to update.
  363. pep. And sad at the same time
  364. Zash pep.: Our one true glob, ICANN
  365. Ge0rG Error> No Contact Addresses for jabber.org
  366. pep. Zash, We need blockchains, namecoin!
  367. zinid pep., I consider this as a natural limitation, like a CAP theorem for example, you cannot do anything with it
  368. zinid seems like nature decided "you cannot go fully decentralized, muahahaha"
  369. Zash pep.: Someone will just end up with 51% of the power
  370. oli has joined
  371. zinid yeah, the Byzantine Generals theorem sums it up clearly
  372. lnj has left
  373. lnj has joined
  374. Half-ShotX has left
  375. Half-ShotX has joined
  376. yvo has left
  377. jubalh has left
  378. pep. And in practice it's not even 51 but less than that :/
  379. yvo has joined
  380. zinid 1/3 afair
  381. zinid according to the Byzantine theorem
  382. kokonoe has left
  383. UsL has joined
  384. Andrew Nenakhov has left
  385. Half-ShotX has left
  386. Half-ShotX has joined
  387. Andrew Nenakhov has joined
  388. kokonoe has joined
  389. Neustradamus has left
  390. Yagiza has left
  391. Yagiza has joined
  392. Half-ShotX has left
  393. Half-ShotX has joined
  394. blabla has left
  395. l has joined
  396. Half-ShotX has left
  397. Half-ShotX has joined
  398. rtq3 has left
  399. kokonoe has left
  400. Half-ShotX has left
  401. kokonoe has joined
  402. rtq3 has joined
  403. theTedd has joined
  404. theTedd hi kids
  405. pep. hey there
  406. theTedd could Ge0rG and jonas’ confirm/deny their vote for PR #744 -- -1 (as-is, +1 with "thereby taking up the role of XEP author" removed)
  407. Half-ShotX has joined
  408. zinid > https://issues.prosody.im/921 Zash heh, we don't validate that in ejabberd, I added the check, but then reverted because there was a lot of scream
  409. Zash zinid: What kind of check?
  410. zinid Zash, [-127, 127]
  411. Zash zinid: And what kind of action?
  412. Link Mauve -128*
  413. zinid Zash, back then there was a lot of nerdy clients which allow a user to set any priority, so some of snow flakes set it to 666 or 1024
  414. Zash I mean, did you reject them or rewrite into that range?
  415. Neustradamus has joined
  416. zinid Zash, reject with stanza error (not stream)
  417. Zash There's a setting in Prosody that rewrites all presence priority to zero, which don't think anyone has had all that much truoble with.
  418. zinid I can fix it instantly since the check is in a single place, that's a one-line commit, but I'm not sure
  419. jonas’ throws praise at theTedd
  420. jonas’ I’m at work right now though and won’t be able to clarify until tomorrow
  421. Neustradamus has left
  422. Andrew Nenakhov I think that priorities are an outdated concept.
  423. Andrew Nenakhov So best value is zero.
  424. theTedd okay, no problem
  425. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, yeah, that's why I started the discussion now
  426. Andrew Nenakhov πŸ‘
  427. Ge0rG theTedd: IIRC the introduction of the shepherd was an accepted solution in the council meeting two weeks ago?
  428. neshtaxmpp has left
  429. Neustradamus has joined
  430. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, if priorities are kinda meaningless nowadays, it's better to be RFC compliant in order not to confuse other implementaions
  431. theTedd I was just checking whether the changes satisfied your voting condition
  432. Ge0rG zinid [13:16]: > Zash, reject with stanza error (not stream) And if you received that from a MUC participant, you get yourself kicked?
  433. jonas’ theTedd, in the end, the vote on #744 (if I’m not mixing things up) by council is informational only, anyways.
  434. zinid Ge0rG, MUC what? I just merged MIX into ejabberd πŸ˜€
  435. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, we set them to zero by default and are thinking to make in non changeable.
  436. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, yeah, that's fine
  437. Zash Ge0rG: Something something liberal about what you receive, except ugh
  438. Ge0rG zinid: ah, then you can `git rm mod_muc.erl` now
  439. zinid Ge0rG, sure I'll do after mod_mix_muc become a thing(y)
  440. theTedd jonas’, meaning the PR is accepted or not?
  441. jonas’ theTedd, board voted on it
  442. jonas’ one would have to check board votes
  443. Ge0rG I have a nerd use case for negative priority, because my main client can't mam and I don't want to consume messages with the other clients when the main one is offline.
  444. theTedd jonas’, so what was the council vote for?
  445. jonas’ theTedd, to give board an idea on what we want
  446. jonas’ *if I recall correctly*
  447. Zash So priority should be in (-1, 0)
  448. theTedd jonas’, understood
  449. pep. Zash, True/False?
  450. Ge0rG I'm +1 on 744, but it's not formally binding
  451. Half-ShotX has left
  452. Half-ShotX has joined
  453. theTedd Ge0rG, thanks
  454. Zash Alternatively, don't send presence.
  455. Ge0rG Zash: did I mention "implementation defined message routing rules" yet?
  456. Zash Ge0rG: mod_firewall with an xmpp interface next?
  457. Zash Something's gotta replace privacy lists!
  458. zinid by privacy lists!
  459. ThibG has left
  460. ThibG has joined
  461. Ge0rG Replace RFC 6120 with mod_firewall?
  462. Half-ShotX has left
  463. Half-ShotX has joined
  464. alacer has joined
  465. Half-ShotX has left
  466. jmpman has left
  467. Half-ShotX has joined
  468. alacer has left
  469. Half-ShotX has left
  470. l has left
  471. alacer has joined
  472. theTedd has left
  473. Half-ShotX has joined
  474. yvo has left
  475. Half-ShotX has left
  476. Half-ShotX has joined
  477. yvo has joined
  478. j.r has joined
  479. ThibG has left
  480. ThibG has joined
  481. mimi89999 has left
  482. mimi89999 has joined
  483. Half-ShotX has left
  484. Half-ShotX has joined
  485. blabla has joined
  486. andy has left
  487. andy has joined
  488. Half-ShotX has left
  489. alacer has left
  490. Half-ShotX has joined
  491. kokonoe has left
  492. bowlofeggs has joined
  493. rtq3 has left
  494. alacer has joined
  495. Half-ShotX has left
  496. kokonoe has joined
  497. 404.city has left
  498. 404.city has joined
  499. blabla has left
  500. Half-ShotX has joined
  501. j.r has left
  502. lumi has joined
  503. lovetox has joined
  504. j.r has joined
  505. Half-ShotX has left
  506. Half-ShotX has joined
  507. j.r has left
  508. j.r has joined
  509. rtq3 has joined
  510. rtq3 has left
  511. rtq3 has joined
  512. Half-ShotX has left
  513. Half-ShotX has joined
  514. j.r has left
  515. rtq3 has left
  516. rtq3 has joined
  517. j.r has joined
  518. Half-ShotX has left
  519. Half-ShotX has joined
  520. remko has joined
  521. Half-ShotX has left
  522. Half-ShotX has joined
  523. Half-ShotX has left
  524. alacer has left
  525. Half-ShotX has joined
  526. ak430770 has joined
  527. Half-ShotX has left
  528. Half-ShotX has joined
  529. lumi has left
  530. Half-Shot has left
  531. undefined has joined
  532. Half-ShotX has left
  533. neshtaxmpp has joined
  534. Half-ShotX has joined
  535. Half-ShotX has left
  536. Half-ShotX has joined
  537. andy has left
  538. Half-ShotX has left
  539. labdsf has left
  540. Half-ShotX has joined
  541. Half-ShotX has left
  542. jubalh has joined
  543. igoose has left
  544. waqas has joined
  545. igoose has joined
  546. Half-ShotX has joined
  547. ak430770 has left
  548. l has joined
  549. alacer has joined
  550. alacer has left
  551. kokonoe has left
  552. j.r has left
  553. kokonoe has joined
  554. j.r has joined
  555. blabla has joined
  556. !xsf_Martin has joined
  557. lumi has joined
  558. remko has left
  559. rion has left
  560. rion has joined
  561. !xsf_Martin has left
  562. !xsf_Martin has joined
  563. Kev has left
  564. ThibG has left
  565. ThibG has joined
  566. blabla has left
  567. tux has left
  568. undefined has left
  569. rtq3 has left
  570. tux has joined
  571. karoshi has left
  572. karoshi has joined
  573. Matthew has joined
  574. Matthew wishes folk remembered that the enemy (if any) here are the proprietary locked-down silos
  575. Matthew and the open decentralised comms community might do better to support each other than try to stab each other in the neck...
  576. pep. Agreed. There is a history of splitting efforts nonetheless in the free software community, and that's meh
  577. zinid Matthew, really, so you think IM fragmentation will help fighting with silos?
  578. Matthew does this conversation look fragmented to you?
  579. MattJ +1 :)
  580. zinid Matthew, what are you talking about?
  581. pep. zinid, he's probably joined from matrix :)
  582. zinid pep., wow
  583. Matthew i am. talking from one open network to another
  584. Matthew albeit by a bridge
  585. zinid Matthew, so your suggestion is to build many IM networks and connect them via hacky gateways?
  586. jubalh has left
  587. zinid dude, I wrote gateways to MSN, ICQ, AIM and Yahoo back then
  588. zinid so I will never buy the argument, I know how shitty they are
  589. neshtaxmpp has left
  590. Matthew I'm saying that it's healthy to experiment with new approaches in any field or technology. Perhaps the new stuff works; perhaps it doesn't; perhaps it dies off and gets incorporated elsewhere. And yeah, i think it's great when people experiment with new networks - e.g. Briar and Cwtch and stuff are insanely cool.
