Vector is now called Riot
medium.comVector (+Matrix) is kinda like self-hosted slack/discord with proper history sync across all your devices, file uploads, nice UI, etc.
It's really good. I recommended it to 7 people and every single one liked it, even got 5 of them to set up their own federated homeservers. We're thinking about moving a ~60-people skype group there as well.
Only issue I had is Synapse hogging the CPU and getting laggy with a large room (#matrix:matrix.org with its 4 thousand members). I'm using scaleway's 3 EUR/month Starter VC1S server for Synapse though. Hopefully it will get even better with time.
Synapse 0.18.0 has just been released, might worth giving it a try as it improves things a bit.
Thanks for the support :)
Synapse does calm down once it's sorted everything out, luckily.
Or you could just use IRC with quassel + quassel-webserver, and get basically all of the same, but with an actual open protocol. Which actually has support.
Actually matrix - the protocol upon which vector and now riot depend - is an open protocol; reference here: http://matrix.org/docs/spec/
And then of course, there are the matrix bridges to IRC, etc. Admittedly although i have been using vector clients AND have installed my own personal synapse server, i have no experience using/supporting the various matrix bridges, so can't speak to their quality.
That being said, if you've ever been curious about re-doing some aspects of IRC for the better, you might want to take a look at matrix (the protocol), and suggest improvements; we all stand to benefit from your (and the community's) suggestions.
What's this trend of websites making it hard to find screenshots of their app off the bat? Should I really have to sign up just to see how your interface functions/flows?
Also, the link to view the main site is tiny and easily forgettable. I think the site could benefit from a stronger CTA that directs you to what I should do.
yup screenshots will be added to the website.
But no need to signup to play with it :) Full guest access available! Come and chat: https://riot.im/app/#/room/#riot:matrix.org
Great job riot crew/rioters!
I started playing around with vector (both web client and mobile app) a couple of months ago, and really like it. I haven't tried the bridge stuff just yet, but am excited to try, especially now that it should be easier. I even installed my own personal server (synapse) for my family - again to kick the tires and test stuff out. Now that you've re-branded and changed the name, you should start thinking of neat taglines...here are few (admittedly silly ones) to get started:
- Riot: Come for the decentralized chat, stay for the community.
- Riot like its a true democracy.
- Riot: Think outside the box, act outside the norm, and chat outside the silos.
- Riot: Chat disruption for the matrix.
> "Riot is more than a messaging app"
This said to me "Riot is just a messaging app" and I bounced. I'd recommend changing that tagline to indicate briefly why a user might use Riot instead of Slack or Whatsapp
Riot is based on Matrix. If you scrolled down, it would tell you that it's got strong crypto, you can run your own servers, it's got really good cross-protocol bridges, and a ton of other stuff. And it's totally free, save the cost of running your own server if you choose to do so.
> it's got really good cross-protocol bridges
With that you mean "a worse IRC bridge than Slack"? Every user and dev of IRC clients and servers I’ve talked to in the past weeks has only complained about Matrix’ bridge.
interesting - what is the precise issue?
The main difference is that Matrix acts effectively as a bouncer, bouncing all the different clients into IRC, rather than a bridge - unlike Slack's bridge which is just a single bot.
We're aware that we haven't enabled membership list syncing into Matrix yet from IRC (due to performance issues on synapse), but otherwise it should be pretty good.
More fact, less FUD please? :)
> interesting - what is the precise issue?
The most complaints are about not working private messages to Matrix users (because the bridge doesn’t join people), about the bridge de-syncing from IRC – and you suddenly having every matrix user thrice in the channel, and similar issues.
General stability, ability to chat with Matrix users as if they were there natively, etc.
Thanks for providing some information. I was curious what the issue was. Although I suppose I'll have to wait a bit longer for a proper response...
As I said, it's not perfect yet. I should have said good support for cross-protocol bridges.
I've been using the Freenode-to-Matrix-bridged Freenode IRC rooms for around a month now and am pretty happy, besides the occasional glitch due to Matrix and its bridges still being in beta.
For me at least, those features would make for a stronger CTA and incentive to use it.
It says all that, right on the main page.
If you had just scrolled down a little bit more...
But if you lose people with information higher in the hierarchy, it doesn't matter what you say after.
Good point. So reorganize the page a bit?
I don't know, honestly I left the page baffled as to what it even is. (I got a better idea from a link to the demo posted here on HN.)
It could benefit from focusing on:
1. Why is this thing for me? 2. What is this thing and how does it address #1?
Both of those, if possible, should be answered in 1-3 short sentences, above the fold.
