Is Snikket an alternative to Signal? I tested it a few days ago, and it seems to target team chats and other closed groups by requiring invites on the one hand and putting all people into the same room on the other hand.
Isn't @blabber the Signal alternative that uses XMPP as it provides a product with security by default, nice UI/UX and a free of cost server with easy signup.
I would like to see Snikket as a one-to-one messenger, but currently, this seems to be a non-goal.
Alternative? Yes. Clone? No.
We believe in a network of small, independent servers (federated, of course!). We believe people should use servers run by people they know and trust. Invites make signing up a group of trusted people to your service (e.g. family/friends/other group) quick and easy.
Your goals always sound like you want to provide an messenger, which is THE client for xmpp or at least one App that one can recommend to avoid talking about protocols instead of Apps (so it can be installed without first understanding the need to find an app for a protocol).
But your solution does provide something else (what you just described). I like your project, but I am confused by the difference between the goal stated in blog posts and so on and the actual project goal.
@hubert Thanks! Yep, I see Matrix/Element as a good example of trying to strike this balance. Slightly different relationship, but also interesting is ActivityPub/Mastodon and the recent decision to develop an official Mastodon iOS client.
It's tricky stuff, but I think if we can be aware of the issues we can all of us make progress on bringing open protocols to the masses without falling into the weeds 🙂
> There is a significant difference between developing and promoting a protocol (such as XMPP) and a product (such as Signal). Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
I was going to read but if it starts on a false premise (that products and protocols are mutually exclusive) then we're not going to get very far, I regret to say.
I will, eventually.
During breaks, I scan a number of publications and make a decision on what to read or not based, amongst other things, on the lede. As mentioned, yours appears to start off on the wrong premise which would of course invalidate the entire argument, regardless of the validity of the conclusion itself.
So I took the time to read it. Skip if you don't like criticism
1 Your TL;DR boils down to a) the signal guy is right (btw, he isn't) so b) use #Snikket?
3 A #CIC is still a company. How do you intend to make money in order to realise the Benefit?
4 Please provide the required info on the website: https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/signs-stationery-and-promotional-material
And for the record:
I do agree with your general goal, and at least you're trying. That said:
- You need a business plan. See previous point for a viable approach
> Saying there is a difference between developing a protocol and a product is not the same as saying protocols and products are mutually exclusive.
Agreed, however that's what that post infers throughout, starting from its title (“this versus that”). I believe that is so because it falls in the trap of trying to debunk a malicious argument (the one made by Benham in promoting his latest startup).
I don't question the author's intentions. I critique the result.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.