Can you please explain why? A quick look at the spec for both protocols shows you that matrix is literally a hundred times more complex, so I don’t understand the basis of the contrary. The matrix creators have shown they are okay with increased complexity under the pretext of a more complete experience, but in reality, XMPP has achieved the same features with far less complexity.
If you’re speaking about self hosting, again, I don’t see how, as matrix is notorious for self hosting issues. XMPP’s snikket works out of the box and has all the commonly used features and plugins pre-baked. The underlying prosody implementation is a step down, but is also quite easy as long as you know what plugins and options to activate (and if you don’t, then use snikket).
I don’t want to defend Matrix. I agree that it is not stable and lightweight. However, I believe it is simpler than XMPP. Wanna set up a server? Synapse. Need a client? Element. The default softwares are easy for new users to discover.
Also, the fact that Matrix has a single protocol means that in theory all servers and clients can work with each other (Although I know we are far from that at the moment). It is much better than XMPP’s XEPs in terms of simplicity.
It’s not that I don’t like XMPP. I want a stable, encrypted, federated messaging platform. However, in terms of money and motivation, Matrix seems to be closer to that right now.
Wanna set up a server? Prosody (which has a hassle free out of the box experience through snikket)
Need a client? Conversations
The default softwares are easy to use for new users.
For matrix, however, you are forced to use synapse. You complain that xmpp is not a single protocol, but in reality, all the major implementations are compatible. Can you say the same about matrix? The other implementations aren’t even close to achieving this.
Xmpp’s extensions are a powerful feature, and the issues you think it presents do not exist with xmpp anymore, but is actually the status quo for Matrix.
Can you please explain why? A quick look at the spec for both protocols shows you that matrix is literally a hundred times more complex, so I don’t understand the basis of the contrary. The matrix creators have shown they are okay with increased complexity under the pretext of a more complete experience, but in reality, XMPP has achieved the same features with far less complexity.
If you’re speaking about self hosting, again, I don’t see how, as matrix is notorious for self hosting issues. XMPP’s snikket works out of the box and has all the commonly used features and plugins pre-baked. The underlying prosody implementation is a step down, but is also quite easy as long as you know what plugins and options to activate (and if you don’t, then use snikket).
I don’t want to defend Matrix. I agree that it is not stable and lightweight. However, I believe it is simpler than XMPP. Wanna set up a server? Synapse. Need a client? Element. The default softwares are easy for new users to discover.
Also, the fact that Matrix has a single protocol means that in theory all servers and clients can work with each other (Although I know we are far from that at the moment). It is much better than XMPP’s XEPs in terms of simplicity.
It’s not that I don’t like XMPP. I want a stable, encrypted, federated messaging platform. However, in terms of money and motivation, Matrix seems to be closer to that right now.
With all due respect, this is a very biased view
Wanna set up a server? Prosody (which has a hassle free out of the box experience through snikket)
Need a client? Conversations
The default softwares are easy to use for new users.
For matrix, however, you are forced to use synapse. You complain that xmpp is not a single protocol, but in reality, all the major implementations are compatible. Can you say the same about matrix? The other implementations aren’t even close to achieving this.
Xmpp’s extensions are a powerful feature, and the issues you think it presents do not exist with xmpp anymore, but is actually the status quo for Matrix.