Skip to content

Is Matrix cooked?

Technology
54 27 152
  • This. I know a lot of folks in the fediverse like Matrix, but the user experience feels like yet another platform that started with the platform architecture, and not the end user’s experience.

    Then it gets adopted by a bunch of people who enjoy installing Hannah Montana Linux distros for fun, and no one else.

    the new apps are great and they've replaced the hot part of the encryption code with one in rust, for use in all clients. the web ui is still clunky but generally fine

  • What you originally said was gibberish, but I digress.

    I don't agree, and additionally when you say I'm wrong I have to pull the reason out of you with pincers.

    The chat app is open source, so you can evaluate what it's doing with those messages for yourself.

    yeah, evaluate what it does at the time of the audit.

    but even just your chats on the phone

    This is gibberish.

    when you say I'm wrong I have to pull the reason out of you with pincers.

    You don't. I've given it to you in plain English.

    yeah, evaluate what it does at the time of the audit

    ...yes? They've also had several third-party professional audits.

  • uh, no? on smartphones, yes, but not on computers.

    That's not true. Most operating systems at least have filesystem permissions, and on a lot of Linux distros you additionally get AppArmor or PolKit to further restrict what files a program can read/write.

    Most operating systems at least have filesystem permissions,

    which limits access between files of different users, but does not prevent the zoom app to read your documents, or the cracked game you torrented to read the passwords from your web browser.

    and on a lot of Linux distros you additionally get AppArmor or PolKit to further restrict what files a program can read/write

    on lot of linux distributions where apparmor is active, most processes are unconfined, or at best still have broad access, because the distribution does not ship apparmor profiles for each executable that a user may run.

    same with polkit, except that it's use case is not about defining additional limitations, but about defining what is allowed, to build upon other security systems. so to define whe n to prompt the user permission, whether to ask for a password or just a yes-no question, or whether to just allow something that would otherwise be disallowed if polkit was not in place.

    Additionally, on a lot of linux distributions, umask is set by default so that new files are world readable, and so users can read most of each others files.

    this is also at least the 3rd instance I ask this week, but are we really assuming that the common internet user is using linux? what is the case with other operating systems, like windows? yeah users can't read each others profile directory by default, but nothing prevents program A from reading something written by program B when both are running with the privileges of your user account

    so, sorry but to me it seems that

    • on linux it is possible, but in lots of common cases access is not limited
    • on windows it is not possible, without involving probably enterprise level software
  • I mentioned Linux specifically because something like this is the hardest to set up on Linux. I (wrongly) assumed that since you were complaining about it not existing, you were on a platform where setting these permissions up isn't straightforward. App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I'm pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.

    Edit:
    Also, if we're being pedantic, this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

    App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I'm pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.

    I don't know about macos, but I doubt that it applies to software that was obtained outside of their app store.

    on windows however, those settings only apply to UWP apps. not .exe and .bat and .msi and .ps programs, but .appx packages that you can install from the Microsoft Store. and installing something from the Microsoft Store does not mean that it'll be sandboxed, lots of regular .exe programs are also distributed there.

    Also, if we're being pedantic, this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

    those are mobile operating systems, they have been designed with this in mind from the beginning. General purpose desktop computers are very different though, for better or worse. and, as I know, desktop computer users are still not a small minority

  • but even just your chats on the phone

    This is gibberish.

    when you say I'm wrong I have to pull the reason out of you with pincers.

    You don't. I've given it to you in plain English.

    yeah, evaluate what it does at the time of the audit

    ...yes? They've also had several third-party professional audits.

    This is gibberish.

    I don't know what this means. you could have just said "fuck you", plainly, and it wouldn't have made less sense.

  • This is gibberish.

    I don't know what this means. you could have just said "fuck you", plainly, and it wouldn't have made less sense.

    you could have just said "fuck you", plainly

    I certainly could have and would have if that's what I wanted to say.

  • I mentioned Linux specifically because something like this is the hardest to set up on Linux. I (wrongly) assumed that since you were complaining about it not existing, you were on a platform where setting these permissions up isn't straightforward. App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I'm pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.

    Edit:
    Also, if we're being pedantic, this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

    this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

    For photos at the very least, it's the same on iOS. Haven't tested with files. But anytime I needed to send people photos over FB Messenger, I'd add access to that one specific photo and nothing more. Until I got tired of it and added all photos. Oh well.

  • Also there are not many competitors to Matrix. Just XMPP for the most part.
    SimpleX and Signal are not good at supporting chat rooms with large amounts of people. Telegram does it okay but isn’t decentralized.

    Telegram also don't have E2E encryption on groups

  • App-specific file-acess permissions are on MacOS out of the box as a configurable setting for all applications (in the system settings menu), and I'm pretty sure Windows 10/11 has something similar in its settings menu as well.

