Which communication protocol or open standard in software do you wish was more common or used more?
Whether you're really passionate about RPC, MQTT, Matrix or wayland, tell us more about the protocols or open standards you have strong opinions on!
246
Comments321
RSS. It's still around but slowly dying out. I feel like it only gets added to new websites because the programmers like it.
Theres quite a few sites that still use it and existing ones in the Fediverse have it built in (which is really cool). But your right, the general public have no concept of having something download and queue up on a service rather than just going to the site. And the RSS clients are all over the place with quality...
90% of the bullshit mass emails at my work could be an RSS feed.
"THIS WHOLE MEETING COULD HAVE BEEN AN RSS FEED!"
WebSub (formerly PubSubHubbub). Should have been a proper replacement for RSS with push support instead of polling. Too bad the docs were awful and adopting it as an end user was so difficult that it never caught on.
I still want something push based (without paying for those rss as a service)
Oh neat! I didn't know this existed. By any chance, do you know of any RSS readers that have implemented it?
Literally nothing uses rssCloud. WebSub is what you want.
I wouldn't say that it never caught on. I run a feed reader and ~6% of feeds have WebSub. Most of these are probably wordpress.com blogs which include it by default.
YouTube also sort of supports it, but they don't really follow the standard so I don't think it counts.
But the nice thing about WebSub is that it is sort of an invisible upgrade to the existing feed (or any other HTTP URI) so it just works when blogs enable it.
Most major feed reader services support it. One problem is that you need a stable URL to receive the notifications. So it is hard to make work with client-side readers. But I don't think there is really a way around this other than holding a connection open to every feed you follow. So I would say that it does its job well. I don't really see a need to get to 100% adoption or whatever. If you have a simple static-site blog that updates every month or so I don't think it is a big deal that it doesn't support WebSub.
IPv6. Lack of IPv4 addresses it's a problem, specially in poorer countries. But still lots of servers and ISPs don't support it natively. And what is worse. Lots of sysadmins don't want to learn it.
Am sysadmin, can confirm I don't wanna learn it.
Also a sysasmin, really don't wanna learn it...or have to type it on the daily
not a sysadmin, but i admin a system or two, have yet to learn it myself, but will eventually learn it.
My university recently had Internet problems, where the DHCP only leased Out ipv6 addresses. For two days, we could all see which sites implemented ipv6 and which didn't.
Many big corpo sites like GitHub or discord Apperently don't. Small stuff like my personal website or https://suikagame.com do.
github is so stupid with that, it's actually funny
That's a fun little game there!
Lots of really large sites are horribly misconfigured. I had intermittent issues because one of the edge hosts in Netflix ‘s round robin dns did not do MTU discovery properly.
IPv6 is great, but NAT is quite functional and is prolonging the demise of IPv4.
My isp decided to put me behind a CGNAT and broke my access to my network from outside my network. Wanted to charge me $5 a month to get around it. It's not easy to get around for a layman, but possible. More than anything it just pissed me off that I'd have to pay for something that 1 day ago was free.
How can you bypass CGNAT?
Set up a reverse proxy on another machine (like one of those free oracle cloud things). I can't go into detail because I don't know exactly how. I think cloudflare also has options for that for free. Either way it's annoying.
Cloudflare tunnel, and its alternatives, such as localXpose, altho the privacy is probably questionable, and a many of them require a domain.
NAT is functional as long as you like NAT, which im pretty sure nobody likes, so uh.
Plenty of people like NAT.
the only people that like nat are network admins, and ISPs.
Everyone else hates them. The rest don't care, but they wouldn't know a NAT if it hit them in the face.
You can have that with ipv6, too.
NAT is not for security, that's what the firewall is for. Nobody can access your IPv6 network unless you allow access through the firewall.
Found the guy that does not want to learn IPv6!
You're thinking of a firewall. NAT is just the thing that makes a connection appear to come from an IP on the internet when it's really coming from your router, and it's not needed with IPv6. But you would not see any difference with IPv6 without it.
That connection only "appears to come from" if I explicitly put a rule in my NAT table directing it to my computer behind the router doing the NAT-ing.
Otherwise all connections through NAT are started from internal->external network requests and the state table in NAT keeps track of which internal IP is talking to which external IP and directs traffic as necessary.
So OP is correct, it does apply a measure of security. Port scanning someone behind NAT isn't possible, you just end up port scanning their crappy NAT router provided by their ISP unless they have specifically opened up some ports and directed them to their internal IP address.