  591. zinid please, spare my time
  592. Matthew and yeah, bridges are never going to be perfect, but at least we have the option
  593. Matthew and empirically they work well enough for a convo like this.
  594. zinid "new approaches", lmao
  595. MattJ zinid, Matrix is a pretty different model to XMPP, so yeah
  596. MattJ I happen to personally prefer the XMPP model, but I have nothing against people trying others :)
  597. zinid sorry, I cannot reply to you, you're not joined πŸ˜€
  598. Matthew zinid: i'm not trying to waste your time; just pointing out (objectively) that being grumpy and "how dare people try to build new IM protocols" all over HN does not reflect at all well on the XMPP community
  599. zinid Matthew, I don't represent the community
  600. Matthew i somehow doubt your audience sees it that way.
  601. Matthew returns to his stuff anyhoo
  602. Guus Matthew, remind me to buy you a beer.
  603. !xsf_Martin has left
  604. !xsf_Martin has joined
  605. !xsf_Martin has left
  606. !xsf_Martin has joined
  607. alacer has joined
  608. Matthew Guus: i will come claim chimay next year in brussels ;P
  609. tux has left
  610. Guus Matthew last month, I discovered something called "beer mania" there. I'm not to worried. πŸ˜ƒ
  611. Andrew Nenakhov Building matrix is nih syndrome. Makes sense from business perspective though
  612. Guus Andrew Nenakhov even if that were true - point that out over and over and over and over and over again does not do anyone any good.
  613. Guus Andrew Nenakhov even if that were true - pointing that out over and over and over and over and over again does not do anyone any good.
  614. waqas agrees with Guus
  615. Guus And probably makes the one doing the pointing out looking worse than the one being pointed at.
  616. zinid if everyone agrees with everyone, what's the point of the discussion?
  617. Guus And probably makes the one doing the pointing out look worse than the one being pointed at.
  618. zinid I personally agree with Andrew Nenakhov - this is technically speaking NIH
  619. zinid and I'm the last guy to blame as XMPP diehard, ejabberd supports XMPP, SIP and MQTT (since 19.02, coming next week)
  620. zinid and we considered implementing Matrix btw
  621. waqas XMPP was IRC NIH'd with XML. I suspect some still feel that way.
  622. zinid waqas, true, lessons learnt
  623. Guus IRC is NIH'd multiplayer notepad.
  624. waqas There are a few xkcd's that apply
  625. Guus my point is that it's fine to prefer XMPP over Matrix (I do) - but let's not continue a pointless argument over it.
  626. zinid anyone who agrees, please enlighten me what's the point in producing many IM networks and building gateways
  627. alacer has left
  628. waqas As a user, I suspect many of us think of UIs and not underlying tech. With that mindset, the point would be improved UIs (since I personally feel all of them range from mediocre to annoying).
  629. kokonoe has left
  630. zinid well, I'm not a user here
  631. zinid and Matthew asked to stop fighting or something, did he asked the "users"?
  632. MattJ zinid, what's the point of any software development? You know ejabberd wasn't the first jabber server...
  633. alacer has joined
  634. Andrew Nenakhov Some time ago when I was young and stupid I thought that xmpp transports is a good idea to bring more people on board
  635. zinid MattJ, there is a difference in producing software and standards
  636. MattJ I don't know why git exists when we were happy with rcs, etc.
  637. waqas Andrew Nenakhov: Have you stopped being young and stupid? :)
  638. Andrew Nenakhov Now I know that it just strengthens silo's network effects
  639. zinid waqas, nice ad hominem πŸ™‚
  640. Andrew Nenakhov Yes, now I'm significantly more experienced. )
  641. ThibG has left
  642. ThibG has joined
  643. Andrew Nenakhov Also, youth is a trait that you inevitably lose.
  644. waqas The effects of transports are interesting. I still believe in them in that they strengthen the network that has them.
  645. Seve From what I feel, bridges are just usually used by people who do not want to be in the silo, and they are a minority. But I'm no expert on the topic.
  646. MattJ waqas, I don't believe in them (I used to)
  647. Andrew Nenakhov I think they weaken XMPPs network effect
  648. MattJ They're 9 times out of 10 a far worse experience than the native one
  649. waqas Yes, and that's the problem ^
  650. kokonoe has joined
  651. Link Mauve IRC is the 10th time. :p
  652. pep. Something something lowest common denominator
  653. zinid so we think this time we will solve the problem with transports
  654. MattJ Link Mauve, ...
  655. pep. :D
  656. MattJ Link Mauve, XMPP->IRC->Matrix is how I've been in Matrix rooms for some time now
  657. waqas I believe XMPP as a technology had been a low level features that the IM networks of last decade had. That's why transports could do a reasonable job at the time, and I did use them with MSN/Yahoo/etc. That's no longer true for IM networks of today.
  658. MattJ Works pretty well usually
  659. Link Mauve MattJ, I guess so.
  660. Link Mauve My point was more that IRC is a terrible user experience out of the box, and that gateways are almost always an improvement over it.
  661. MattJ Link Mauve, sure
  662. waqas The XMPP network effect isn't being particularly helpful these days, as I think the proprietary platforms' network effects are an order of magnitude stronger than any of the non-proprietary ones.
  663. pep. XMPP, network effect?
  664. pep. What's that
  665. MattJ pep., the thing that saddled us with the Pidgin users
  666. Seve Haha
  667. pep. Matthew, well played, I see you've started another meaningful discussion :P
  668. waqas MattJ: To clarify, do we want the pidgin users or not?
  669. zinid pep., +1
  670. Guus Pidgin provides such poor XMPP experience, that it's chasing the users away.
  671. zinid started and hides
  672. Seve +1 to Guus, I could feel that in my own skin at FOSDEM
  673. Seve people making statements that weren't true
  674. Seve based on their experience using Pidgin
  675. pep. waqas, we want the users, we don't want pidgin
  676. zinid so we will also build voip gateways to SIP, i.e. Jingle<->SIP
  677. zinid and Jingle<->Matrix
  678. zinid do I understand correctly the postion?
  679. zinid what else?
  680. Guus gotta pick up the kids. ttyl
  681. zinid what a waste of human resources...
  682. Guus whut? My kids?
  683. waqas That's not a nice thing to say zinid
  684. Seve Come on guys :D
  685. zinid wut? I didn't mean to say anything about kids
  686. zinid relax guys
  687. pep. zinid, sarcasm.
  688. zinid wtf is wrong with you?
  689. Guus I was joking πŸ™‚
  690. Guus (well, trying to, at least)
  691. Guus ok, off with me. Later
  692. tux has joined
  693. zinid oh, Matthew decided to continue debating with me at HN
  694. lumi has left
  695. Ge0rG zinid: can you please add to all your public statements a sentence that you are not associated with the xmpp community? 😁
  696. pep. What does that mean to be associated to the XMPP community
  697. Ge0rG pep.: I'm speaking of this Matthew [17:09]: > zinid: i'm not trying to waste your time; just pointing out (objectively) that being grumpy and "how dare people try to build new IM protocols" all over HN does not reflect at all well on the XMPP community
  698. Seve zinid, could you share the link to the discussion, please?
  699. zinid Seve, no
  700. Ge0rG It doesn't mean anything to us in here.
  701. zinid I did this like 10 times today already
  702. zinid > how dare people try to build new IM protocols indeed, how dare whatsapp building IM protocols. But let's fight with them!
  703. zinid just contradictions in every sentences
  704. ak430770 has joined
  705. Nekit has left
  706. Nekit has joined
  707. MattJ Seve, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19216527
  708. Seve Thank you MattJ, very appreciated
  709. Lance has joined
  710. mrDoctorWho KDE community also created a matrix server. They said that there was no foss replacement for IRC and now there is
  711. pep. FUD, FUD all around
  712. j.r mrDoctorWho: XMPP is also a good replacement
  713. Link Mauve mrDoctorWho, I have some @kde.org people in my roster. :p
  714. alacer has left
  715. Link Mauve In my XMPP roster.
  716. j.r > mrDoctorWho: XMPP is also a good replacement But people don't unterstand
  717. ak430770 has left
  718. Lance has left
  719. mrDoctorWho j.r: I totally agree with you
  720. Seve I haven't read their announcement yet, but I feel they already had a decision before even looking up for solutions/alternatives.
  721. andrey.g has left
  722. zinid relax, we have gateways πŸ˜€
  723. waqas Hey, sometimes you just want to make something new, and you feel it's different from what's already out there
  724. Yagiza has left
  725. waqas I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone succeed in trying to stop people from doing that, despite many wanting to
  726. mathieui wishes good luck to Matthew in his interactions with zinid
  727. moparisthebest honestly I don't really have a problem with competing open protocols, that's how you narrow down to the best one, it'd be pretty crazy to think XMPP is the best there will ever be
  728. zinid so?
  729. zinid Matthew started with "let's just define our enemy", how does that relate to building something new?
  730. moparisthebest it's the closed ones that trap users with lock-in that I despise
  731. moparisthebest personally I still like XMPP best from what I've seen so far so you don't need to boot me from the XSF :D
  732. Ge0rG has left
  733. MattJ zinid, I don't really know what you like about XMPP, to be honest
  734. Ge0rG has joined
  735. MattJ zinid, to me, I value users being able to choose the client and service that they use, and service operators being able to choose the software they use
  736. MattJ I don't particularly value the XML, or any of the other stuff (which I assume you also don't)
  737. zinid MattJ, I don't value XMPP quite high honestly except it being a standard
  738. zinid MattJ, yeah, I also value users choosing their phones by what battery connector it has
  739. tux has left
  740. MattJ If Matrix wants to do their own thing, but also bridge to XMPP, I don't see how that's a problem
  741. MattJ It's more choice for users, and service operators
  742. zinid I also would love the situation when every fridge has it's own power supply
  743. MattJ It would be bad if it wasn't bridged (which it wasn't for a long time), but that is changing
  744. zinid and when you have a fridge from Samsung you cannot store stuff in the fridge of your relative's Phillips
  745. MattJ From the goals and values perspective, Matrix aligns pretty closely with XMPP. More than any other attempt at "free as in freedom" communication networks around
  746. zinid that's a true choice and freedom for users
  747. zinid well I disagree
  748. !xsf_Martin has left
  749. !xsf_Martin has joined
  750. !xsf_Martin has left
  751. andrey.g has joined
  752. !xsf_Martin has joined
  753. !xsf_Martin has left
  754. !xsf_Martin has joined
  755. !xsf_Martin has left
  756. !xsf_Martin has joined
  757. MattJ Maybe you don't realise the goals and values of the original Jabber project
  758. !xsf_Martin has left
  759. !xsf_Martin has joined
  760. MattJ which were pretty much identical to Matrix today
  761. !xsf_Martin has left
  762. !xsf_Martin has joined
  763. !xsf_Martin has left
  764. !xsf_Martin has joined
  765. !xsf_Martin has left
  766. !xsf_Martin has joined
  767. !xsf_Martin has left
  768. !xsf_Martin has joined
  769. zinid I don't care about original goals, please again note I like cooperation via standardization, not a competition
  770. !xsf_Martin has left
  771. !xsf_Martin has joined
  772. !xsf_Martin has left
  773. !xsf_Martin has left
  774. zinid if you think that competition is always good then go compete for food with your children
  775. MattJ And that is one thing that actually annoys *me* - that Matrix folk say "we're all about bridging though!", which is *exactly* where XMPP's roots are too
  776. waqas zinid: I'm a bit confused, can you point out the the main thing you disagree with?