    I don't know about macos, but I doubt that it applies to software that was obtained outside of their app store.

    on windows however, those settings only apply to UWP apps. not .exe and .bat and .msi and .ps programs, but .appx packages that you can install from the Microsoft Store. and installing something from the Microsoft Store does not mean that it'll be sandboxed, lots of regular .exe programs are also distributed there.

    Also, if we're being pedantic, this is also a setting on both Android and iOS, with Android displaying the option to change access pretty much every time you pick out a file.

    those are mobile operating systems, they have been designed with this in mind from the beginning. General purpose desktop computers are very different though, for better or worse. and, as I know, desktop computer users are still not a small minority

    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then.

    I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. It could also be that it needs to be in the "Applications" folder, but I'm almost certain it isn't an App Store exclusive feature.

  • Sidenote, the modern web is so fucked because how am I supposed to teach a kid that I would trust the random website "paper.wtf" I have never seen before with literally "meow" randomly above their article MORE than businessinsider.com which is like at the top of every search result

    The most skibidiest of websites is also the most trustworthy.

  • In today's episode of Kill The Messenger, Matrix co-founder Matthew Hodgson reveals how full of bullshit is the writer of the original article.

    The messages were published in the Office of the Matrix.org Foundation room: https://matrix.to/#%2F!sWpnrYUMmaBrlqfRdn%3Amatrix.org%2F%24XpQe-vmtB7j0Uy1TPCvMVCSCW63Xxw_jwy3fflw7EMQ%3Fvia=matrix.org&via=element.io

    https://paper.wf/alexia/matrix-is-cooked is fascinatingly incorrect

    Until the 6th of November 2023 when they—in their words—moved to a different repository and to the AGPL license. In reality, the Foundation did not know this was coming, and a huge support net was pulled away under their feet.

    fwiw, the Foundation had a front-row seat in the fact that Element (as incorporated by the folks who created Matrix) had donated $$M to the Foundation over the years, but wasn't going to survive if it kept giving all its work away as apache-licensed code - which in turn would have been catastrophic for the Foundation.

    Yes, the high expenses for the Matrix.org homeserver are largely because they are still managed by Element, just not as donated work but instead like with any other customer.

    nope, Element passes the hardware costs (and a fraction of the people costs) of running the matrix.org server to the Foundation without any overheads or markup at all.

    Either way it shows that Element is seemingly cashing in on selling ,Matrix to governments and B2B as a SaaS solution without it going back to the foundation

    Element has literally put tens of millions into the foundation, and is continuing to do so - while some of the costs get passed to the Foundation, Element donates a bunch too (e.g. by funding a large chunk of the Matrix conference as the anchor sponsor, and by donating time all over the place to help support trust & safety etc)

    At the same time I can't help but think that this could have been prevented. Even Matthew himself recognizes that putting the future on Matrix on the line with VC funding and alike was not the best idea for the health of Matrix.

    No, even Matthew knows that Matrix would never have been funded without routing the VC funding from Element into... building Matrix. We tried to fund it originally purely as a non-profit, but failed (just as it's a nightmare to raise non-profit for the Foundation today even now that Matrix exists and is successful!). If you need to raise serious $ for an ambitious project, you either need to get lucky with a billionaire (as Signal did with Brian Acton) or you have to raise on the for-profit side. Perhaps it would have have been best for Matrix to grow organically, but I suspect that if it did, it would have failed miserably - instead, it succeeded because we already had a team of ~12 people who could crack on and jump-start it if they could work on it as their dayjob; the team who subsequently founded Element.

    Ultimately, for-profit companies will do what makes them profit, not what's the best option. Unless the best option happens to coincide with making the most profit.

    No, Element is not profitable. Nor is it trying to maximise profit. Right now it's trying to survive and get sustainable and profit-neutral (i.e. break-even) - while doing everything it can to help keep Matrix healthy and successful too (given if Matrix fails, Element fails too).

    Unfortunately, supporting the foundation through anything more than “in spirit” and a platinum membership is out of their budget, apparently. I think that morally they owe a lot more than that.

    wow.

    the FUD level is absolutely astonishing, and I really wonder what the genesis of this is

    so, absolutely, spectacularly, depressing

    this, my friends, is why we can't have nice things.

    In response to an other person suggesting that the publisher is also known as a reasonable person on the platform:

    Interesting, the matrix handle that seems behind this blog seems always to have been quite a reasonable person

    somewhat why i’m wondering what the backstory is, and whether this is an unfortunate example of spicy lies outpacing the boring truth

    You know the system is fucked when people who seek to maximize profit for themselves while making everyone else's life worse is rewarded, whereas projects like Matrix, which is clearly a public good that benefits the society, struggles to get funding.

  • it's ... not ... a simple messenger, if that helps?

    What is it then? A complicated messenger?

  • SimpleX Chat – Many suggested this and I will explicitly recommend against it due to the founder's positions on various topics. This includes being anti-vaxx, believing COVID-19 was a hoax, trans- and homophobia, climate denial; In the SimpleX Groupchat he's also been seen basically bootlicking trump a couple times, but I've lost receipts to that

    Unrelated to the main points I kind of always thought SimpleX seemed sketchy...