Compare this to IPV6 where you get a slice of the public address space to place your devices in and they are all directly addressable. In that case your crappy ISP router also is a "proper" firewall. Strangely enough it usually is a "stateful" firewall with default deny-all rules that tracks network connections and looks and performs almost exactly like the NAT version, just without address translation.
You end up just port scanning their crappy router on IPv6 as well because ports that are not opened are stuck at the firewall either way, no matter if you use IPv4 or IPv6.
Just because every device gets a public IP does not mean that IP is publicly accessible.
An advantage that IPv6 has against port scanning is the absurdly large network sizes. For example, my ISP gives me a /56 prefix, that is 4,722,366,482,869,645,213,696 IPv6 addresses. Good luck finding the used ones with the port open you need.
Even with just a /64 prefix you get 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses, way outside the feasibility of port scanning.
realistically, it wouldnt surprise me if ISPs started NATing on residential IPV6 networks, just for the simplicity, but still allowed end users to assign their own IPs if they so pleased. Given the surge in shitty IOT devices, that's probably a good thing for most people. Though a firewall would also accomplish this as well.
No. Stop spreading that myth. NAT does fuck all for security. If you want a border gateway, you can just have a border gateway.
you know what is more secure? Not being connected to the internet.
Say this to my very large Canadian ISP who still doesn’t support IPv6 for residential customers. Last I checked, adoption in Canada was still under 50%.
50%?? I fucking wish. In Spain we are at 5%. I finally got IPv6 in my phone this year, but I want it in my home, which is still only available as IPv4 even if they're the same ISP.
Markdown. Its only in tech-spaces that its preferred, but it should be used everywhere. You can even write full books and academic papers in markdown (maybe with only a few extensions like latex / mathjax).
Instead, in a lot of fields, people are passing around variants of microsoft word documents with weird formatting and no standardization around headings, quotes, and comments.
Markdown is terrible as a standard because every parser works differently and when you try to standardize it (CommonMark, etc.), you find out that there are a bajillion edge cases, leading to an extremely bloated specification.
Agreed in principle, but in practice, I find it's rarely a problem.
While editing, we pick an export tool for all editors and stick to it.
Once the document is stable, we export it to HTML or PDF and it'll be stable forever.
Most ppl have settled on Commonmark luckily, including us.
Commonmark leaves some stuff like tables unspecified. That creates the need for another layer like GFM or mistletoe. Standardization is not a strong point for markdown.
I believe commonmark tries to specify a minimum baseline spec, and doesn't try to to expand beyond that. It can be frustrating bc we'd like to see tables, superscripts, spoilers, and other things standardized, but I can see why they'd want to keep things minimal.
Asciidoc is a good example of why everything should be standardized. While markdown has multiple implementations, any document is tied to just one implementation. Asciidoc has just one implementation. But when the standard is ready, you should be able to switch implementations seamlessly.
Have you read the CommonMark specification? It’s very complex for a language that’s supposed to be lightweight.
What's the alternative? We either have everything specified well, or we'll have a million slightly incompatible implementations. I'll take the big specification. At least it's not HTML5.
An alternative would be a language with a simpler syntax. Something like XML, but less verbose.
And then we'll be back to a hundred slightly incompatible versions. You need detailed specifications to avoid that. Why not stick to markdown?
Not if the language is standardized from the start.
Man, I've written three novels plus assorted shorter form stories in markdown.
There's a learning curve, but once you get going, it's so fluid. The problem is that when it comes time to format for release, you have to convert to something else, and not every word processor can handle markdown. It's extra work, but worth it, imo.
Just set up pandoc and Bob's your uncle. It'll convert markdown to anything. You'll never have to open another word processor.
Nice! Thanks for the tip!
Edit: holy shit, how have I never run across that before? That's a brilliant program right there.
Pandoc + [your markdown editor of choice] is magic. Some editors even come with Pandoc as a dependency so you can export to more or less anything from the GUI. I think GhostWriter and Zettlr at least (I honestly can't be sure, I've changed editors so often and now I just have some Pandoc conversion scripts in my file manager menu).
For sure, I bet full fledged editors like word don't even let you import it.
Not correctly, no. Librewriter does a bit better, but still misses some bits
Silly question why can’t you convert markdown to PDF and pass that to publishers?
Because it isn't doc is docx.
Publishers are pissy about such things. Even self publishing (which is what I do now), the various outlets still have limits to what they will use. Amazon accepts something like three file formats, including their own, and pdf isn't on the list.