  777. MattJ But that's just a difference of perspective
  778. pep. MattJ, same here
  779. pep. (re bridging)
  780. MattJ I don't go ranting on HN about it, and I don't bash their project, and I love to see the collaboration happening
  781. zinid MattJ, the point is they don't want cooperate
  782. MattJ I don't know what silo you are living in, but that's not true
  783. MattJ They are cooperating
  784. zinid what silo I'm living in...
  785. zinid gosh
  786. Seve zinid, if they wanted to cooperate they would just work with XMPP, you mean?
  787. MattJ I mean, they are right in this XSF MUC
  788. zinid Seve, yes
  789. zinid Seve, I don't see anything that stops XMPP from implementing that crazy distributed thing
  790. zinid that's the only "advantage" I see, at least what they *now* claim
  791. MattJ zinid, if XMPP started today, it wouldn't use XML I'm quite sure
  792. zinid MattJ, so let's change the wire format, I suggested that in 2006 IIRC
  793. MattJ and XML isn't even one of the things I dislike about XMPP :)
  794. MattJ I'm just saying, new projects aren't forced to use old stuff
  795. zinid abstract data structures from encoding. BTW, Matrix doesn't do that so it will be "outdated" in a next decade
  796. MattJ They are bridging, and that's pretty much all I care about, so we don't produce fragmentation
  797. zinid MattJ, are they going to bridge Jingle? Our new brand stuff whatever it is?
  798. MattJ zinid, why not? If XMPP is so successful, they only have to lose by not bridging to it :)
  799. zinid lmao
  800. zinid it will be definitely successfull when every HN user claims it's so bad in comparison to Matrix πŸ˜€
  801. MattJ Just so you know, HN isn't representative of the general population
  802. zinid I knew you say that
  803. MattJ Whether the people on HN favour one thing or another isn't a good indication of reality, or whether X is better than Y
  804. zinid so, XMPP will be definitely successful, that's only the way to get Matrix bridges?
  805. zinid so you bet on it?
  806. MattJ There are Matrix bridges now
  807. zinid I know, but I asked about what will be next
  808. MattJ You mentioned Jingle specifically - I don't think Matrix has user->user calling fully sorted out yet, but to be honest neither do we (look at clients dropping Jingle support recently)
  809. zinid yeah, I mentioned Jingle for a reason, it's just a classical example of wheel reinvention
  810. MattJ Peak Jingle was when the N900 was a thing
  811. MattJ and it had built-in XMPP and Jingle calling out of the box, and it just worked
  812. zinid anyway, Jingle is just an example
  813. zinid let's not change the discussion subject
  814. MattJ Sure, but what else? The discussion was the bridging, which I think is a core part of this debate
  815. zinid let's say we go MIX
  816. MattJ If a good quality bridge exists, the fragmentation argument is not an issue
  817. zinid MattJ, what about we go p2p?
  818. zinid if, if, if
  819. MattJ Treat the bridge just like any of the other clients we have to convince to implement MIX
  820. zinid that's more people to convince
  821. MattJ And we already have Xabber which never will (perhaps), and so on
  822. pep. (Talking about jingle, I found that a few days ago: https://blogs.gnome.org/danni/2010/06/07/muji-multi-user-jingle/)
  823. zinid so we will have nothing new?
  824. MattJ so let's figure out MIX and then decide whether it's worth Matrix bridges supporting it, eh
  825. MattJ Like I said, if we do cool stuff that works, it's in the best interests of Matrix to bridge that stuff
  826. zinid if?
  827. zinid if, probably
  828. MattJ If we don't, XMPP is pretty irrelevant and Matrix can drop the bridge and everyone can just use Matrix
  829. zinid you see, that's the main problem with gateways, you add another element of complexity
  830. MattJ so it's up to us, nothing to do with Matrix
  831. zinid so if they drop the network is fragmented?
  832. pep. So we're back to resources in the XMPP community
  833. MattJ They will drop if XMPP isn't worth supporting, sure, why wouldn't they?
  834. MattJ I can name many smaller networks XMPP doesn't bridge to, because nobody cares enough
  835. zinid yeah, and we will end up with two IM networks
  836. MattJ Some of them are even Standards
  837. zinid two irrelevant IM networks πŸ™‚
  838. zinid because I doubt any of us will attract masses
  839. MattJ *shrug*
  840. MattJ Not with that attitude :)
  841. zinid that's pragmatism
  842. zinid ~20 years and where are we?
  843. MattJ and not by fighting with each other on HN, or anywhere
  844. zinid why do you calling this a fight?
  845. MattJ Because that's what it looks like, to many people
  846. zinid that's just a debate, actually they try to move the discussion to fight
  847. MattJ Maybe you don't intend it to
  848. zinid also, what I'm saying at HN is irrelevant according to you, even you put me in the XMPP community
  849. zinid *even if
  850. zinid and I personally don't "fight" with them elsewhere πŸ˜€
  851. MattJ It's not irrelevant to the people on HN, I said HN was not a true indicator of anything outside of HN
  852. MattJ But many developers are there for example
  853. zinid whatever, I think users will choose the best one, let them decide by reading "fights"
  854. MattJ That's what I'm concerned about :)
  855. zinid about what part of the statement? πŸ™‚
  856. zinid that they will choose the best one? yeah, that's what you want, do I get it right?
  857. MattJ Because I think you think those "fights" make XMPP look good
  858. MattJ or make Matrix look bad
  859. zinid I already said I don't think so, again, I don't care that much, I mostly do that for fun
  860. MattJ Many people reading those will just see someone who refuses to accept the new technology replacing their favourite one
  861. MattJ something that happens all the time on HN...
  862. zinid new technology... okay
  863. MattJ XMPP is 15 years older than Matrix, yes
  864. zinid let them choose matrix, and I will continue "fighting" because I find that funny enough
  865. zinid I also can claim that I'm not the part of XMPP community! In my every post πŸ˜€
  866. pep. Anybody can claim anything!
  867. zinid Anybody can claim the person is in the community!
  868. zinid that's a nice ad hominem argument btw
  869. zinid people read that and think "ah, he is from that outdated 20 y.o. XML Cobol taliban", I see
  870. MattJ zinid, are you saying that I'm attacking you by saying this?
  871. MattJ I'm not. I know you rant about XMPP daily, trust me, I don't think you are an XMPP fanboy :)
  872. zinid MattJ, no you attacked me once by saying I'm living in kinda "silo"
  873. Andrew Nenakhov MattJ, why would Xabber implement this stupid mix?
  874. MattJ zinid, I apologise, my point was that you didn't seem to be accepting the visible facts (that cooperation between the communities is happening)
  875. Andrew Nenakhov It already has something far better
  876. zinid MattJ, that's not very acceptable for us cooperation
  877. tux has joined
  878. Andrew Nenakhov If it has some level of muc compatibility it's failure
  879. zinid MattJ, it's like a cooperation with a human and linked dog
  880. tux has left
  881. waqas us?
  882. tux has joined
  883. zinid oh shi~
  884. ak430770 has joined
  885. yvo has left
  886. MattJ Andrew Nenakhov, I don't want to start yet another debate :)
  887. Ge0rG zinid: now you are trolling... πŸ™„
  888. MattJ Andrew Nenakhov, I wasn't judging you for implementing MIX or not, I was just using you as an example of a project that will not implement MIX in a hurry
  889. moparisthebest Moreover unless you read Russian you can't yet MattJ :)
  890. MattJ Andrew Nenakhov, FWIW I also have not implemented MIX, and have no concrete plans to
  891. moparisthebest Need specs
  892. zinid Ge0rG, thanks for your thoughtful input
  893. MattJ moparisthebest, there are "specs" on the mailing list
  894. MattJ i.e. an overview of how it works without the XML parts
  895. MattJ I know enough
  896. zinid what I see is that community really falls apart actually, the future direction is quite moot
  897. kokonoe has left
  898. zinid "community" is implementors and standard writers
  899. Seve zinid, what are we missing in that regard?
  900. Ge0rG zinid: I think it's really awesome that Matthew and Half-ShotX are here and doing meaningful work on bridging the communities. Yes, bridges are imperfect. However, the ugliness depends on the mismatch between the feature sets, and I think the mismatch between matrix and xmpp isn't that large
  901. MattJ zinid, the summit this year had great attendance, it had great discussions and I assume we'll see standards and implementation progress this year
  902. zinid MattJ, so what to do with MIX?
  903. zinid Daniel convinced me to implement it
  904. Ge0rG Maybe we can learn something from matrix about reliable message delivery. That's something I have failed to fix in XMPP for a decade now.
  905. Andrew Nenakhov Btw, our glorious group chat protocol can be supported at basic level by processing just two stanza types. Or even one.
  906. Andrew Nenakhov Adding support is like, maybe an hour.
  907. Andrew Nenakhov Of course without viewing participants , etc
  908. zinid MattJ, who will resolve the disambiguation with MIX?
  909. lovetox zinid i look forward to the realease, i also want to play with it
  910. MattJ zinid, implementers, as always
  911. MattJ You potentially already did, by providing the first open server implementation
  912. zinid MattJ, I see at least one here who is opposing
  913. MattJ There are always people who oppose, even within communities... that's a fact of life, not the end of the road
  914. zinid lovetox, the branch is merged, the release is next week with 95% guarantee πŸ˜€
  915. kokonoe has joined
  916. waqas Rough consensus and running code is how XMPP has mostly operated
  917. MattJ A community isn't a group of people who always agree 100% on everything
  918. MattJ It's a group of people who generally have similar goals and values
  919. zinid MattJ, I understand there are always opposing, please. But what you suggest is completely stochastic process which I disagree with
  920. MattJ What?
  921. zinid like that implemented, this implemented, those two didn't implement
  922. MattJ If ejabberd and Conversations implements MIX, that's a huge milestone, no?
  923. MattJ It has to start somewhere
  924. MattJ Servers will upgrade, and MIX will be supported
  925. zinid MattJ, yes, but I don't see any consensus here, shouldn't I?
