Originally posted by Termy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Kaidan Joins KDE As A Jabber/XMPP Chat Client
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by thebear View PostIs this (Conversations) a viable option to e.g. Signal?
Conversations does not require any proprietary server, and no matter which domain/server you create an account on, you can chat with everyone on other servers as well. Support for sending images and audio works fine.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by gbcox View PostYou might want to consider Telegram.
(Just look at the shit that recently occurred to the "Internet Radio" users, whose "Silicon Frontier" chip sets all rely on a centralized station list service that not only eavesdrop on your listening habits, but also suddenly went away.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by dwagner View PostThe show-stopper for Telegram is that it requires centralized servers for communication. If we know anything, than that centralized communication is never robust, long-lived and secure (at least in terms of meta-data exposure).
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by FishB8 View PostXMPP came about before smart phones. It uses a stateful protocol, which is terrible for the intermittent connections with mobile phones and is a big battery drain. They've created a stateless extension since then, but that only works if the server supports it, and even then I'm not sure how well it works.
Originally posted by FishB8 View PostSupposedly the matrix chat protocol tries to fill that gap, but that only works if people use it.
Oh, why I've said hosting? Well the whole point of not using silos (Whatsapp/Signal/Wire/etc) is that people host their own and federate...yes some big servers will attract more users, but XMPP has a lot of servers out there: https://compliance.conversations.im/
A default ejabberd config will yield you 100% compliance, and I guess Prosody too.
Conversations (and now Quicksy) kinda pushed XMPP ahead, since Android users will have desktops (Gajim, Dino, Monal, Beagle), friends with iOS (ChatSecure, Monal, Siskin), friends with WindowsPhones (UWXP), everyone has a browser (Converse.js) and they all already can talk to each other, both plain and OMEMO encrypted, both 1:1 and in MUCs (groups).
/LE: And fun fact, none of these mentioned above had or have $5mil investments or a Telco to fund them (ahem Matrix ahem), so maybe take a closer look at that "XMPP demise"...Last edited by Licaon; 12 May 2019, 08:27 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Oh, and in case you've missed the irony, so Kaidan KDE devs will now chat about their XMPP client over Matrix, right?
Ref: https://dot.kde.org/2019/02/20/kde-a...s-im-framework
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hi-Angel View PostSure, the GNU/Linux desktop Telegram app has better encryption than the Whatsapp, because the latter can't encrypt data. The primary reason for this is that it doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Hi-Angel View PostI strongly recommend against Whatapp because they ban 3-rd party apps, which is IMO a big deal. They clearly don't want people to use Whatsapp protocol, so please, do as they wish, don't use it. Use other messengers.
The thing is, Telegram could block 3rd party clients overnight if they wanted. It's still a centralised platform with all the power in the single operator's hands.
Originally posted by gbcox View PostTelegram encrypts all client-server chats by default and stores them encrypted on their servers.
Originally posted by gbcox View PostIf you want more security, they offer the "secret" chats which are not stored on their servers. Storing the chats on the server allows all platforms you have telegram installed to be synchronized.
Also, message synchronisation is not a valid argument to not ship e2ee. It's been a solved problem for years.
Originally posted by gbcox View PostTelegrams security is good enough IMO. In fact, they have been banned in Russia because the Russian government wanted the chat keys and they refused. To my knowledge there have been no instances of Telegram security being compromised.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by juno View PostThe GNU/Linux desktop Telegram app doesn't have better encryption because it also can't encrypt data. So while it's funny, your argument is invalid. Of course the lack of a native client is a disadvantage, but that's off-topic in the privacy/security debate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by juno View Post
The GNU/Linux desktop Telegram app doesn't have better encryption because it also can't encrypt data. So while it's funny, your argument is invalid. Of course the lack of a native client is a disadvantage, but that's off-topic in the privacy/security debate.
Your honourable conversion mission is unneeded because I don't use WhatsApp. But neither do I recommend Telegram over it, because it's better but just not good enough.
The thing is, Telegram could block 3rd party clients overnight if they wanted. It's still a centralised platform with all the power in the single operator's hands.
That's not e2e encryption. Transport encryption should not be worth mentioning. It's not 1990 anymore.
It really doesn't matter that much whether they store the messages or not. What matters is that those "secret chats" are end-to-end encrypted. That's also what you can verify because the crypto and client is open, while the server part is not and you can't know if they really don't store secret chats.
Also, message synchronisation is not a valid argument to not ship e2ee. It's been a solved problem for years.
This could also just be propaganda. Note: I'm not saying it is. It just isn't an argument whatsoever.
Telegram has a nice FAQ that explains how both work.
Comment
Comment