    I visited the founder's Bluesky account. It's terrible. The guy is extremely confused

  • Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then.

    I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format. It could also be that it needs to be in the "Applications" folder, but I'm almost certain it isn't an App Store exclusive feature.

    Didn't know it only applied to UWP apps on Windows. That does seem like a pretty big problem then.

    it is mostly for compatibility reasons. no win32 programs are equipped to handle such granular permissions and sandboxing, they are all made with the assumption that they have access to whatever they need (other than other users' resources and things that require elevation). if Microsoft would have made that limitation to every kind of software, that Windows version would have probably been a failure in popularity because lots of software would have broken. I think S editions of windows is how they tried to go in that direction, with a more drastic way of simply just dropping support for 3rd party win32 programs.

    I don't still have a Mac readily available to test with but afaik it is any application that uses Apple's packaging format.

    ok, so if you run linux or windows utils in a compatibility layer, they still have less of a limited access? by which I mean graphical utilities. just tried with firefox, for macos it wanted to give me an .iso file (???)

    if so, it seems apple is doing roughly the same as microsoft with uwp and the appx format, and linux with flatpak: it's a choice for the user

  • 336 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    76 Aufrufe
    R
    What I'm speaking about is that it should be impossible to do some things. If it's possible, they will be done, and there's nothing you can do about it. To solve the problem of twiddled social media (and moderation used to assert dominance) we need a decentralized system of 90s Web reimagined, and Fediverse doesn't deliver it - if Facebook and Reddit are feudal states, then Fediverse is a confederation of smaller feudal entities. A post, a person, a community, a reaction and a change (by moderator or by the user) should be global entities (with global identifiers, so that the object by id of #0000001a2b3c4d6e7f890 would be the same object today or 10 years later on every server storing it) replicated over a network of servers similarly to Usenet (and to an IRC network, but in an IRC network servers are trusted, so it's not a good example for a global system). Really bad posts (or those by persons with history of posting such) should be banned on server level by everyone. The rest should be moderated by moderator reactions\changes of certain type. Ideally, for pooling of resources and resilience, servers would be separated by types into storage nodes (I think the name says it, FTP servers can do the job, but no need to be limited by it), index nodes (scraping many storage nodes, giving out results in structured format fit for any user representation, say, as a sequence of posts in one community, or like a list of communities found by tag, or ... , and possibly being connected into one DHT for Kademlia-like search, since no single index node will have everything), and (like in torrents?) tracker nodes for these and for identities, I think torrent-like announce-retrieve service is enough - to return a list of storage nodes storing, say, a specified partition (subspace of identifiers of objects, to make looking for something at least possibly efficient), or return a list of index nodes, or return a bunch of certificates and keys for an identity (should be somehow cryptographically connected to the global identifier of a person). So when a storage node comes online, it announces itself to a bunch of such trackers, similarly with index nodes, similarly with a user. One can also have a NOSTR-like service for real-time notifications by users. This way you'd have a global untrusted pooled infrastructure, allowing to replace many platforms. With common data, identities, services. Objects in storage and index services can be, say, in a format including a set of tags and then the body. So a specific application needing to show only data related to it would just search on index services and display only objects with tags of, say, "holo_ns:talk.bullshit.starwars" and "holo_t:post", like a sequence of posts with ability to comment, or maybe it would search objects with tags "holo_name:My 1999-like Star Wars holopage" and "holo_t:page" and display the links like search results in Google, and then clicking on that you'd see something presented like a webpage, except links would lead to global identifiers (or tag expressions interpreted by the particular application, who knows). (An index service may return, say, an array of objects, each with identifier, tags, list of locations on storage nodes where it's found or even bittorrent magnet links, and a free description possibly ; then the user application can unify responses of a few such services to avoid repetitions, maybe sort them, represent them as needed, so on.) The user applications for that common infrastructure can be different at the same time. Some like Facebook, some like ICQ, some like a web browser, some like a newsreader. (Star Wars is not a random reference, my whole habit of imagining tech stuff is from trying to imagine a science fiction world of the future, so yeah, this may seem like passive dreaming and it is.)
  • 31 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • FREE BETTING TIPS-Draws

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    9 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 166 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    H
    In the meantime: Parents: don’t give your children lighted rectangles to play with.
  • 903 Stimmen
    179 Beiträge
    437 Aufrufe
    K
    Most jokes need to be recognizable as funny? Like if you say the word cucked, ever, I'm going to assume you're serious and an imbecile and I would be right to do that, no?!
  • 108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    K
    The title at least dont say anything new AFAIK. Because you could already download from external sources but those apps still needed to be signed by apple. But maybe they changed?
  • 27 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    F
    Small progress is still progress. Kick management in the dick, friends.