I could just do pdf for directly giving them away to people, but even then, epub is usually a better pick in terms of readability since that's the standard for actual books since ereaders tend to display it better than pdfs. Most people reading books via files would be using something that can give a better experience with epub vs pdf.
I think Obsidian and Logseq are helping to change this.
Markdown is awesome, I agree! I did not realize you could extend markdown with anything other than html. The html extension is quite nice to do anything that markdown doesn't support natively, but I wish there was an easier way to extend markdown. Maybe the ones you listed are what I need.
Hedgedoc / hackmd support a good amount of extensions out of the box. I think typora and obsidias do also (but not open source).
I frigging love markdown for everything!
My main wishlist for markdown, is a better live collaborative markdown editor. Hedgedoc works, but it's showing it's age, and they don't seem to be getting close to releasing v2.
Etherpad also has a markdown extension, but it doesn't import / export that well.
Depends on the type of book. Since you need HTML for all non default styles. Therefore, it raises the bar... you need a bit of web dev knowledge which removes the biggest benefit of markdown: simplicity / ease of use.
I agree 💯
It is too basic. I guess something more full-fledged like... typst?
Typst is a typesetting format - an alternative to LaTeX. Asciidoc is more of a competitor to markdown.
Learning that currently.
The problem with Markdown is lack of quality software support. You don't want to write a book in a text field on GitHub, Lemmy or Reddit. You want to write your book in MS Word or LibreOffice. Existing MD software is, to put it gently, an amazing pile of utter shit. If you're not a software developer with an MD extension in VS Code, then you won't use MD for anything.
Obsidian? Also havent used it but logseq
These might work for some, but they're not exactly an MS Word, aren't they?
Just as powerful and far less buttons imo. I can write a markdown doc in much less time than a word doc.
What does word offer that isn't easier with markdown?
It offers a familiar interface for people who have used it for many years.
Yup, that seems to be about all it's got going for it
Unified Push.
Unbelievable that we have to rely on Google and co for sth as essential as push messages! Even among the open source community, the adoption is surprisingly limited.
Nobody knows about unifiedpush. Last time I checked, their Linux dbus distributor also wasn't ready. There has to be a unified push to get it adopted.
Fuck Unified Push. Just use the Web Push standard. https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8030
It is what is used for browser push messages, is already widely supported. Is compatible with existing push infrastructure and users and is end-to-end encrypted. IDK why Unified Push felt the need to create a new protocol when a perfectly good one already existed.
Although there is no "client side" spec. The Unified Push client side could be useful. But they should throw away their custom backend protocol and just use Web Push.
IPv6
I mean, why the hell is IPv4 still a thing??
Because SecOps still thinks NAT is security, and NetOps is decidedly against carrying around that stupid tradition.
You can even Nat still if you want too lol
That said have you looked at securing ipv6 networks?It can be a lot of new paridgms that need to be secured.
bruh you could just use dyndns on ipv6 and call it a day, even more secure than ipv4 with NAT. lmao.
Because ipv6 is yucky
Yeah I'm anti IPv6 so I'm not going to ever use it personally. Ipv4 is enough for me
It may be enough for you, but not for everybody.
go ahead and use that on your home network, but if you work in IT and deploy it on public networks i'm going to kick you in the nuts
I hear you on this! Took me a whole day to get my router to delegate IPv6 properly. I'm sure that had it been better adopted, I wouldn't be having such a hard time.
Try to remember a handful of them
In the world of computers, why would remembering numbers be the stop for new technologies?
Do you remember anyone's public key? Certificate?
I don't even remember domain (most) names, just Google them or save them as bookmarks or something.
The reason IPv4 still exists is because ISPs benefit from its scarcity. Big ISPs already paid a lot of money to own IPv4 addresses, if they switched to IPv6 that investnywould be worthless.
Try selling static IPv6 addresses as they do now with IPv4. People would laugh at them and just get a free IPv6 address from an ISP that wants to get new users and doesn't charge for it.
The longer ISPs delay the adoption of IPv6, the longer they can milk IPv4 scarcity.
I don't even remember my old ICQ UIN. People usually do that.
So yes, bring in IPv6.
Which ISPs offer IPv6 for free?
Asking for a friend.
IPv6 addresses are practically endless, therefore their value is practically 0. ISPs justify charging extra for static IPv4 because IPv4 addresses do have a value.
If ISPs charge for static IPv6, then one of them could just give that service for free (while keeping the rest of the prices the same as their competitors). That would get them more customers while costing them nothing.