First impressions:
- Hmm... sounds a lot like Apache (née Google) Wave
- Intro thingy has definite zombo.com vibe
(yes, I do realize that I'm getting old..)
On a more serious note, this could be really good concept if executed well. Time will tell, I hope for the best.
It's based on the Matrix protocol, which you may have heard of. So, yes, it bears more than a little resemblance to Wave by way of IRC, and was built to fix IRC's problems (lack of identity, poor netsplit tolerance, weak extension support, etc.), and also provide strong capabilities for bridging between protocols, so it doesn't wind up in an xkcd.com/927 type scenario.
> weak extension support
Which definitely doesn’t apply to IRC
> lack of identity
Which the CAP Account extension allows to provide
> strong capabilities for bridging between protocols
And a Matrix-IRC bridge that constantly breaks, doesn’t properly handle private messages, and which badly handles IRC extensions?
IRC bots are a hack, and so much is provided by extensions, that there's no guarantee that your client will support basic features.
CAP Account is just that: an extension. It's not inherent to the protocol, and it shows.
And I didn't say the present bridges were perfect yet. The project is still a ways from completion.
> It's not inherent to the protocol, and it shows.
IRC extensions are supported by over 90% of clients already, and provide exactly that.
In contrast to XMPP is IRC actually renewing itself in production.
EDIT: I can’t answer you right now (you are submitting too fast), so here is my answer inline:
> I’ll show the list of extensions both supported by every modern client, and each of the networks you mentioned:
> freenode: sasl, account-notify, identify-msg, multi-prefix, extended-join
> efnet: multi-prefix
> quakenet: none
> Hackint: invite-notify, cap-notify, chghost, echo-message, userhost-in-names, account-notify, server-time, account-tag, multi-prefix, extended-join, away-notify, tls, sasl
> Snoonet: away-notify, sasl, account-notify, invite-notify, userhost-in-names, multi-prefix, extended-join
> Mozilla: sasl, userhost-in-names, multi-prefix
> EsperNet: away-notify, sasl, account-notify, multi-prefix, extended-join, tls
> Also, support for extensions by server: http://ircv3.net/software/servers.html
> And by client: http://ircv3.net/software/clients.html
> Any more questions?
XMPP is radically different from IRC. And I don't know about you, but I don't see a lot those extensions in use on actually servers (freenode, efnet, quakenet, etc).
Note that there is a very popular game called League of Legends (played by millions) and the company behind it is called Riot. Some people might confuse your brand with their name.
What's more, they have a chat app. Lawyers are going to be all over this.
I guess it could always be renamed to chat riot? ;-)
Also http://riotjs.com
I know this is every Hacker News comment ever, but I genuinely don't have a good idea of what the app is like after using the site and watching the video. :/
Why no picture of the actual app on the front page or the product video
Did they search for "Riot chat" first? There's another software company named Riot that currently dominates results there despite chat being auxiliary in their products. Hopefully they can shift that in their favor.
It seems like an improvement over "Vector", which is essentially un-googleable, but seriously, this trend in giving projects single common english word names is really annoying.
That is still going to be an impossible cliff to climb, they could just be washed out of search results from topical events of actual riots. Hopefully there is a plan attached to this, but it is hard to say because Vector was no better a name to start with (also gets washed out by programming documentation and cutlery sellers).
Interesting to see that "end-to-end crypto" is becoming a frontpage feature for messaging apps.
#bottomlinks is missing a .container wrapper around .row, breaks layout on desktop.
thanks - on the case
I have to say, if I was ever launching a product, I'd never even put a link for my product here. Many people in this thread are acting like overgrown toddlers.
Also, why is that some poor girl or guy can't use HN to link to a product without ten million of these:
"This is neat, but have you heard of my best friends app that does this already!?? links to Github"
You must be new here. There are entire communities that exist to mock the selfimportance and pointless-achievement-obsession of HNers.
Yes, but for every comment poking fun at or linking to some lame repo, there are how many of us who just check it out? The visibility on HN is pretty good. If I had a product like this I'd shout it out here. Sure there are some comments to ignore, but the exposure is good and someone will have a good question, somewhere. I hope.
Chat Services Timeline (https://cdn.sameroom.io/chat-timeline.pdf) needs another update.
The audio in the product video seems to cut suddenly at the end.
yup will be fixed thanks
that... is a way less appropriate name. But it works, I guess.
How so less appropriate? Lack of link to Matrix?