  926. zinid whatever
  927. moparisthebest that takes time
  928. zinid you will answer something very general like always
  929. MattJ Sure, probably
  930. zinid moparisthebest, that took already 3 years
  931. moparisthebest right, and maybe others will implement soon, not so soon, or never, and then you'll have consensus
  932. zinid so stochastic process, okay
  933. zinid the point is that back then it was not so stochastic, so Matrix indeed looks much better here
  934. Half-ShotX has left
  935. Half-ShotX has joined
  936. MattJ zinid, what do you want the XSF to do? Kidnap developers of projects and force them to implement stuff? :)
  937. waqas It'd be effective...
  938. MattJ That's a signficant advantage that Matrix (currently) has, agility due to the mostly single implementation and deployment
  939. MattJ I think they know that, and are making the most of it
  940. labdsf has joined
  941. zinid MattJ, I ask the XSF to produce a recommendation
  942. Nekit has left
  943. Nekit has joined
  944. MattJ Compliance Suites
  945. zinid no need to go with absurd like kidnapping
  946. zinid MattJ, I don't see MIX there
  947. MattJ So that's the recommendation
  948. zinid so MIX is not recommended?
  949. MattJ A 2018 XMPP implementation does not need to support MIX
  950. Ge0rG zinid: propose it
  951. MattJ Which is sensible given that there is no stable implementation of it currently
  952. zinid Ge0rG, and what will you do? I'm already working on 5 XEPs, so such arguments don't work anymore to me πŸ™‚
  953. Ge0rG zinid: you might still get into last call for 2019
  954. zinid going in circles...
  955. j.r has left
  956. zinid and you conveniently ignored the question about you doing what πŸ™‚
  957. Ge0rG zinid: im not going to implement mix yet
  958. zinid Ge0rG, but you can "propose" something (not sure what)
  959. blabla has joined
  960. labdsf has left
  961. Ge0rG zinid: send a mail to standards@ and ask for inclusion of mix into compliance Suite 2019
  962. j.r has joined
  963. zinid I'm really lost, who can clarify: 1) XSF doesn't produce recommendation without implementations. But constantly discussing something at endless meetings to come to some agreement? 2) XSF is only a standardization body, but it doesn't produce specs 3) XSF continues telling about the mythical community, but doesn't represent any do I get it right? What is it now responsible for? I see only XEP submitting process, which takes a lot of time looking at my own contributions, but that's kinda okay: lack of time, lazyness, understaffed
  964. zinid Ge0rG, and to end up in endless discussions?
  965. zinid like the one I had recently with you: "remove that MUST!!!"
  966. alacer has joined
  967. Half-ShotX has left
  968. Half-ShotX has joined
  969. Half-ShotX has left
  970. Half-ShotX has joined
  971. Half-ShotX has left
  972. Half-ShotX has joined
  973. Half-ShotX has left
  974. Half-ShotX has joined
  975. Half-ShotX has left
  976. Half-ShotX has joined
  977. Half-ShotX has left
  978. Half-ShotX has joined
  979. Half-ShotX has left
  980. Half-ShotX has joined
  981. Half-ShotX has left
  982. Half-ShotX has joined
  983. Half-ShotX has left
  984. Half-ShotX has joined
  985. Half-ShotX has left
  986. Half-ShotX has left
  987. Half-ShotX has joined
  988. Half-ShotX has left
  989. Half-ShotX has joined
  990. Half-ShotX has left
  991. Half-ShotX has left
  992. Half-ShotX has joined
  993. Half-ShotX has left
  994. Half-ShotX has joined
  995. Half-ShotX has left
  996. Half-ShotX has joined
  997. Half-ShotX has left
  998. Half-ShotX has joined
  999. Half-ShotX has left
  1000. Half-ShotX has joined
  1001. Half-ShotX has left
  1002. Half-ShotX has joined
  1003. Half-ShotX has left
  1004. Half-ShotX has joined
  1005. Half-ShotX has left
  1006. Half-ShotX has joined
  1007. Half-ShotX has left
  1008. Half-ShotX has joined
  1009. Half-ShotX has left
  1010. Half-ShotX has joined
  1011. Half-ShotX has left
  1012. Half-ShotX has joined
  1013. Half-ShotX has left
  1014. Half-ShotX has joined
  1015. Half-ShotX has left
  1016. Half-ShotX has joined
  1017. Half-ShotX has left
  1018. Half-ShotX has joined
  1019. Half-ShotX has left
  1020. efrit has joined
  1021. jmpman has joined
  1022. Zash zinid: This is why I think there should be something separate from the compliance suite that describes a vision, what "we" want XMPP too look like in the near future. Compliance suites are mostly about what we think XMPP should look like right now.
  1023. zinid Zash, I think this idea will face some opposition instantly
  1024. ralphm has joined
  1025. zinid XSF is reduced to XEP submitting process
  1026. zinid I see no other value currently
  1027. alacer has left
  1028. Andrew Nenakhov We won't support compliance suites at all.
  1029. Andrew Nenakhov Cause we intend to drop some xeps that are in it completely
  1030. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, what's the point in being so reluctant? Do you think I like MIX or carbons or something?
  1031. Andrew Nenakhov That not what I'm telling
  1032. zinid well it looks like that
  1033. zinid you suggest nothing as replacement
  1034. Andrew Nenakhov But we have that vision you're talking about
  1035. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, actually we do.
  1036. Wiktor has left
  1037. Wiktor has joined
  1038. Andrew Nenakhov One of the reasons we still didn't release spec for our group chat is cause it is based on some other protocols
  1039. zinid yeah...
  1040. j.r has left
  1041. Andrew Nenakhov We call em xep-0XXX reliable message delivery Xep-0RRR Message Retract and replace
  1042. zinid reliable delivery again?
  1043. Andrew Nenakhov Not again. For once.
  1044. zinid πŸ˜€
  1045. pep. What's your magical solution
  1046. pep. I'm interested
  1047. Half-ShotX has joined
  1048. Andrew Nenakhov Get server id from destination server. It acts as a recipe and also tells the client a server time. Thus allowing to sync message orders on all parties
  1049. Andrew Nenakhov Tricky part is making it work with carbons
  1050. zinid destination server?
  1051. Half-ShotX has left
  1052. Andrew Nenakhov And to account for potential not delivery of some msgs
  1053. pep. What does reliable delivery mean to you? Is that message ordering?
  1054. Andrew Nenakhov Yes, if it's a simple chat between two persons, destination server is sender's server
  1055. blabla has left
  1056. Andrew Nenakhov If it's a group chat, receipt is generated by group chat server
  1057. Ge0rG Andrew Nenakhov: just request carbons with a special flag, and then your server sends carbons of your own messages with the server-id
  1058. Andrew Nenakhov Reliable delivery means ensuring sending client that message was delivered to where it intended to. If not, sender will retry. And protocol must not duplicate messages if retry is attempted.
  1059. waqas So the proposal allows strict serializability of messages? Between two full JIDs or bare JIDs or what?
  1060. zinid yeah, looks like synchronous call to me
  1061. Andrew Nenakhov Works for us well.
  1062. zinid yeah, I can say the same about current mess with IDs πŸ˜€
  1063. Andrew Nenakhov It's not really complex. As I said,tricky part was carbons and capability to support legacy clients without fuss
  1064. waqas Andrew Nenakhov: Is there a link to the proposal?
  1065. Andrew Nenakhov I can give link to Google doc. It's in Russian though.
  1066. zinid waqas, it's in Russian, I tried to read it once πŸ˜€
  1067. Andrew Nenakhov No you didn't.
  1068. zinid I did
  1069. Andrew Nenakhov Also it evolved since that time.
  1070. zinid I *tried*
  1071. waqas You mentioned server time, does it rely on the server acting as the authority, and using timestamps to order?
  1072. Andrew Nenakhov waqas, yes.
  1073. waqas What happens when there are multiple servers involved (i.e., s2s)?
  1074. zinid I would prefer lamport clock and rely on timestamp in the case of conflicts only
  1075. Zash What happens when one server has its clock waaaay out of sync?
  1076. zinid so definitely I don't like relying solely on timestamps
  1077. Andrew Nenakhov Reliable delivery cares to only deliver to destination server. Once my message is on my server, I get a recipe, the rest is like normal xmpp
  1078. zinid Zash, his protocol assumes the time never goes backward
  1079. waqas Andrew Nenakhov: Okay, so this means the client is in sync with its server, but this doesn't try to make all clients in a chat sync across servers. Do I understand that correctly?
  1080. Andrew Nenakhov Yes, you understand correctly.
  1081. Zash Good thing time doesn't go backwards then. Clocks OTOH...
  1082. Andrew Nenakhov For a two person chats. In group chats ots a bit different
  1083. zinid Zash, so you basically should just prevent the server from stopping if you detect backward screw
  1084. Half-ShotX has joined
  1085. zinid also, need to store the last timestamp on disc for that πŸ˜€
  1086. 404.city has left
  1087. zinid *from starting, sorry
  1088. Andrew Nenakhov Let me check something...
  1089. Zash Tho nothing likes time jumps, most NTP things should be trying hard to do things gradually these days, maybe it's not too much to worry about :)
  1090. zinid Zash, yeah
  1091. zinid unless you start the server on some crappy embedded device
  1092. melvo has joined
  1093. zinid and if you don't have that protection you will face some fancy side effects which is hard to debug and understand πŸ™‚
  1094. zinid so basically, server should go full ACID in timestamp generation
  1095. Zash Hard to do anyting if something starts before network is up after some failure that reset the clock to 1970
  1096. Andrew Nenakhov Well yes that protocol relied on more or less consistent time on authority server.
  1097. zinid not sure how this will work in clustering where you cannot guarantee ACID due to CAP
  1098. Zash Global transactions!
  1099. wurstsalat has joined
  1100. Zash Have the entire world agree before commiting!
  1101. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, what about clustering? Should the nodes synchronize time?
