I has improved quite a bit. The phone app still requires navigating over its settings to get less battery consumption, and having ntfy or any other unifiedPush notification provider available in the phone. But with the default configs, you get Jami working at least. I tried it before, and I found before synchronization between devices was a mess. Currently it just works. I still find it hard on immediate/urgent calls or messages, which might not happen when you expect, but other than that it’s working.

On the desktop, the default configs are pretty sane.

And the best part, it’s being actively developed. And the UI is undergoing through lots of improvements. So if usability is your concern, it’s getting better, and each release improves over the prior one…

The audit is true, but at least Jami didn’t make up its own crypto lib, it uses standard already in use crypto stuff. To there’s a huge difference there.

BTW, they are actually re-writing stuff… But yes, they need more recent audits…

Have you read it’s github front page?

This is an experimental cryptographic network library. It has not been formally audited by an independent third party that specializes in cryptography or cryptanalysis. Use this library at your own risk.

BTW, if you look at its issues (including closed ones, which most probably aren’t really closed) you’ll find pretty interesting discussions about its crypto not being right. That said, I’m not sure what irungentoo brings to the picture…

At any rate, if you’re looking for distributed messaging, I’d look into Jami. It also uses DHT and something similar to torrents mechanism. Jami is my only option so far for distributed messaging. There’s also Briar, but I don’t like it for regular messaging, particularly on phones (too much battery usage), neither its underlying technology, but if it’s to your liking, then that’s another option for distributing messaging.

What I post from lemmy.ml wouldn’t be seen there if that were the case, but it’s seen there, so that doesn’t seem the case…

BTW. I’ve already joined… That said, I see the same posts missing. Of course that doesn’t apply to one I made myself from lemmy.ml. There’s also a bot one from 9 days ago, but the rest are at least 1 month old…

pending for subscription, we’ll see, and while pending, still not syncing properly…

I’m all for Jami, and XMPP.

Jami is the GNU alternative, if you’re wondering

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/status-windows-11-23h2 https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/microsoft-says-april-windows-updates-break-vpn-connections

Perhaps click bait, but based on MS’ own list of issues with April’s upgrade patchset.

Also FYI: https://lemmy.ml/c/[email protected]

yes

deleted by creator

XMPP, 🙂

The phone doesn’t poll, instead it goes to sleep, and gets awakened by the push notifications. Just like GCM/FCM ones. Part of the key thing, because not any one can self host, is that it requires very little information in comparison, and some providers are open source and even free SW. The one I use is ntfy, there’s the next cloud (next push), and not long ago you can use the conversation push service (up.conversation.im) through the Convesations xmpp client. I was aware of Conversations capable of becoming a unified push distributor, but actually was looking for it to use a unified push distributor instead.

But I was informed already it’s not necessary, and doesn’t make much sense, by being very low power consumer, even though it requires to keep unrestricted battery consumption on the background. So no issues by Conversations not supporting using a unified push notifications distributor.

ohh, I see, is there a setting, besides unrestricted battery use, one can should set as well then? I remember another about background use, but can’t seem to find it…

This is the first post that clarifies why there’s no need for unified push notifications, but still conversations supports GCM/FCM push notifications. I seem though for those phones unified push notifications would help, the same way GCM/FCM does? At any rate, for battery purposes I got it’s not required.

Many thanks !

It depends on the distributor:

https://unifiedpush.org/users/distributors

And how much info they collect. I understand the ntfy requires is really bare minimum compared to what GCM/FCM asks and collects.

On mobile, it’s sort of a needed if you one doesn’t wand to use GCM/FCM which is really bad privacy wise, and particularly needed on peer to peer applications, because they tend to drain the battery…

Some other benefit is that for those who can, they can self-host ntfy, nextcloud with unified push provider, and so on…

On the list of apps supporting unifid push, I even see element (matrix), but I don’t identify any xmpp one:

https://unifiedpush.org/users/apps

Yeap, I noticed it being a unified push distributor, actually in its settings on can find the option to enable it.

OK, I won’t worry about battery usage then. But the argument about unified push notifications not being useful, but the GCM/FCM actually found useful is somehow hard to understand. But I understand what you’re saying about battery usage. Thanks a lot !

Ohh, thanks, I’ll try asking there…

BTW, before molly supported unified push notifications, it was also using websocket and that still required to enable unrestricted use of battery, as currently conversations does. Once I the unified push molly version showed up, such unrestricted use of battery was no longer needed. Websocket definitely is much better than GCM/FCM, but it implies, I believe more battery consumption, though perhaps not unbearable.

Jami was also using websockets and required to allow consuming battery on the background as well, and then moving to unified push no longer required that, but in the case of Jami, by being peer to peer, the effect is more noticeable.

All that to say, that other apps have moved to unified push notifications for better battery savings, even though they used websockets before, and curiously enough conversations does take advantage of GCM/FCM push notifications, so is not clear to me why disregarding unified push ones, but it’s always up to the developers/maintainers, and what they need/want to invest on… So that’s why I mentioned I don’t quite get what was mentioned on the github issue, though it was clear to me there’s no intention to provide the support.

Yeap, thanks a lot !

Thanks !