Going out of beta we had to decide on something which was really carrying what the app is, we loved Vector but it has always been a code-name and a nice pun on Matrix :)
Riot is more representative of what the app can do and its ambitions! Break the barriers between apps, give the control back to the user to choose their client, if they want to encrypt, host themselves, tune the notifs, the fact it's open, built on the open ecosystem of Matrix and thus benefiting of all the integrations and bridges built for Matrix.... Sounds pretty revolutionary to me ;)
Worth noting that only the name changed: the app and the team and the openness are still the same (modulo new features)!
People probably associate the word with people rioting in the street which is a terrible link...
I don't get why you would rename Vector, feels like everyone recommending 'Vector' to friends and family has wasted their time.
Also, Riot feels like a way more generic name...
Yeah, I felt the matrix link made more sense. And yeah, I mean, Riot kind of works, but you have to think about it. The connection is pretty obvious with vector.
But at the end of the day, it's just a name, so I'm not too upset about it.
Great :)
Less of a link to Matrix, which many of the initial adopters probably would get.
it doesn't feel to me as a stronger brand later (both are fairly random words for many people if you don't look at an explanation)
violent connotation (CNN headline: "protesters organised using the encrypted Riot app").
potential confusion in tech-y circles with Riot the gaming company (which could totally be in the market to offer a messenger, given that they run one of the biggest online games), for Vector I didn't have any other project in mind.
In the end it's just a name and it won't make or break the app for me, but I personally don't see the benefit of the new one.
I am also surprised considering that most of the TLDs are already taken,
including http://riot.com/ - http://riot.io/ - http://riot.org/
...The namespace conflicts are another problem.
I dunno - there's something distinctly riotous about tearing down the walls of walled gardens! But then again, I'm biased, given i work on it :)
The gardens you're tearing down didn't have especially thick walls. But yes. In any case, it's your project. You can name it what you like, no matter what I think.
Is end to end encryption + E2E encrypted groupchats ready yet ? that's the only think I am interested in.
edit: ok it seems it's in BETA and only on the web app for now. Great guys, keep it going and thanks !
Riot games wouldn't be too happy about this
So not a new product from the makers of League of Legends, then
And not related to Riot.js
Or anything to do with the other "Riot" that was infamously exposed on HN recently, WrkRiot.
The web client looks almost exactly like IRC clients of old.
Link to the server repo? Only seeing clients on GH.
Riot is just a client running with a Matrix server. Synapse is the one we currently run https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/
Others are in development at http://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now.html#servers but they are all alpha at the moment.
Looks like this is a rebranding of the existing Vector app. Here's the blog post from the creators: https://medium.com/@RiotChat/lets-riot-f5b0aa99dc8e#.3toozs7...
Indeed, it is exactly that. The old title of this post reflect that. I don't know why it was changed.
It's important on HN that titles reflect only the content of the submission, and since the homepage doesn't reference Vector, the title can't. We've just updated the link to the blog post from the homepage, which informs us of the rebranding.
...That's a fairly ridiculous rule when it results in problems like this.
Have you considered revising it, or something?
Anyone else reminded of https://xkcd.com/927/ ?
I think xkcd should do one about people using this link systematically so we could respond to them with a xkcd.
On a related note, "Stop Being So Damn Meta About Everything" is the name of Randall Munroe's cover band cover band.
Riot, and Matrix in general, were designed to beat that: It's designed to inter-operate with existing chat protocols as much as possible, so that this isn't a problem, but also to provide things that those protocols can't.
Absolutely; as much as the Matrix people claim they're not doing that by "interoperating with other protocols" they don't seem to understand that it's exactly what they're doing. The existing standards (XMPP) already interop in exactly the same way (gateways/transports), so making another protocol instead of improving the gateway / transport story on an existing one is just silly.
Matrix is group-chat-first ("direct messages", or one-to-one messages, are actually just implemented as an unnamed group with two people in it), while XMPP's group chat support is in a rather unwieldy extension (as with a lot of XMPP's functionality).
Matrix also builds on existing standards with decent libraries available for things like voice/video chat, and is web- and mobile-first. There's integration of arbitrary client-defined "push services" built into the protocol, which Riot uses to push events from a Matrix server through Google and Apple's cloud device messaging services to save battery, all without the Matrix server having to know the details of how those push systems work. Also, I can do web-based single sign-on through my CAS server, and all the variations of Riot handle it perfectly.
Mmm... I wouldn't quite call it silly. The protocol does support better stuff than XMPP. We're talking about single view notifications across multiple clients and other goodies sometimes implemented by XMPP plugins. And quite frankly from what I've heard the plugins are a pain. I do think a fresh break is what's needed.
