I think that’s the protocol’s fault. I’m no expert on sypase, but as someone who used to be a diehard Matrix evangelist and has used it for about a year, my belief is that the protocol itself simply has too many features for any stable and robust implementation to exist. The reason synapse is the only proper server implementation is because it’s too diffiicult to make one. Likewise, there’s only one fully functional client, and only ever will be, because there are too many features and they refuse to stop adding more so no other client will ever catch up. And that one client has constant bugs, anti-features (like the annoying “secure your data” popup or whatever that comes up every time I open it), and is a web application (horrible for a secure app).
afaik it is more decentralized than Signal, and you can run a server. It uses some block chain crypto network for onion routing or something like that, but to host your own node it seems like you have to buy in. I was reading about it some days ago.
The way they have it set up, they say that the prohibitive cost of buying out the network would prevent anyone from doing so, but I’m sure they’re secretly hoping some government will try to take it over so they can get rich.
That’s a bit better, I suppose, but if all of the nodes are in one country, then potentially the network is one poorly written law away from being shut down. They should probably branch out to other countries just in case.
Still centralized, not self hostable, so subject to a lot of the same problems. Matrix or xmpp have this problem solved.
Just setup a self hosted server. My family are now all chatting on it. Works great and simple to use.
Matrix is an overhead mess, from what people have advised me. Avoid.
*Synapse is a mess
The Matrix protocol is certainly more complex than XMPP, but I think a lot of bad fame comes from Synapse being big, bulky and complicated.
I think that’s the protocol’s fault. I’m no expert on sypase, but as someone who used to be a diehard Matrix evangelist and has used it for about a year, my belief is that the protocol itself simply has too many features for any stable and robust implementation to exist. The reason synapse is the only proper server implementation is because it’s too diffiicult to make one. Likewise, there’s only one fully functional client, and only ever will be, because there are too many features and they refuse to stop adding more so no other client will ever catch up. And that one client has constant bugs, anti-features (like the annoying “secure your data” popup or whatever that comes up every time I open it), and is a web application (horrible for a secure app).
afaik it is more decentralized than Signal, and you can run a server. It uses some block chain crypto network for onion routing or something like that, but to host your own node it seems like you have to buy in. I was reading about it some days ago.
The way they have it set up, they say that the prohibitive cost of buying out the network would prevent anyone from doing so, but I’m sure they’re secretly hoping some government will try to take it over so they can get rich.
Just wanted to point out this bullet point on Session’s website:
Wouldn’t their server be a central point of failure?
Is not a server, is a network of service nodes but almost all of them are in the same country.
That’s a bit better, I suppose, but if all of the nodes are in one country, then potentially the network is one poorly written law away from being shut down. They should probably branch out to other countries just in case.