would you recommend Snikket server (or Prosody) for 1:1, group calls and screen sharing?

Answering this first so it doesn’t get buried down. Screen sharing wouldn’t be supported by xmpp since its just messaging, but I believe Jitsi has that feature. But for the rest, snikket and conversations (for android) I would recommend, yes.

When I decided to try XMPP, I had to do a lot of research to decide which applications I should use for the server and client.

Whatever is the first answer you get from a web search should be fine. Most sources recommend conversations for client, but all the other recommendations you’ll see are good too. For server, the easiest to setup is snikket, but all the other and up to date implementations should work okay, although they might need some configuration if you want all the modern messaging features.

If we told two people to use these two software independently, they would start using Matrix much more faster than XMPP.

Why do you think so? Let’s assume a user who doesn’t self host. XMPP clients are far more stable and error free, whereas matrix has random issues every now and then, especially with encryption and public groups.

XMPP clients are a lot more customizable and come in different models. Matrix has only one client that works well (and some forks of it that look roughly the same). I’d say that’s a win for XMPP for new users.

Now let’s say it’s a self hosting user. I don’t need to say much here, matrix is notorious for self hosting issues, and being a massive resource hog. XMPP, you have snikket, which works out of the box without issues and can be hosted on a raspberry pi even.

I may be biased here, so I urge you to tell me, in what way would a new user adopt matrix faster? I can tell you one. Matrix has corporate funding and has managed to advertise better. That’s their only win.

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.

Have you used XMPP recently and ran into the issue of non-obscure servers, clients, or self-hostable implementations using different extensions or not supporting them? (I actually haven’t experienced this even on the obscure ones, but can’t confirm for all of them). Please do not make that accusation, because that I’d really not what happens in reality.

it’s hardly the standard

Why not when… It literally is? And all major implementations follow it? That is by definition a standard.

and we’re not really talking about plain XMPP then anymore.

Why not? “extensible” is in the name. It is meant to be extended. The protocol is being used exactly as planned and intended.

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).

Still don’t understand the need for matrix when xmpp is a much more battle tested standard, far more lightweight, way less complex, and easier to make clients for.

Why let Google play be the reason to stop development? There are many people who use f-droid or download releases or apks from other sources.

Google is trying to force out indie developers, do we really want to listen to them and do as they want?

Many people will always be obsessed with “engagement”, and there’s no saving them. They’ve been under the influence of big tech social media for too long, and it becomes an addiction.

The fediverse is an option to get away from this, but it certainly is not a cure. The only cure is the willingness to help yourself and change.

You know who else is obsessed with engagement? Clickbait authors

It is a matter of responsibility. If you can log into any lemmy instance or mastodon server with the same account, then which server takes responsibility for your actions in the fediverse?

This is a good point and I should clarify: in this model, you wouldn’t get open access to any instance. The instance has to explicitly trust (white list) instances from which it will accept log ins. It would be like federation is done today, but the lists would be separate ideally.

Another model is it could do it on a case-by-case basis on the user level instead of instance level. But it would still enable the user to keep their dame ID and original domain.

PGP signing is cool but it does not grant the benefits I was talking about unfortunately :(

Is there anything like this for mastodon?

I already talked about why that matters in my post (didn’t mention anything about a person’s importance), but I’m happy to clarify and expand on it!

To summarize again, this would allow users to follow a person across platforms. Part of the benefit of the fediverse is I can choose to get content from a microblogging platform as well as macro blogging or threaded like lemmy. It would be a good feature for me to be able to follow someone across all federated platforms without having to scavenge for them.

Moreover, it would allow me to use other types of platforms without having to sign up on each one. This would also be useful for instance admins. If instance A trusts instance B, then it can allow instance B users to sign in without having to sign up separately.

This could also mean that instance A could be an identity provider only

It is close to what I’m thinking, but the default flow would immediately start with the sign up process, choose a random instance (with good uptime record), and assume “general”, unless otherwise specified (optionally).

If you choose a username, and I sign up with your same username before you do, then now you’re screwed. So I agree this is a solution, but it is not without faults. No one prevents someone from signing up with your username (either maliciously or they just liked the same name)

Is it really neglected though? There are dedicated extensions for it, and movim.eu uses it without issues.

XMPP’s real strength is in real-time communication

It’s an extensible communication protocol and has been extended to many use cases, and has a good track record of performing well and handling extensions well. I’d argue this makes it a better candidate than activityPub.

In a parallel universe, we may have had less federation issues had we gone xmpp!

As depressing as it sounds, most Twitter users actually like Twitter. They’re fully okay with all of its dystopian features (some even idolize pre-Musk Twitter). Mastodon is a break from Twitter in many ways, whereas bluesky is just another Twitter in their eyes (many of them probably dgaf about federation and ignore it).

I know it’s not the main point, but I wouldn’t call Linux fractured. Linux has multiple choices, but they all work fine unless you’re going into an experimental realm or uncommon distros that beginners shouldn’t be getting near anyways.

I would even say XMPP would be a better underlying communication protocol under ActivityPub, as it specs many aspects that ActivityPub does not.

It may seem so due to its success, but I’d argue its success was more tied to luck and timing than technical superiority.

Mastodon was growing and “new” during the period of the decline of social media, and specifically during several moments of Twitter having issues with moderation, and later on acquisition by musk.

Similarly to lemmy, the Reddit third party API fiasco.

I don’t think this means that it works better than anything else. It was just the most obvious choice to users at the time.

From my understanding developers often complain about activityPub. Can we really say that it “just works”? Federation and interop issues are common as well.

AP doesn’t really do this. A subscriber may be a dead account, or may be someone that hasn’t checked your feed in months. Even a technical analysis would be difficult here.