I don't disagree that XMPP has problems, like anything, but having multiple federated protocols defeats part of the purpose of federation. Also, as far as I can tell, Matrix just carried over most of the same problems because they don't have 20 years of fixing edge cases and making sure things are scalable and easy. I'm not sure why plugins would be a pain; I'm sure making recommendations could be done better, but otherwise they're no more difficult to implement than the same things in the Matrix core spec. A fresh break is most cretainly not what's needed; we just need people to volunteer their time and effort and help make things better, not make up new protocols to compete with the old ones and make the messaging ecosystem more fragmented than it already is.
sigh
The Matrix developers have responded to this, explaining how Matrix is different from XMPP, and why they chose to write their own protocol.
https://matrix.org/docs/guides/faq.html#what-is-the-differen...
I get the 'different philosophy' part, but I don't understand why their list of 'problems with XMPP' includes things like 'second-class citizen', since Matrix itself is a second-class citizen compared to XMPP.
They might as well list 'Can't talk via Skype' as a problem with XMPP, since it's just as true and Matrix is just as incapable of solving it.
As for 'requires plugins/extensions', if you think that's a problem then there's an easy fix: define a new protocol as "XMPP + the following extensions...". That requires some effort, e.g. to get servers and clients to support this new protocol, but unlike a "clean break" it wouldn't require much technical or social work.
I especially enjoyed the "no open source implementation exists" reasoning; no open source implementation of Matrix used to exist, but that didn't stop the developers ;)
Yes, but Matrix being second-class to XMPP isn't inherent. Things in XMPP being second-class or requiring extensions is.
sigh
As parent said, XMPP covers all of these cases with plugins. The FAQ you link says, over and over again, "the base setup doesn't cover these features, but plugins do," and doesn't explain away writing improved plugins or XMPP spec extensions. All I see is "buttt it'ss haaaaarrdddd".
> Rather than fighting over which open interoperable communication standard works the best, we should just collaborate and bridge everything together.
Absolutely dripping with irony.
The XEP which allows all clients that a user has open to actually receive messages has not even been accepted yet. Last Call was supposed to finish on 2015-08-28 - 11 years after the advent of XMPP - and the document hasn't been updated since. Many clients don't support it, including Pidgin, and at least the Prosody.IM server needs a "community module" to enable support for it.
XMPP is a pretty terrible user experience, tbh, and its developer experience isn't a whole lot better.
shrug
Matrix actually has a good point about the spec extensions though: if your spec is that minimal, nobody is going to be able to agree on what feature set to support. As a Schemer, I can attest to that.
>Absolutely dripping with irony.
As is your comment. Matrix made a different set of design tradeoffs, and is a legitimate protocol in its own right. And yet every time it pops up on HN, people complain about how we should all just use XMPP.
Screw that. XMPP isn't perfect, and there is room for a chat protocol that solves these problems in a different way.
> Matrix actually has a good point about the spec extensions though: if your spec is that minimal, nobody is going to be able to agree on what feature set to support.
If that were true, nobody would agree on which Matrix features to support either. What difference would it make if Matrix just-so-happened to be defined as "XMPP, plus the following extensions..."?
> As a Schemer, I can attest to that.
It's one thing to say "the Scheme spec is too minimal; I'm going to make Racket a hard dependency", it's quite another to say "the Scheme spec is too minimal; I'm going to invent my own Python derivative"
Actually, that's pretty much what Racket did: Racket isn't a superset of Scheme, any more than Clojure is a superset of Common Lisp.
>If that were true, nobody would agree on which Matrix features to support either. What difference would it make if Matrix just-so-happened to be defined as "XMPP, plus the following extensions..."?
because some of Matrix's design decisions are fundamentally different from those of XMPP. also, the reason why everybody agrees about Matrix features is that they have no choice: there's a far larger base standard than there is for XMPP.
What's the point of HTTP when you can transfer HTML files via FTP?
Leveraging http for file transfer - via, say, web apps - avoids "civilian" (non-techie) users from having to install yet another tool (like ftp client)...though I do agree that browsers shouldn't replace every other tool under the sun. ;-)
As someone who appreciates the design goals of both but is a user of neither Matrix nor XMPP for practical reasons (I don't know anyone who is), seeing users of both of these small networks sighing at each other leaves me nonplussed.
An end-to-end solution for interop between the two ought to be insanely high on the priority list. By this I mean it should be braindead obvious if I want to try one of them how to chat with a user of the other. Obviously this is bigger than just the protocol but so what, it's the problem that needs to be solved.
I can't even imagine how working together would not be top of everyone's mind in this space, since chat is all about network effects. The incentives to cooperate are huge.