EDIT: I can't give you an example of an ISP that offers free static IPv6 because there are no ISPs in my country that offer IPv6.
Should be every single one that supports IPv6.
For that matter, you should be getting an entire /60 at a minimum. Probably more like /56.
On the Internet, no. On my home LAN? Absolutely. I disabled all IPv6 at home.
damn if only we had a service that like, obfuscated and abstracted these hard to remember IPs that aren't very user friendly, and turned them into something more usable. That would be cool i think. Someone should make that.
Some kind of name system surely.
perhaps one that were to operate on like, a domain level, maybe.
gah, i'm just not too sure there's a good term for this though.
For what?
Shortening rules actually make IPv6 addresses easier to remember than IPv4. Just don't use auto configuration.
::1
That's just one loopback address.
I could list 2^24 IPv4 loopback addresses.
I really hope matrix gets native VoIP. I saw like 2 years ago it was in beta, haven't kept up with it though. I'd also really like voice channels like discord so my friends and I can replace discord but it seems like matrix isn't interested in being a discord replacement
Matrix can be configured to have VoIP. I have it set up on my server. Haven't tried it in group voice chat setting yet though. Only 1 on 1
Matrix I have doubts about. The idea of Tox was nicer, but the implementation quality and the scandal at some point didn't help.
Tox felt more playable, like piping files over it or a remote shell over it (I know, bad associations, but still), or even using it for VPN. I think there were clients allowing to do such stuff, and the protocol allows it.
EDIT: I mean, it's still alive, just don't see it claiming the place of FOSS old Skype replacement as it did.
GNUNet - all you people mentioning it have peers? I tried to set it up a few weeks ago, couldn't get peers.
Yggdrasil - feels cool.
I2P - not intended for that, I think.
to be clear, I2P is not really intended for anything, it's used for everything. It supports all kinds of things, and there are people doing all kinds of things on it. Though i could see potential technological limitations being a problem.
About Tox, I am not a fan of mixing up universal delivering of packets and applications. Piping files or using as VPS feels like something that would be better done with proper full network and not be mixed with chat.
I, on the contrary, think it's cool for things to be universal, layered and reusable for different tasks.
Do Not Track
Such a simple solution for the cookie banner issue. But it prevented websites from tricking users into allowing them to gather their data, so it had to go.
Nobody was going to honor that. That's just giving them an extra bit of data to track you with.
It could be forced by law
Globally?
Those cookie banners were introduced because of an EU law and are seen all over the world
Most of those cookie banners are not even needed, you only need them for tracking cookie, not login and session cookies. But of course everyone decided it is just easier to nag all the users with a big splash screen.
A lot of them are not even doing it right, you are not allowed to hint the user that accept all is the "correct" choice by having it in a different color than the others. And being able to say no to all shouls be as easy as accepting all, often it isn't.
Basically, cookie banners are usually not needed and when they are they are most often incorrectlt designed (not by accident).
Nope, the thing is, you'll very rarely find a website that only uses technically necessary session/login cookies. The reason every fucking website, yes, even the one from the barber shop around the corner, has a humongous cookie banner is that every fucking website helps google and other corporations to track users across the whole internet for no reason.
Yes, seen by people visiting EU websites or companies with an EU presence. And because whether or not they assign a cookie is easily verifiable by the person on the other end.
odf/odt/ods
.md
SimpleX
Matrix
OpenPGP
Last, certainly not least... ActivityPub
Markdown really should have more widespread support than it does. It's just the right mix between plain text and an office document, I took my college notes with it in fact cause of how fast it was to format stuff. But as far as I know, there's no default program on any of the (major) OS's or Distros for viewing it.
Maybe it's just due to a lack of standards for formatting or something, but regardless I do wish it was used and supported more.
markdown is standardized? I haven't found two parsers that parse the same file the same for any but the most trivial documents
That's what I mean by a lack of a standard for markdown. There needs to be at least a core standards for stuff (like bolding and italics), that is universal across stuff. Then if a program wants to add onto it, that's fine. But just the core parts being standardized would help a lot.
There are some pseudo-standards for it. Github-flavoured markdown is probably the biggest of them. Then you get things like Obsidian-flavoured markdown that is based off of Github’s.
Heads up for anyone (like me) who isn't already familiar with SimpleX, unfortunately its name makes it impossible to search for unless you already know what it is. I was only able to track it down after a couple frustrating minutes after I added "linux" into the search on a lark.
