• Glitchvid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Matrix has moved very very slowly and I’m concerned it’ll have the same fate as XMPP, where it’s a bunch of very complicated standards, with maybe one compliant implementation that nobody wants to work on.

    I also don’t think it’s a particularly good protocol design for a Discord replacement, it’s not federated it’s a distributed message protocol, which is an order of magnitude more complicated and intensive than potential alternatives.

    That said, many non-perfect things have achieved widespread success, so I’m at least hopeful that Matrix/Element are able to catch on in a wider capacity.

    • Derin@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Matrix doesn’t have multiple standards, it only has the one? Certain servers expose older API endpoints for backwards compatibility with old clients, but that’s all. The spec is standard and relatively stable.

      Likewise, it is very much a federated protocol - dunno where you got the idea that it isn’t.

      But, yeah, spec changes do take a while to get accepted/implemented.

      • Glitchvid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Standards as in parts of the spec, as you said in the original reply:

        the new MatrixRTC spec

        Which is a fork of the WebRTC protocol and another “standard” on top of the REST HTTP protocol.

        I should have been more specific with my language, it is federated, but specifically messages (events) are a distributed DAG, and I find the Matrix protocol overly generic for a replacement for something specific like Discord.

        The end goal of Matrix is to be a ubiquitous messaging layer for synchronising arbitrary data between sets of people, devices and services