[HN Gopher] Matrix v1.15
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Matrix v1.15
        
       Author : todsacerdoti
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2025-06-26 20:01 UTC (2 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (matrix.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (matrix.org)
        
       | fishgoesblub wrote:
       | Every new release or "This week in Matrix" post I check to see if
       | Discord style detailed permissions and voice channels get added
       | and every time I get disappointed. I fear it'll never be added at
       | this point due to the funding issues. I hyped it up to all of my
       | friends who stick to Discord that "One day" it'll compete with
       | Discord and we, and millions of others can all finally be happy.
       | I hope that day will come, but my hope is fading.
        
         | waymon wrote:
         | I'm running matrix with jitsi for voice. No one is gonna leave
         | discord for it though....not yet in my circles at least.
        
           | luqtas wrote:
           | if people actually cared about freedom/privacy, Discord
           | wouldn't be a thing, right?
           | 
           | and even harder to leave Discord now when a lot of users
           | invested in Nitro fancy emoticons and profile enchantments
        
             | spencerflem wrote:
             | Even without that, its just a much slicker and more useable
             | system.
             | 
             | I really want to love matrix but at least last time I tried
             | it, the app was very noticeably more clunky and
             | featureless.
        
             | 7bit wrote:
             | I care for privacy. But there has to be a compromise
             | between privacy and socializing otherwise we would all use
             | letters with encrypted text, no?
        
         | Arathorn wrote:
         | What would you say the delta is between Element's current
         | video-rooms and Discord-style voice-rooms (if you go and mute
         | video for everyone), ooi? The only reason Element hasn't
         | implemented precisely the same UI as Discord is because it's
         | not (currently) trying to be a Discord competitor, but more a
         | "run your own encrypted Teams alternative", given that's what
         | Element customers are asking for right now, and we're having to
         | follow the money to try to get sustainable. However, what we're
         | trying to do is to ensure that Discordish features still work,
         | despite having to focus more on Teamsish features.
         | 
         | In terms of permissions: I'm a bit surprised that folks feel
         | limited by Matrix's freeform hierarchy of permissions. Every
         | user can have a 'power level' from 0 to 100, and you can then
         | customise the threshold required for literally permission (e.g.
         | you need power level 54 or higher to kick users, or whatever).
         | The only difference with Discord is that Discord lets you pick
         | entirely arbitrary combinations of permissions (e.g. have one
         | user able to kick but not ban, but another user able to ban but
         | not kick, or whatever). How useful really is this in real life
         | usage though?
         | 
         | I'm trying to work out whether the problem is if Element's UI
         | for configuring permissions is too basic, or whether folks
         | really do need a full RBAC permission matrix, and if so, for
         | what use case?
        
           | have_faith wrote:
           | The power level model of permissions feels to me a bit overly
           | simplified. It's so easy to imagine scenarios where you need
           | exceptions to the rule of permissions existing on a single
           | axis that it seems very limiting from the outset.
           | 
           | The idea of ever increasing and overlapping scopes I don't
           | think maps well to most people's mental model of who should
           | be allowed to do what. People mostly want to define an
           | arbitrary role; admin, user, team leader, whatever, and just
           | pick what that role is allowed to do in isolation. It's
           | marginally more work to setup initially picking all of the
           | permissions again, but it removes all of the overhead of
           | having to monitor what permissions are being adopted from
           | lower scopes on the power level axis.
           | 
           | I also think the power level system makes it much harder to
           | "refactor" permissions for specific roles without affecting
           | permissions for everyone "above and below"
        
           | em-bee wrote:
           | the discord style permissions are simply easier to
           | understand. it's classic role based. you define the roles,
           | and assign the roles to users. matrix permissions forces a
           | hierarchy that is awkward and more difficult to apply because
           | i have to force permissions into a hierarchy. on discord i
           | don't have to think about the hierarchy.
        
           | cwillu wrote:
           | Real life usage is messy.
        
         | switknee wrote:
         | Smells like baby duck syndrome. You're used to what you're used
         | to, and you'll never get used to anything else if you don't
         | switch.
         | 
         | I do see what people are talking about in reference to the
         | voice channels though, even though I can't stand them.
        
           | paulryanrogers wrote:
           | Why don't we all speak Esperanto? Inertia.
           | 
           | I think hierarchical permission systems are awkward. Role
           | based is easy to understand and setup, even if more complex
           | technically.
        
             | jimbob45 wrote:
             | _Why don 't we all speak Esperanto? Inertia._
             | 
             | Well, also because Ido is the superior language. But also
             | inertia, yes.
        
       | jedahan wrote:
       | Can't wait until MAS is just part of synapse/dendrite, will be a
       | lot easier to install and maintain than the extra moving parts.
        
         | DoctorOW wrote:
         | I kinda like the extra moving parts, it makes it easier to
         | scale away from the slow Python parts.
        
       | sneak wrote:
       | None of these things are why I and everyone I know doesn't use
       | Matrix.
        
         | cpfiffer wrote:
         | Why exactly don't people use matrix that much? It strikes me as
         | a reasonably good open, secure comms protocol.
        
           | panki27 wrote:
           | Because it entails getting people away from
           | WhatsApp/Telegram/etc. - I speak from experience.
        
           | hashworks wrote:
           | The official client is clunky and being electron on the
           | desktop doesn't make it better. Messengers live and die on
           | UX. Since it's an open protocol alternative clients exist of
           | course, but are often not feature complete. Things are often
           | _slow_ , especially with large group channels with lots of
           | messages.
           | 
           | If you host a server yourself - it's great that you can! -
           | you'll try the official implementation, synapse -- ...and
           | discover that it's a resource hog. Things got a bit better
           | with some streaming sync protocol or something like that, but
           | last time I looked it up that was still experimental and the
           | server is still a chonker. Again, alternative servers exist,
           | again the problem with feature parity.
           | 
           | I feel like the protocol is bloated as well, but I didn't
           | dive into it too much to have a good opinion on that.
           | 
           | When choosing a messenger, I go to Signal for security, to
           | IRC for simplicity and to Telegram for UX. I never thought
           | "Oh let's use Matrix"...
        
       | lousken wrote:
       | custom emojis still didn't make the cut?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-06-26 23:00 UTC)