Anyway it's a chat protocol
I am so confused on how simpleX works
going based on preliminary understanding of this shit, it looks like it does all of the user handling on the client side explicitly, server side probably doesn't do anything of the significant sort.
Or at least to a degree that provides reasonable assurance that X person is different from Y person based on the messaging alone. Though your typing style is going to significantly influence it regardless of that.
probably not accurate, just what i gleaned in about 3 minutes.
RSS (RDF Site Summary or Really Simple Syndication) It is in use a fair amount, but it is usually buried. Many people don't know it exists and because of that I am afraid it will one day go away.
I find it a great simple way to stay up to date across multiple web sites the way I want to (on my terms, not theirs) By the way, it works on Lemmy to :)
Honestly there is rarely a blog I want to follow that doesn't have it. I do think it would be great to have more readers using it so that it becomes more significant, but for my reading it is actually pretty great.
XMPP
Call me old fashioned, but I still call it Jabber.
🙂
It really is a better name.
I came here to say matrix but I'm not gonna lie. If XMPP had gotten the traction it deserved we wouldn't need matrix.
Why not matrix?
You're going off-topic from the OP question :-) But to answer your new question : I do not trust Matrix enough when it comes to privacy. I know that this link is old but still. https://disroot.org/en/blog/matrix-closure
Then again I do not trust Signal that much either but sometimes compromises need to be made to get things done. With XMPP the end user can host their own server if they wish to, without meta data going to a centralized point. And video calls via XMPP and Conversations were a pleasure to use when I used it during the Covid-19 pandemic.
IOT devices shouldn't connect to wifi. ZWave or zigbee is much better suited to IOT stuff, but it seems to mostly get adopted in very limited, locked down proprietary shit like Hue Lights.
Isn't Matter supposed to solve this issue?
There's only one case I've found where Wi-Fi use seems acceptable in IoT: ESPHome. It's open-source firmware for microcontrollers that makes DIY IoT sensors and controls accessible over LAN without phoning home to whatever remote server, without trying to make anything accessible over the Internet, and without breaking in any way if the device has no route to the Internet.
I still wouldn't call Wi-Fi use ideal even there; mesh can help in larger homes and Z-Wave/Zigbee radios tend to be more power efficient, though ESP32 isn't exactly suited for a battery-powered device that's expected to run 24/7 regardless.
Yes but at least Hue (and IKEA and LIDL and many other brands') lights work well with open Zigbee coordinators, like deconz and ZHA in Home Assistant.
I wish there were more Zigbee and Zwave and less WiFi IoT devices too. I don't even have a Zwave coordinator because I never found anything I wanted with Zwave support.
That's the problem Matter and Thread are supposed to solve.
I actually don't like ZigBee, it's very unstable. It's pretty much a shitty UDP implementation.
LaTeX. As someone in academia, I absolutely love it. It has some issues like package incompatibility, but it's far far better than anything else I've used. It's basically ubiquitous in academia, and I wish it were the case everywhere else as well.
What about Typst?
Beta software marketing with "free accounts" and an open core compiler for a (probably) future paid web service tells me all I need to know.
Even though LaTeX has issues, not being an online service is not one of them.
They host a proprietary service that does all the stuff, the compiler and spec are completely FOSS. So you need to create your own implementations, which is not hard.
I dont think they will close source the compiler. And thats basically everything thats needed?
I have 0 problems with people creating a fancy proprietary implementation to get people hooked. I will never use an online editor, but why care?
Learning LaTeX and working around its quirks seems like a much better time investment than sidegrading to something that lives on premises given by a proprietary commercial project. If someone saw LaTeX and said "I want to make some version of this that is better", without alterior motives, they would probably just work on improving LaTeX (which a whole lot of people do).
Fancy does not mean better, and often is in many ways worse than plain old boring.
You know Overleaf is a thing right?
Many projects need to be rewritten from scratch I think. But I also think an easier markup language for LaTeX could be possible, keeping all the nice templates etc.
From the LaTeX project:
I think this decision was pretty much a good one.
Overleaf does not modernize LaTeX in meaningful ways. It only adds cloud functionality and glossy appearance that you can get on dedicated editors anyways.
No, but Overleaf is just a proprietary fancy editor like the Typst one. Meanwhile typst is just as usable for building editor too.
I dont see any arguments against typst really. I am using Markdown all time and find it best, but lacking. Then LaTeX, honestly I dont want to learn as it must be a pain to write.
