That really is not a satisfying answer. It is incredibly nebulous and even if it did have a nice definition I guarantee most software developers will tell you a lot of software rarely reaches that state.
I can see why they might want to avoid 1000 GitHub issues bike shedding things but they could open source the code and just not have open contribution
Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time.
I mean maybe but you could also just say “we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please” and let the community help you in the effort. That’s the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I’m not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don’t eat up their word it’s fine.
Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn’t empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it.
Like… I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives.
Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix.
Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy.
It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers.
Signal is centralized, loops is closed source and not accepting new users.
Loops will be open sourced later they say.
That really is not a satisfying answer. It is incredibly nebulous and even if it did have a nice definition I guarantee most software developers will tell you a lot of software rarely reaches that state.
I can see why they might want to avoid 1000 GitHub issues bike shedding things but they could open source the code and just not have open contribution
Sometimes you’re ashamed of the ugly hacks you cobbled together to reach MVP, and you want to fix the stuff you know you need to fix first before being thrown to the wolves. I can respect that, for a limited time.
I mean maybe but you could also just say “we did some whacky shit here help us fix it please” and let the community help you in the effort. That’s the beauty of open source. Then again they may have their reasons and frankly I’m not even interested in a TikTok like social media so w/e as long as they don’t eat up their word it’s fine.
or they can also disable submitting issues for now
That means very little to me. Actions speak louder than words, and it would probably help the development of loops if it was actually open source.
Made by the same dev as Pixelfed, which did a similar thing.
Which I think dansup should deserve our trust on this for quite a long time for doing. It isn’t empty promises if they already made Pixelfed and opensourced it.
Like… I suppose it could be a grift, anything could but I see no reason to question their goals or motives.
For a lot of FLOSS projects, it’s common to keep the initial team small, so a product can be delivered fast, and gets opened up later.
It’s to solve the “too many cooks” and prevent bikeshedding.
A lot of corpo espionage is there solely to tank potential competitors, which include FLOSS projects.
Loops is anti-libre software confirmed.
anti? is it against libre software? because it doesn’t seem so
Why does software have a political stance?
It’s missing a libre software licence text file.
So Matrix it is?
I was told that unless you self host, matrix is less secure because it leaks more metadata. Something to consider
Leaks more metadata? What does that mean?
sender, recipient, chatroom, what kind of event you sent (message, emoji, reaction, vote), if you responded to a message, room privilege changes, etc
but it’s a question how big of a problem is that. they want to tackle it in the future, but that’s far away for now I think
Damm, didn’t know that, good to know
it’s not even true information, the new tech stack is zero trust
What does this mean?
the new cryptographic protocol protects metadata, like signal. the servers know nothing about any encrypted chats
So the guy above the guy avobe me was wrong?
sorta, the old clients still have bad cryptography and the new client isn’t fully featured yet
Zero trust means there’s no trust assumed on the protocol - I.e. it distrusts all actors and the protocol takes steps to work in that trustless environment. I don’t know how that applies specifically to matrix.
So the guy above the guy avobe me was supposedly wrong?
Like I said, I don’t know the inner workings of Matrix. But according to the second guy that isn’t you, Matrix has a new tech stack that is zero trust. Now, there are many ways in which that can be true and I don’t know if what Matrix has right now can indeed be considered dissident-level privacy.
It’s good enough for my threat level (I basically just use it for software support). If I were planning to overthrow a regime, I’d likely go with SimpleX or some other privacy-first messengers.