  1102. Half-ShotX has left
  1103. Andrew Nenakhov I'm not qualified enough in clustering questions. 😁
  1104. zinid well I'm just telling that time synchronization tolerance is a hard problem
  1105. Andrew Nenakhov But I'm pretty sure that does not have to be part of a protocol.
  1106. zinid so we should avoid it in the spec
  1107. Andrew Nenakhov If servers generating stamps are slightly out of sync it won't have any really bad effects
  1108. Andrew Nenakhov Maybe some msgs will appear in different order
  1109. melvo has left
  1110. Andrew Nenakhov We treat situations if you send 3 msgs and they arrive on different time and this reordered as ok.
  1111. zinid lamport clock anyone?
  1112. melvo has joined
  1113. zinid this is already resolved in 1970
  1114. zinid okay, whatever, that's not a drastical change in the protocol
  1115. melvo has left
  1116. zinid though I think the ID must be generated by a client using lamport clock and formed into a vector clock in a conversation with other party
  1117. Half-ShotX has joined
  1118. Andrew Nenakhov I think that can be done actually.
  1119. waqas Synchronization stops being a hard problem when you accept a central authority, which is what it looks like has happened here
  1120. Andrew Nenakhov Yes. We postulate that in general sense users server is an authority.
  1121. waqas Sync is only hard if you need to figure out distributed consensus for your serializability without a central authority
  1122. zinid waqas, which just moves the problem to this central authority
  1123. Andrew Nenakhov Cause we heavily rely on message archive
  1124. zinid central authority can consist of several nodes
  1125. zinid and actually MUST
  1126. Andrew Nenakhov That's why we are getting rid of offline messages, for example
  1127. Andrew Nenakhov Cause we fetch msgs from an archive anyway
  1128. lumi has joined
  1129. Nekit has left
  1130. Half-ShotX has left
  1131. waqas zinid: MUST? The vast majority of XMPP servers today are single node, generally single process, often single thread.
  1132. zinid waqas: okay
  1133. waqas zinid: Note that I fully agree with you in principle: clustered nodes should be allowed.
  1134. waqas But I suspect making things such that it's the server's problem to sync things up between its nodes, and not every single client implementation has to worry or even know about it is the way to go.
  1135. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, how big can one cluster time difference be?
  1136. Andrew Nenakhov Realistic estimate? I don't have much experience with those
  1137. waqas The answer is it can vary a lot, and there are all kinds of algorithms and software and databases to help you in this area. This is up to the server implementation.
  1138. Half-ShotX has joined
  1139. waqas This is essentially the distributed database problem, and there are many distributed databases, and probably just as many approaches to tackling this.
  1140. zinid Andrew Nenakhov: in my practice once and it was full of sync due to ntp daemon failure
  1141. labdsf has joined
  1142. Andrew Nenakhov Well I think that's not really a protocol problem. I like idea of vector time actually, but we didn't include it because we've got too much on our hands already
  1143. Andrew Nenakhov So for now we settled for the simplest approach
  1144. zinid usually clocks are synced very well
  1145. zinid sure, not a protocol problem, it will be my problem
  1146. zinid okay, I already used to this in XMPP world
  1147. zinid we resolve only *your* problems
  1148. waqas A XEP should not attempt to solve an implementation's internal details
  1149. zinid what if I say I have no problems?
  1150. zinid as I server dev I really have no problems you're constantly discussing: mam, ids, routing, carbons
  1151. zinid why would I solve your problems when you don't care about mine?
  1152. zinid fair question
  1153. Andrew Nenakhov Hey, we have server developer too, you are no longer alone
  1154. waqas I'm a server dev. Ultimately the server was written for end users, and their problems matter :)
  1155. zinid I'm a cluster server dev πŸ˜€
  1156. Andrew Nenakhov waqas, what server are you developing?
  1157. efrit has left
  1158. waqas Andrew Nenakhov: I'm on the Prosody team.
  1159. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, none πŸ™‚
  1160. zinid currently none
  1161. Andrew Nenakhov ))
  1162. zinid yeah, always remember how the XSF community is formed πŸ˜€
  1163. Andrew Nenakhov Evgeny you are a bitter and jaded old man
  1164. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, just as you!
  1165. Andrew Nenakhov Scarred by lost battles
  1166. waqas I'm young and innocent.
  1167. labdsf has left
  1168. Andrew Nenakhov And traumatized by the rise of Signals and Telegrams
  1169. Andrew Nenakhov But not all is lost and we will prevail
  1170. zinid everything is lost already
  1171. Half-ShotX has left
  1172. Half-ShotX has joined
  1173. Andrew Nenakhov Join us, and together we'll defeat the emperor and rule the Galaxy!
  1174. neshtaxmpp has joined
  1175. Andrew Nenakhov Oh sorry got carried away. Wrong script.
  1176. zinid you guys cannot even defeat Matrix!
  1177. Andrew Nenakhov Yes we can!
  1178. waqas zinid: We are missing Neo obviously
  1179. zinid yeah, being a dog on a leash is a good achievement!
  1180. Andrew Nenakhov But really we're mostly aiming at Slack's market
  1181. zinid maybe our Master will improve our leash!
  1182. zinid maybe not
  1183. waqas That's an important thing by the way: Different people in the XMPP community are focused on separate messaging problems. Team/company chat like Slack, consumer chat like whatsapp/messenger/etc, special purpose stuff like video conferencing (Zoom, etc).
  1184. zinid not sure what XMPP community is
  1185. zinid I'm really lost after today's debate
  1186. Andrew Nenakhov I think xmpp should be a universal messaging protocol.
  1187. Zash The intersection of a bunch of unrelated communities, come together to write XEPs and argue about things, and we're fresh out of XEPs.
  1188. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, that was a goal in 1999
  1189. zinid we failed
  1190. zinid 20 years passed, in IT that's an epoch
  1191. Andrew Nenakhov Because xmpp always came with a knife to a gun fight
  1192. zinid so you suggest some nuclear weapon? with that your proposals? πŸ˜€
  1193. Andrew Nenakhov Yes. We have some wunderwaffen in our secret labs
  1194. Andrew Nenakhov But even without wunderwaffen, so far xmpp developers produced exactly ZERO great xmpp clients
  1195. zinid I'm fine with Conversations, and seems like Dino is back on track
  1196. Andrew Nenakhov Most close client that I can call great is surprisingly Xabber for Web
  1197. Andrew Nenakhov Conversations is ravaged by cryprocancer
  1198. rtq3 has joined
  1199. Half-ShotX has left
  1200. Half-ShotX has joined
  1201. waqas Ah yes, the crypto faction
  1202. zinid true, but I can live with that
  1203. zinid there is a switch to disable cancer, in Advanced Preferences
  1204. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1205. !xsf_Martin has left
  1206. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1207. Andrew Nenakhov What I also have about it is that it omits too many important xmpp parts,like statuses and presence information
  1208. !xsf_Martin has left
  1209. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1210. !xsf_Martin has left
  1211. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1212. !xsf_Martin has left
  1213. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1214. !xsf_Martin has left
  1215. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1216. !xsf_Martin has left
  1217. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1218. Andrew Nenakhov I hate not being able to see who's online. I get this 'always online' concept but it's not always good
  1219. !xsf_Martin has left
  1220. zinid and vcards!
  1221. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1222. Andrew Nenakhov Yes!
  1223. !xsf_Martin has left
  1224. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1225. !xsf_Martin has left
  1226. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1227. !xsf_Martin has left
  1228. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1229. Andrew Nenakhov Im actually happy with that recent new vCard XEP
  1230. !xsf_Martin has left
  1231. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1232. !xsf_Martin has left
  1233. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1234. Andrew Nenakhov Old vCard is a shame
  1235. !xsf_Martin has left
  1236. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1237. !xsf_Martin has left
  1238. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1239. !xsf_Martin has left
  1240. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1241. !xsf_Martin has left
  1242. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1243. zinid yeah, vcards is our main problem...
  1244. !xsf_Martin has left
  1245. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1246. zinid and IDs
  1247. !xsf_Martin has left
  1248. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1249. !xsf_Martin has left
  1250. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1251. !xsf_Martin has left
  1252. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1253. !xsf_Martin has left
  1254. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1255. pep. !xsf_Martin, you're blinking
  1256. Andrew Nenakhov IDs are important.
  1257. !xsf_Martin has left
  1258. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1259. Andrew Nenakhov I'd say extremely important.
  1260. !xsf_Martin has left
  1261. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1262. !xsf_Martin has left
  1263. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1264. ThibG has left
  1265. Andrew Nenakhov Too bad they weren't enforced in 1999
  1266. !xsf_Martin has left
  1267. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1268. ThibG has joined
  1269. !xsf_Martin has left
  1270. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1271. !xsf_Martin has left
  1272. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1273. !xsf_Martin has left
  1274. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1275. !xsf_Martin has left
  1276. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1277. !xsf_Martin has left
  1278. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1279. !xsf_Martin has left
  1280. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1281. !xsf_Martin has left
  1282. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1283. !xsf_Martin has left
  1284. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1285. !xsf_Martin has left
  1286. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1287. ralphm has left
  1288. zinid first attempt with IDs was not so successful, politely saying πŸ™‚
  1289. !xsf_Martin has left
  1290. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1291. !xsf_Martin has left
  1292. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1293. Andrew Nenakhov Which one?
  1294. !xsf_Martin has left
  1295. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1296. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, what about stream management, do you eliminate them with your proposal?
  1297. !xsf_Martin has left
  1298. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1299. !xsf_Martin has left
  1300. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1301. zinid I mean do you eliminate that stupid SM counter?
  1302. !xsf_Martin has left
  1303. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1304. !xsf_Martin has left
  1305. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1306. Andrew Nenakhov Yes, of course. My hate for 198 is widely known
  1307. !xsf_Martin has left
  1308. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1309. !xsf_Martin has left
  1310. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1311. zinid right, just asking to understand what you don't hate πŸ˜€
  1312. !xsf_Martin has left
  1313. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1314. !xsf_Martin has left
  1315. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1316. Andrew Nenakhov Vcards! )
  1317. !xsf_Martin has left
  1318. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1319. Andrew Nenakhov Presences
  1320. Andrew Nenakhov Xml
  1321. zinid meh
  1322. !xsf_Martin has left
  1323. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1324. !xsf_Martin has left
  1325. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1326. !xsf_Martin has left
  1327. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1328. Andrew Nenakhov Also, federation )
  1329. !xsf_Martin has left
  1330. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1331. !xsf_Martin has left
  1332. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1333. !xsf_Martin has left
  1334. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1335. !xsf_Martin has left
  1336. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1337. !xsf_Martin has left
  1338. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1339. !xsf_Martin has left
  1340. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1341. Andrew Nenakhov 0071 I liked too, actually. But *they* killed it.