Now in typst, you can write academic papers etc just as well. All you need is free software, with good backing, modern tooling (rust, cargo), thus it runs everywhere. Its pretty cool!
or you could also just make an open source wrapper for latex and call it a day.
Nothing needs to be closed source to get people to use it.
And it isnt :D the compiler produces PDFs which can be read with anything. The spec is open so you can write the code with any editor.
Just needs integration, will see if I can add the syntax highlighting to Kate
i suppose that's the case, but if you ever partially open source something, i think you're probably trying a little too hard.
It's not a standard but still its an interesting software so I'll post this here:
I honestly just use it for my resume with a template I found, so my knowledge is extremely basic, but I really do love the concept that I can “compile” and actually see the source of my document’s formatting.
It really needs to significantly improve its live update capability. Typst is more capable in that regard.
For me it's more pleasant than editing formulae in LO, but still took a lot of time.
Is it practical outside of academia? I heard the learning curve is kinda big
I wrote my masters in LaTeX and while I appreciate the structuredness and the fact I could use vim, it was so quirky. Having to spend half an hour to fix a non obvious compile error, more than once, was a big distractor. I'm sure it gets better when you use it more but I don't think I have ever used it since. I'm not in academia and I don't need to solve compile problems when creating an invoice or writing a letter to local government.
You mean STEM. In the humanities we do just fine without, tyvm.
IDK dude. My sister is doing master's in Philosophy. She uses LaTeX, and so do most others in her batch.
ok well to be fair philosophers will also fuck shit up just to make a point. So i'm not sure how fair that is.
I personally feel like it should be a standard extended markdown that allows latex code.
Matrix... it's on such a good path I can't complain. Adoption could be faster but it's alright.
I2p, although I have no idea if the lack of adoption has not a very good reason.
I second Matrix, though I've been waiting for e2ee direct p2p (the Dendrite project) do be worked on for a while. Having something like that, that's truly decentralized while secure and hiding metadata where possible, would be a dream.
Apparently dendrite is just on maintenance due to insufficient funds. It was what i set up on a test instance because it is lighter, etc. Go figure.
Conduit might be an option. It's still under development. It's also lightweight due to Rust (instead of Python as in Synapse).
Yeah I've been following that. It seemed at the time the project didn't implement nearly all the specs as dendrite which was still lagging synapse.
Might take another look though. I really did want to use it since it was written in rust. Seemed it should probably be more performant, everything else being equal.
I love i2p. I wish it had more adoption / was easier to use.
I wish Microsoft Office would use the .odf standard by default. Or, failing that, it'd implement its own published .docx specification correctly, so other office suites can be compatible.
That'd be nice of course. Personally, I just wish everything Microsoft would wither and go away.
The entire purpose of Microsoft standardizing OOXML and implementing it wrongly in Office was to make other office suites irrelevant. ODF was already standardized and countries would have adopted it if MS didn't do the same with OOXML. They stuffed the ISO with members supporting them to do it.
And now that OOXML is a viable standard, they implement it wrongly so that other office suites can't be compatible with MS Office without a lot of extra effort. Any incompatibilities with MS Office will be considered as the fault of other office suites by the general public and government officials.
Expecting MS to do what's right for the customers is putting too much faith in their nonexistent sense of ethics.
At this point Microsoft could use the .odf standard and people won't notice that and they will be using MSOffice anyways.
Only a fraction of us would use LO or OO or anything compatible.
You do understand that all that is by design from Microsoft to ensure it's incompatible so that they can f over the competition, right?
QUIC
I was actually surprised to find out QUIC is fairly close to being default.
Wikipedia
Which Wikipedia page?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP%2F3?wprov=sfla1
Since they meet at least one of,
if not all of the following:
Remember SOAP? Remember XML-RPC? Remember CORBA?
Those were not very good.
I had to do some soap integration last year and it feels like it only got worse with age.
I've worked with all of them and hate all with a passion. SOAP wasn't bad in theory but lots of APIs and clients didn't implement it properly.
I2P. Current protocols should go through it
Anonymous lemmy, anonymous torrents, anonymous IPFS, anonymous eMule, anonymous streaming, anonymous source forges, anonymous chats, anonymous everything...
Imagine unbridled, anonymous, mainstream piracy, software development, sitehosting, communication, social media.
Anti Commercial-AI license
i2p is pretty cool. One of the more interesting projects out there. Like tor, though i'm preferential to the weird ones.
there is also GNUNET which seems to be in perpetual development, perhaps one day that will see something interesting happen.