  1342. !xsf_Martin has left
  1343. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1344. !xsf_Martin has left
  1345. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1346. !xsf_Martin has left
  1347. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1348. pep. Can somebody temporarily kick or ban !xsf_Martin?
  1349. !xsf_Martin has left
  1350. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1351. zinid that was SamWhited mostly, he is not in the XSF anymore, we can resurrect it
  1352. Half-ShotX has left
  1353. Half-ShotX has joined
  1354. zinid yeah, that XEP has attracted so many debates, probably the most controversy XEP I ever seen
  1355. neshtaxmpp has left
  1356. waqas I'm somewhat to blame for XHTML-IM getting deprecated
  1357. Andrew Nenakhov I think we'll implement it despite deprecation. One day.
  1358. j.r has joined
  1359. blabla has joined
  1360. waqas I'd done a study of XMPP clients implementing XHTML-IM, and basically found security issues (RCE vulnerabilities) in almost all of them. I'd done a presentation at an XMPP Summit about it too. This was quite a few years back.
  1361. zinid I recall the same about carbons or something like that
  1362. zinid when a lot of clients were affected
  1363. zinid and there was a billion laugh attack...
  1364. Andrew Nenakhov Vulnerabilities are bad. But how come browsers are not vulnerable?
  1365. labdsf has joined
  1366. waqas Web applications have vulnerabilities all the time
  1367. zinid yeah, super-puper Signal for instance
  1368. zinid that was glorious fail
  1369. waqas And when you are displaying user provided rich HTML input, and your code to prevent <script> tag injections and such isn't airtight, suddenly someone can send a message to take over your client.
  1370. Andrew Nenakhov They are vulnerable because they have js
  1371. waqas If it's a web client, you can e.g., take over the XMPP session by just resetting the password or whatever
  1372. Andrew Nenakhov But there was no js in 0071
  1373. waqas Yes, but that doesn't prevent me from sending you a message which has js
  1374. waqas And if your code can't detect it and clean it up, bad things can happen to you
  1375. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, there were a lot of arguments about these in that 0071 debate
  1376. Andrew Nenakhov Of course.
  1377. Half-ShotX has left
  1378. Half-ShotX has joined
  1379. waqas And my evidence for this being a real problem was reviewing ~10 XMPP clients which implemented XHTML-IM, and getting all of them to remotely run my JS.
  1380. waqas Including at least one desktop client, which basically gave me full access to the OS
  1381. Andrew Nenakhov waqas, anyway, browsers exist. It's a proof enough that html code can be safely contained by a parser
  1382. waqas Browsers get constant security updates. And web applications have security issues all the time.
  1383. Andrew Nenakhov Web apps have updates because they are within same sandbox where scripts work are
  1384. waqas Yes, and securing browsers is a hard, non-trivial problem. All browsers come with security teams of their own. This isn't true for XMPP clients.
  1385. Andrew Nenakhov And we dont need much in xmpp. B I U and maybe UL OL, that's about it
  1386. alacer has joined
  1387. labdsf has left
  1388. Andrew Nenakhov I'm pretty sure that anything resembling scripts or styles can be safely dropped without too much effort.
  1389. Andrew Nenakhov Most likely those clients just used a ready components like web views or something
  1390. lorddavidiii has joined
  1391. moparisthebest which always include a full running javascript engine
  1392. moparisthebest hence the problem
  1393. Andrew Nenakhov Yeah.
  1394. j.r has left
  1395. waqas "I'm pretty sure that anything resembling scripts or styles can be safely dropped without too much effort." β€” this is what I disagree with. Sanitizing HTML is not easy.
  1396. pep. XHTML-IM is not HTML
  1397. waqas HTML and also CSS (which can also contain JS)
  1398. waqas It isn't, but you can't block me from sending you stuff that's not in the spec, and if your client doesn't clean that out, I win.
  1399. pep. Sure, but I can be pretty strict about it, (and I should)
  1400. Half-ShotX has left
  1401. Half-ShotX has joined
  1402. pep. It's not like I had to support whatever crap you throw at me, like browsers do
  1403. waqas pep.: That's basically what I found: clients trying to be strict about it and failing.
  1404. pep. Ok, so what, it's better to take them down rather than fix them?
  1405. waqas I even wrote a library to be strict about it: https://github.com/zeen/xhtml-im.js/blob/master/xhtml-im.js
  1406. pep. cool
  1407. waqas 2013, that was quite some time ago
  1408. Andrew Nenakhov Actually I think that due to specifics of our medium all css can be just dropped.
  1409. Andrew Nenakhov No colors. No scripts. No margins.
  1410. waqas What do you actually want to keep?
  1411. pep. What about providing tests then for devs to use, alongside your reference impl that they can also reuse, instead of taking the XEP down and creating 393
  1412. Andrew Nenakhov B I U UL OL, quotes
  1413. j.r has joined
  1414. Andrew Nenakhov 393 and 394 are abominations
  1415. waqas Just to be clear, I didn't take personally take the XEP down. I'd mostly presented my findings, and the discourse on XHTML-IM from that point was negative. This was around when there was a Last Call for the XEP to become final.
  1416. Half-ShotX has left
  1417. rtq3 has left
  1418. rtq3 has joined
  1419. lorddavidiii has left
  1420. alacer has left
  1421. Half-ShotX has joined
  1422. alacer has joined
  1423. alacer has left
  1424. alacer has joined
  1425. alacer has left
  1426. j.r has left
  1427. j.r has joined
  1428. Half-ShotX has left
  1429. Half-ShotX has joined
  1430. zinid that was quite moot decision and basically heavily relied on personal point of view, I already said that in that mail list discussion
  1431. zinid like "fixing clients" vs "we're doomed"
  1432. tux has left
  1433. zinid you cannot debate between those point of views
  1434. zinid *points
  1435. l has left
  1436. waqas zinid: The XSF (XMPP Standards Foundation) has tried hard to be a neutral org which just focuses on standards. There's no wing of the XSF where you send folks out to fix things in clients, and everything relies on individual projects implementing spec updates. There's also no strong outreach to the community.
  1437. waqas I'm not a fan of this state of affairs, for what it's worth
  1438. zinid waqas, well, maybe I'm currently not very clear, but whatever
  1439. zinid "can we rely on client devs: yes or no"
  1440. zinid let's say it that
  1441. waqas I'm saying "fixing clients" isn't something the XSF can actually do
  1442. zinid yes, yes
  1443. zinid waqas, and no, XSF is not focused on standards
  1444. zinid XSF is focused on XEP publishing process
  1445. Andrew Nenakhov +1
  1446. zinid it has converted recently in a completely beaurocratic body
  1447. waqas Yes, but that's what "focused on standards" has been defined as. Note that this is by design, many /wanted/ this to happen, and for us to be more similar to e.g., the IETF.
  1448. Matthew > <@_xmpp_pep.=2fxsf=40muc.xmpp.org:matrix.org> Matthew, well played, I see you've started another meaningful discussion :P gah, sorry all
  1449. zinid (sorry for the spelling, I can never remember how this word is spelled in english)
  1450. lorddavidiii has joined
  1451. kokonoe has left
  1452. zinid waqas, well I see a very little point in the XSF now in comparison to the IETF
  1453. zinid anyone can go straight to the IETF, where there will no be a bunch of judges
  1454. oli xep publishing process. use a collaborative wiki ...
  1455. waqas "where there will no be a bunch of judges" β€” you've never been part of the IETF process, have you...
  1456. zinid waqas, the IETF is a platform which gives you tools to develop a standard
  1457. zinid waqas, no, I wasn't
  1458. zinid even so, why should I care who will judge me?
  1459. zinid so we copied the worst from the IETF?
  1460. zinid what's the real meaning of the XSF now?
  1461. zinid not how it was, not on the paper, but now de facto
  1462. waqas A body which oversees the standards process for XMPP and it's XEPs
  1463. kokonoe has joined
  1464. Half-ShotX has left
  1465. Half-ShotX has joined
  1466. Andrew Nenakhov I wonder how will this body react to our XEPs
  1467. zinid same as IETF?
  1468. waqas Similar. The IETF is generic. The XSF for example worked within the IETF framework to get the XMPP RFCs published.
  1469. zinid waqas, so IETF restricted to "oversee" the XMPP related specs only
  1470. zinid as a standard write why would I care?
  1471. zinid *writer
  1472. waqas The IETF is quite a bit about the process, yes
  1473. zinid yeah, same stuff the XSF converted to
  1474. lorddavidiii has left
  1475. waqas The few paragraphs here basically describe what the XSF has been about: https://xmpp.org/about/xmpp-standards-foundation.html
  1476. Andrew Nenakhov Zinid let's form our own council, just you and us. Whatever we agree to, it'll be standard.
  1477. waqas Note that I'm probably in agreement with you that that's not particularly helpful in making open messaging and XMPP succeed and compete against other solutions.
  1478. lorddavidiii has joined
  1479. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, nah, I don't invent wheels, sorry
  1480. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I can always got to IETF, which I think I will with my XOR
  1481. zinid *go
  1482. Andrew Nenakhov Xmpp currently badly needs weels.
  1483. zinid πŸ˜€
  1484. waqas And the XMPP Software Foundation used to be the Jabber Software Foundation, and that old thing was much more in line with what you are hoping for.
  1485. Andrew Nenakhov What is 'your XOR'
  1486. waqas *XMPP Standards Foundation
  1487. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, http://upload.zinid.ru/xeps.html first link
  1488. zinid waqas, exactly, so I kinda agree with Ge0rG's rantings
  1489. waqas I too agree with Ge0rG's rantings :)
  1490. lovetox I can only speak from my experience, and yes xeps and process etc are sometimes a painpoint, but i dont feel this is the reason that holds the xmpp community back
  1491. zinid we constantly laugh about endless Matrix's TODO, but we don't even have any, how ironic
  1492. waqas lovetox: I'm curious about what you think the reason is
  1493. lovetox its not like there are a lot of developers who want to do stuff, but are actively inhibited by process of xsf or xeps
  1494. zinid lovetox, as a server dev I can do a lot actually, I'm currently very bored
  1495. lovetox the reason is to few developers in my opinion
  1496. UsL has left
  1497. UsL has joined
  1498. zinid so I even resorted to implement that dredful MIX, ha
  1499. Andrew Nenakhov Well, currently I have 5-6 developers working on XMPP full time
  1500. Andrew Nenakhov zinid, you shouldn't have.
  1501. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, but you didn't provide anything, and what should I do?
  1502. zinid I'm kinda stuck in the development
  1503. zinid really, what should I implement?
  1504. Andrew Nenakhov You didn't ask. More precisely you said you're not interested )
  1505. lovetox yeah zinid its also not about server development
  1506. lovetox its about good clients with nice GUI
  1507. lovetox nobody wants to do that
  1508. Andrew Nenakhov Good clients can't exist without good servers
  1509. zinid lovetox, I'm not competent enough
  1510. lovetox :D
  1511. Half-ShotX has left
  1512. Half-ShotX has joined
  1513. Guus lovetox - I was talking to a company that's actively looking to sponsor project to do just that.
  1514. lovetox Andrew Nenakhov, i feel servers are good enough
  1515. Andrew Nenakhov Nope. Not yet.
  1516. lovetox its not servers who hold us back :)
  1517. zinid lovetox, he has his own vision πŸ˜€
  1518. Andrew Nenakhov In telegram I can log in and in mere seconds get a list of recent conversations and their metadata
  1519. waqas I don't think lack of standards is a real issue. I think better-than-the-competition UIs are the real issue.
  1520. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, that's not a problem with servers, c'mon
  1521. Andrew Nenakhov How many unread messages, which are read by recipient, etc
  1522. Andrew Nenakhov > Andrew Nenakhov, that's not a problem with servers, c'mon It absolutely is.
  1523. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, and? What do you want from servers? To implement what?
  1524. ak430770 has left
  1525. ak430770 has joined
  1526. Andrew Nenakhov Mam does not contain metadata. Mam does not allow getting recent msgs from conversations
  1527. Guus lovetox: I agree that we're currently lacking the resources to create good UI/UX in many frontend-based projects. I don't think that we're unable to get these resources though - I think we generally didn't bother to try.
  1528. lovetox such things are nice features the cherry on the top, we fail at much more basic stuff
  1529. Guus which is what I like about having Matrix as a mirror: to me, their client made it painfully clear what we're lacking.
  1530. waqas +1
  1531. lovetox Guus, yes i think it also doesnt take much
  1532. Andrew Nenakhov Guus, I'm more often looking at Telegram
  1533. lovetox pick 3-4 clients, assign 2 motivated developers to each
  1534. lovetox i think this goes a long way
  1535. waqas Who does the assignment and who pays for this?
  1536. waqas And who decides what these devs should do?
  1537. Andrew Nenakhov Well I'm paying my developers and decide what they do. :)
  1538. lovetox thats not how i meant this, i meant maybe we are getting lucky and someone comes up
  1539. lovetox :)
  1540. lorddavidiii has left
  1541. waqas That's one way to do it, and that's also what the Matrix team is doing.
  1542. lovetox but yeah a bit of money could help
  1543. waqas But money means you need profits (unless this is all donation money). The Matrix folks raised capital, which does interest things to motivations and direction.
  1544. Guus I strongly believe that it is up to the individual projects to arrange this for themselves.
  1545. Andrew Nenakhov Yes.
  1546. Guus The XSF, however, can facilitate, and spread 'best practices'
  1547. waqas Guus: And there's no evidence that that would really succeed at scale.
  1548. Guus I tried to supply a couple of them a couple of days before
  1549. Andrew Nenakhov Current approach didn't succeed thus far
  1550. Guus waqas true, but there's sufficient evidence that not doing anything does not get us _any_ progress.
  1551. waqas Guus: You basically get one or two winners, and their philosophy "wins", except most of the community doesn't like the currently popular UIs.
  1552. Andrew Nenakhov So maybe it's worth a try to do things differently
  1553. Guus waqas I think we're talking about different things
  1554. waqas All vision and future-oriented conversations in this room ^
  1555. Guus waqas the 'winners' would be those clients that get adopted by the general public end user, right?
  1556. waqas Guus: So… Pidgin?
  1557. waqas I suspect it has the largest user base, no?
  1558. Guus I don't think so
  1559. Andrew Nenakhov I don't think pidgin has any relevance these days
  1560. Guus more like the what-apps of these days
  1561. Half-ShotX has left
  1562. Half-ShotX has joined
  1563. lorddavidiii has joined
  1564. Guus waqas I'm unsure if I understand your argument
  1565. Guus (or if we're arguing the same thing)
  1566. lovetox Its really basics i think, for example Gajim cant find someone who makes a nice installer for MacOS for years, though the application runs fine on it
  1567. labdsf has joined
  1568. ak430770 has left
  1569. waqas What would be good is even a clear idea of what "we" want. You said the XSF can facilitate and spread best practices for example. It'd be great to know what those could be. Is the crypto crowd defining the best practices? Is the IETF-like crowd? is the UX-first crowd?
  1570. waqas It's hard to even know if I like or dislike an argument when you don't know what the argument is trying to achieve in the long term.
  1571. Guus My thoughts are: Many here seem to agree that a common issue with most of our frontends are a lack of UI/UX. Also, a lack of funding is seen as a key issue that prevent problems from being fixed. As these issues are common in our group, I see a role for the XSF to facilitate improving on this point - but in the manner of "helping individual projects to raise money and/or design resources" as opposed to "raise money/hire designers and donate that to projects."
  1572. Half-ShotX has left
  1573. waqas Guus: I can agree with that, with one concern: many projects/developers have their own incompatible ideas for what good UX is, and I'm not sure if there's much money in the ecosystem.
  1574. lovetox It happened often that users tell me they use Gajim in their company
  1575. Guus waqas I don't think that either is true. I think that the majority of projects/developers realize that they don't know what a good design is, and that they need help.
  1576. lovetox I always think, yeah nice for you, but it would be nice if the company gives something back to the project
  1577. Guus waqas also, I'm pretty sure that there's much money in the ecosystem, but that we're failing to raise it (or even _attempt_ to raise it)
  1578. lovetox and be it only a developer that spends 1 hour per week
  1579. lorddavidiii has left
  1580. Guus lovetox I think you'd be surprised how many people would actually be willing to do that, if they're asked to.
  1581. Guus I suspect that our biggest issue is that we're not asking.
  1582. lovetox you are right, i never asked, i will do next time
  1583. waqas I agree with that Guus
  1584. waqas There was a time when there were a lot of folks offering to do stuff
  1585. labdsf has left
  1586. labdsf has joined
  1587. waqas We were talking about forming teams of volunteers and some of that actually happened
  1588. Guus lovetox: and I think that there might be good ways of asking for somethign, and bad ways to do that. I think that there's a role for the XSF to help people figure out the best way.
  1589. Guus waqas sure, but that time has gone. XMPP isn't sexy any more
  1590. Guus we need to adapt and move on.
  1591. waqas But then it fizzled out, because there was a lack of direction, the XSF folks at the top didn't necessarily agree with the volunteers on what needed to happen.
  1592. Half-ShotX has joined
  1593. waqas And the XMPP community sorely lacks much project planning/management/design experience. Most efforts fizzle out because either nobody cares much, or too many care and suddenly there's a todo list of a dozen random things.
  1594. lovetox also a point that i noticed is, that i cant spend much time on UI, because the core codebase is so old and stuffed together over 15 years by X people
  1595. Guus waqas I believe that much fizzles out because it remains in the realm of 'hobby' and 'pet project' - which is _awesome_, but is very unlikely to get the attention it needs, as people need to do stuff that they can earn a living wiht.
  1596. lovetox so i spend most of my time refactoring stuff,
  1597. lovetox but i will get there eventually :)
  1598. Guus lovetox I suffer from the same issue with our ancient Spark client (which isn't particularly good, but which I would like to see improved)
  1599. lovetox what i find really nice, are the xmpp meetups that i noticed over the last year, i wasnt able to attend one but planning to go :)
  1600. Guus you should definitely do that!
  1601. zinid lovetox, nice in what sense? I mean as a social event it might be good (beer and stuff), but what is the outcome for XMPP?
  1602. lovetox no zinid, i meant the meetings where they code
  1603. Andrew Nenakhov I don't have any faith for coding at meetings
  1604. lovetox get together for a weekend sit down talk about stuff and help each other out implementing some feautre
  1605. lovetox as i said i never was, i hope they do that :D
  1606. Andrew Nenakhov Why would someone need to get together with someone to code?
  1607. zinid ah, that's not xmpp related...
  1608. lovetox maybe they only drink beer
  1609. Guus In my experience, it adds tremendous value
  1610. Andrew Nenakhov Drinking beer together, is very different from drinking alone at home
  1611. lovetox Andrew Nenakhov, because i have a family and other things to do at home
  1612. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, as I see it people are different in europe, we probably cannot understand that πŸ˜€
  1613. lovetox i cant spend 5 hours on the computer
  1614. Andrew Nenakhov Lol
  1615. lovetox but if i tell my girlfriend im going to berlin over the weekend
  1616. lovetox i can concentrate on the task
  1617. Guus I think most value is actually in the social part of the meet, not the code (Which is nice, too)
  1618. zinid beer, that is
  1619. waqas Ha, if the XSF or equivalent can just fund weekend drinks and food, we'll not lack for dev resources :P
  1620. Guus but discussions like the one we're having here are much faster and effective when done in person
  1621. Andrew Nenakhov lovetox, if you tell her that and instead go to the attic and work there, you'll be able to work those hours that would otherwise be wasted on commute
  1622. Andrew Nenakhov Guus, faster, but equally inconsequential
  1623. Guus Andrew Nenakhov to how many have you been?
  1624. zinid Guus, nah, depends on your communication skills (including foreign language)
  1625. oli has left
  1626. Andrew Nenakhov Guus, I attend 5 eight hours gettogethers of xmpp developers every week
  1627. Andrew Nenakhov I actually pay them to show up.
  1628. Andrew Nenakhov πŸ˜‚
  1629. Guus I've been at two, and I've learned things that changed things for the better for me, a lot. I need not look back further than the last 24 hours, in which I've gotten an XMPP customer that I would not have gotten if I had not done the things that others at such meetings told me to do