XMPP.
Came here to say this. Chart could have been as general as email.
Now that we have Matrix? I would have agreed with you in 2010.
Matrix tries to kill XMPP but the reality is that if you want to self-host, XMPP is much less of a hassle. Also, Matrix is an open standard as in "pay big money to participate in the openness". https://matrix.org/blog/2022/12/01/funding-matrix-via-the-matrix-org-foundation/
and nearly every client has something that's half baked, and it's funded by a shady UK nonprofit with links to israeli intelligence, and...
Matrix is daaaaamn slow. And not private.
Now when we have Matrix, we also need to deal with rescuing people from a NIH protocol designed around a property nobody needs.
peer to peer, i would be happier thitking that every time i open somo application, i'm helping it, like i2p
🤨
Ever heard of IPFS? I really hope that will take off some time.
Unfortunately the reality of IPFS is that despite its huge funding it was poorly designed from the start and still to this day has much slower loading times then my I2pd instance (despite i2p transmiting messages through multiple encrypted proxies), to the point where the company working on the rust implementation determined it was so bad they had to scrap the whole thing to make something that actually worked. Not to mention that I managed to have my server taken over by some kind of malware by downloading a particular piece of content.
Thanks, that was an interesting read! I always felt IPFS wasn't ready yet, but the value it tries to provide of being a file system, I've found no real alternative to. Very good to read that iroh is willing to look beyond the IPFS spec to provide its values with better performance. I hope it works out.
Others have said already, but XMPP and RSS. Also, nobody mentioned NNTP yet.
I wish everything was accessible by NNTP and we had better NNTP clients. NNTP is like RSS but for forums (so, Lemmy, Reddit, or anything where you could reply to posts). Download for offline reading, read in your client, define your own formatting, sorting, filtering, your client, your rules.
If Lemmy was accessible via NNTP, I could just download all posts and comments I'm interested in and reply to them without any connection, and my replies would get synced with the server later when I connect to WiFi or something.
Probably it would be better to edit my comment, but I'll go with a reply to myself.
To all fans of RSS: there's this service called FeedBase that is essentially a RSS to NNTP gate. You add your RSS feed to that and it becomes a newsgroup on their server, and you can subscribe to it using any NNTP client. New articles appear as new posts in that newsgroup and you can post your own replies to them. So, you get RSS but with discussions or comments.
https://feedbase.org/
If you try this, let me know what RSS feeds you're reading, so we could read the articles together and have some discussion there!
P.S. This comment is not an ad. I genuinely love feedbase and use that myself.
Content addressable protocols are better for asynchronous use. I'd like to see a proper bluesky atprotocol fork with "post lexicons" properly adapted for forums, they're built on top of content addressing and public key based account IDs along with 3rd party moderation tooling support integrated and custom 3rd party feeds/views.
RFC 2549 is such an important improvement over RFC 1149. Everyone should adopt the updated standard.
Persistent object ooze prevention? Yes, that’s a solved problem.
Can you please explain what this is?
They are humorous IETF standards published on 1 April over the years. These are specifically about implementing internet protocols using carrier pigeons instead of more traditional media like wires or optical fiber.
Look at the date of the linked RFC documents...
We should definitely be switching to the specification in RFC 6214. IPoACv6 is the latest standard.
You are absolutely correct. If your network supports IPv6, 6214 is definitely a requirement
I wish people used email for chat more. SMTP is actually a pretty great protocol for real time communication. People think of it as this old slow protocol, but that’s mostly because the big email providers make it slow. Gmail, by default, waits ten seconds before it even tries to send your message to the recipient’s server. And even then, most of them do a ridiculous amount of processing on your messages that it usually takes several seconds from the time it receives a message to the time it shows up in your account.
There’s a project called Delta Chat that makes email look and act like a chat app. If you have a competent email service, I think it’s better than texting. It doesn’t stomp on the images you send like SMS and Facebook do, everyone has it unlike all the proprietary services, and you can run your own server for it that interacts with everyone else’s servers.
Unfortunately, Google, Microsoft, etc all block you if you try to run your own server “to protect against spam”. Really, I’m convinced that’s just anticompetitive behavior. The fewer players are allowed to enter the email market, the less competition Gmail and Outlook will have.
As much as I like ProtonMail too, unfortunately their encryption models prevents it from working with Delta Chat. I’d love to see Proton make a compatible chat app that works with their service.