  1630. Half-ShotX has left
  1631. Half-ShotX has joined
  1632. Guus that's direct XMPP-based income. I've already earned back my tickets.
  1633. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, like hookers πŸ˜€
  1634. Guus zinid communication skills are always important - but what stops you from having a russian meetup?
  1635. Guus that takes away the foreign language issue.
  1636. Andrew Nenakhov Hahaha
  1637. Andrew Nenakhov The vast distances of Russia
  1638. zinid Guus, lmao, I'm quite antisocial and I don't like such events
  1639. Andrew Nenakhov Also 1500km to moscow
  1640. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I'm in Moscow, there are no people outside Moscow, you know that
  1641. zinid only bears
  1642. Andrew Nenakhov You was in Krasnodar, no?
  1643. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, I moved
  1644. Andrew Nenakhov Ah, ok. Maybe we should meet next time I'm there then. See, Guus, I'm just 2000km east of Moscow
  1645. zinid that's almost near
  1646. Andrew Nenakhov So meeting people is kinda more difficult than in Germany.
  1647. zinid at least not Vladivostok with 9000km πŸ˜€
  1648. Andrew Nenakhov Lol.
  1649. Half-ShotX has left
  1650. Andrew Nenakhov Btw do you guys know the town with a most per-capita concentration of Xmpp developers?
  1651. pep. I've learned lots of things in sprints! Now I know how to stack vim buffers! (thanks jc!) I think that was the best thing I learned out of sprints :P (/s)
  1652. Guus Guys, I'm happy for you to go about it your own way. I'm only offering suggestions, and i'm trying to find solutions. If you have a better idea, by all means, share it, so that everyone can benefit.
  1653. lorddavidiii has joined
  1654. Matthew random question; do you guys have a code of conduct for xsf moderated rooms?
  1655. pep. I don't think so
  1656. Matthew s/guys/folks/
  1657. Guus Matthew nope
  1658. zinid wut? I was banned once
  1659. waqas First time I've even heard the phrase "xsf moderated rooms"
  1660. Guus also: can how do I add you as a contact via that bridge?
  1661. pep. zinid, no need for a code of conduct for that
  1662. pep. You just need moderator permissions
  1663. waqas The, the MUC XEP doesn't require a code of conduct for the banning feature
  1664. zinid pep., indeed, it's convenient
  1665. Andrew Nenakhov Matrix guy wants to steal our codes of conduct!
  1666. pep. ban them already!!
  1667. zinid +1
  1668. Guus So basically, they'll start banning zinid ? πŸ™‚
  1669. Andrew Nenakhov First, they came for our uses. Then, codes of conduct. That's next, our beautiful women?
  1670. zinid yeah, banning people is funny, muc drama
  1671. ak430770 has joined
  1672. pep. I'm not sure at what frequency heated discussions happen fwiw
  1673. pep. XHTML-IM, OMEMO, zinid, that's about the main events
  1674. Half-ShotX has joined
  1675. Guus as far as I've seen: once. And he got banned.
  1676. Andrew Nenakhov What was the Omemo drama?
  1677. lorddavidiii has left
  1678. pep. the _ongoing_ omemo drama
  1679. lovetox Its mostly Ge0rG hating it
  1680. zinid Ge0rG is hating everything
  1681. lovetox probably because he has not enough time to implement it, and his users bug him :D
  1682. pep. Yeah, that's usually how you get features in implementations anyway
  1683. pep. Having users bully other developers :P
  1684. Andrew Nenakhov I hate Omemo too. Protocol written like shit, with race conditions, and has zealous users who believe it to be the silver bullet
  1685. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, you will not such arguments for the upcoming MLS πŸ˜›
  1686. pep. Andrew Nenakhov, thanks, let's not redo the OMEMO discussion right now
  1687. zinid *will not have
  1688. Half-ShotX has left
  1689. Andrew Nenakhov What's MLS?
  1690. zinid I bet the MLS WG will produce high quality spec, they all look very *clever* πŸ˜€
  1691. labdsf has left
  1692. ak430770 has left
  1693. zinid https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/mls/about/
  1694. zinid namely, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mls-protocol-03
  1695. Andrew Nenakhov DISCLAIMER: This is a work-in-progress draft of MLS and has not yet seen significant security analysis. It should not be used as a basis for building production systems.
  1696. Andrew Nenakhov I wonder if there ever was a serious security analysis of OMEMO
  1697. Nekit has joined
  1698. pep. OMEMO itself, or signal's encryption mechanism?
  1699. blabla has left
  1700. lovetox there was for both
  1701. blabla has joined
  1702. Andrew Nenakhov Actually both
  1703. labdsf has joined
  1704. lovetox omemo is only about wrapping signal in xmpp
  1705. lovetox not much you can do wrong
  1706. Andrew Nenakhov It bugged me when reading that terminology is different in different documents.
  1707. Andrew Nenakhov Very so-so
  1708. Half-ShotX has joined
  1709. zinid Andrew Nenakhov, there was for OMEMO afair
  1710. novnov has joined
  1711. Guus I'm off. goodnight!
  1712. oli has joined
  1713. Andrew Nenakhov Bye.
  1714. Half-ShotX has left
  1715. novnov has left
  1716. novnov has joined
  1717. Half-ShotX has joined
  1718. novnov has left
  1719. moparisthebest Andrew Nenakhov, re security analysis of omemo https://conversations.im/omemo/audit.pdf
  1720. Andrew Nenakhov I saw that. I meant serious )
  1721. moparisthebest then you'll have to define serious :)
  1722. !xsf_Martin has left
  1723. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1724. !xsf_Martin has left
  1725. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1726. !xsf_Martin has left
  1727. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1728. !xsf_Martin has left
  1729. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1730. !xsf_Martin has left
  1731. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1732. !xsf_Martin has left
  1733. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1734. novnov has joined
  1735. !xsf_Martin has left
  1736. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1737. Andrew Nenakhov Those that have their most interesting part being just a link to some other research done of course but a very respectable experts, ha
  1738. novnov has left
  1739. Lance has joined
  1740. novnov has joined
  1741. moparisthebest I mean the signal protocol has been pretty extensively reviewed hasn't it? what else can an implementation of it get than a 3rd party audit?
  1742. novnov has left
  1743. Lance has left
  1744. blabla has left
  1745. Andrew Nenakhov moparisthebest, was signals protocol really reviewed? Or, it's so popular itmust have been reviewed?
  1746. lovetox Andrew Nenakhov, it is reviewed you can find this out pretty fast
  1747. Andrew Nenakhov Anyway I'm not really in the mood arguing about that
  1748. Half-ShotX has left
  1749. Half-ShotX has joined
  1750. lovetox there is nothing to argue about
  1751. lovetox :)
  1752. moparisthebest well I ddg'd "signal protocol review" and found a ton of results so, probably?
  1753. moparisthebest > In October 2016, researchers from the UK's University of Oxford, Australia's Queensland University of Technology, and Canada's McMaster University published a formal analysis of the protocol.[15][16] They concluded that the protocol was cryptographically sound.[15][16]
  1754. moparisthebest knock yourself out following all the citations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Protocol
  1755. moparisthebest like lovetox said, nothing to argue about, 100% has been widely reviewed
  1756. novnov has joined
  1757. lorddavidiii has joined
  1758. Half-ShotX has left
  1759. andrey.g has left
  1760. Nekit has left
  1761. lorddavidiii has left
  1762. Half-ShotX has joined
  1763. andrey.g has joined
  1764. novnov has left
  1765. lorddavidiii has joined
  1766. kokonoe has left
  1767. Half-ShotX has left
  1768. Half-ShotX has joined
  1769. kokonoe has joined
  1770. !xsf_Martin has left
  1771. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1772. !xsf_Martin has left
  1773. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1774. wurstsalat has left
  1775. !xsf_Martin has left
  1776. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1777. rtq3 has left
  1778. rtq3 has joined
  1779. Half-ShotX has left
  1780. Half-ShotX has joined
  1781. Half-ShotX has left
  1782. ak430770 has joined
  1783. !xsf_Martin has left
  1784. ak430770 has left
  1785. Half-ShotX has joined
  1786. Half-ShotX has left
  1787. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1788. !xsf_Martin has left
  1789. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1790. Half-ShotX has joined
  1791. Ge0rG lovetox [22:02]: > probably because he has not enough time to implement it, and his users bug him :D Is this a troll or a massive misinformation?
  1792. lovetox it was a joke, dont take it to serious
  1793. Ge0rG Alright
  1794. Half-ShotX has left
  1795. goffi has left
  1796. j.r has left
  1797. j.r has joined
  1798. Half-ShotX has joined
  1799. labdsf has left
  1800. labdsf has joined
  1801. moparisthebest has left
  1802. UsL has left
  1803. UsL has joined
  1804. moparisthebest has joined
  1805. Half-ShotX has left
  1806. !xsf_Martin has left
  1807. !xsf_Martin has joined
  1808. Half-ShotX has joined
  1809. l has joined
  1810. Kev has joined
  1811. Kev has left
  1812. vaulor has left
  1813. vaulor has joined
  1814. l has left
  1815. Half-ShotX has left
  1816. Half-ShotX has joined
  1817. moparisthebest has left
  1818. moparisthebest has joined
  1819. Half-ShotX has left
  1820. Half-ShotX has joined
  1821. !xsf_Martin has left
  1822. Half-ShotX has left
  1823. moparisthebest has left
  1824. moparisthebest has joined
  1825. l has joined
  1826. Half-ShotX has joined
  1827. kokonoe has left
  1828. kokonoe has joined
  1829. Half-ShotX has left
  1830. Half-ShotX has joined
  1831. moparisthebest has left
  1832. waqas has left
  1833. Half-ShotX has left
  1834. moparisthebest has joined
  1835. Half-ShotX has joined
  1836. oli has left
  1837. Half-ShotX has left
  1838. labdsf has left
  1839. labdsf has joined
  1840. wurstsalat has joined
  1841. Half-ShotX has joined
  1842. rtq3 has left
  1843. Half-ShotX has left
  1844. lorddavidiii has left
  1845. Half-ShotX has joined
  1846. lovetox has left
  1847. j.r has left
  1848. j.r has joined
  1849. Matthew has left
  1850. undefined has joined
  1851. Half-ShotX has left