I made an email service called Port87 that I’m working on making compatible with Delta chat too. I’d love to see people using email the way it was originally meant to be used, to talk to each other, without being controlled by big businesses.
The delay is there because email has no deletion support.
And a host of other shortcomings.
I'd rather we replaced email with matrix
If you’re relying on the remote server to delete something, you can’t trust it no matter what protocol you’re using.
For a regular email, the chance to undo might be fine, but for real time communication, it’s just an unnecessary road block.
Maybe if it was optional per recipient, or per conversation, or better yet, depending on the presence of a header, it might be fine. Gmail only supports all-on or all-off.
I mean yeah I wouldn't bet my life on it, but for the 99% of regular communication it's fine. That's no reason to not have it in the protocol and muck around with 10 second delays instead.
Oh, another awesome thing about email is that you can ensure that your address is always yours, even if you use an email service provider like Gmail. Any provider that supports custom domains will allow you to use your own domain for your address, then if you want to change your provider, you keep your address. So, since I own hperrin.com, I can use the address [email protected], and I know it’ll always be mine as long as I pay for that domain.
This is a much better model than anything else. Even on the fediverse, you can’t have your own address unless you run your own instance.
If your email service provider goes out of business or gets sold off (skiff.com, anyone?), as long as you’re on your own custom domain, your address is still yours.
I’m working on custom domains for Port87. It’s definitely a feature I think every email provider should offer.
Yes, I shifted to my own domain after my default ISP of 20 years decided that email was just too hard, you know? They didn't outright say it, they just started batch processing emails so that I'd get all my daily emails at around 2 am the next day. Super handy for time limited password reset emails!
A few hours reading a guide and setting up a $5/mo linode email server with SPF and dmarc, a few more hours transferring 20 years of IMAP mail from my old account to a folder, and a month or so of changing a few site contact emails over each day when they emailed something to my old account, and now I've got an email server on my own domain that is 10 times faster at sending/receiving mail than my old ISP ever was.
And now I can have [email protected] and [email protected] and random other disposable addresses so that when they are inevitably sold off for the $$$ I can just dump them and maintain a spam free inbox.
remembers greylisting is a common thing
Yes, I mentioned that. That’s not a protocol issue, that’s a big business controls everything issue.
greylisting will typically only be applied to people who you haven't interacted before, so I don't think it is a big deal. It would be similar to how many major chat apps hide away suspicious messages from new people in some "invites" section that is often hidden by default.
SMTP is a terrible protocol. Text based for sending effectively binary data with complex header wrapping and "generate a random delimiter" framing. We really need a HTTP/2 of SMTP.
That being said I agree that it exists and works. The biggest blocker to more IM-style communication is largely the UI and user expectations. I have no problem having quick back-and-forths over email but most people don't expect it.
Fair enough. Sending binary data over SMTP adds a lot of overhead, because it all has to be encoded. We should fix that.
Honestly my biggest complaint is header wrapping. Technically you need to wrap lines at 998 bytes (not that any reasonable server actually cares). But in order to wrap a header you need to add spaces (because you can only break a line after whitespace). But where spaces are unimportant depends on each specific header. So you need to have custom wrapping rules for each header.
In practice no one does this. They just hope that headers naturally have spaces or break them in random locations (corrupting them) because the protocol was too stupid.
Binary protocols are just so much simpler. Give the length, then the data. Problem solved. Maybe we could even use a standard format for structured headers. But that would be harder to do while maintaining backwards compatibility.
XMPP
Why is that preferable over Matrix?
It's kinda more resposive than Matrix for me.
Yeah, my experience with Element and a Matrix.org account is that it's sluggish. However, it's been better at Beeper, so I'm uncertain whether it's intrinsic to Matrix or merely Matrix.org and/or Element's servers.
Matrix came 15 years after XMPP, so the question should be: why is Matrix preferable? Does it bring anything to the table, other than fragmentation?
I don't believe that its existence causes more fragmentation than it remediates. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36939482 explains why I consider Matrix fundamentally superior most (if not all) uses, although in practice it's because the clients (Element and FluffyChat primarily) are cross-platform and support a generally uniform set of features, in comparison to the aged (but glorious) Pidgin, and its counterparts.
Your hackernews post and the fact you mention Pidgin shows that you haven't used xmpp in the last 10 years. By the time Matrix was first released, xmpp had history sync.
Which is why I can't wrap my head around why a second protocol with no features that didn't already exist in XMPP took over.
I used it yesterday, via Pidgin. I'm
[email protected]. Why else would I have referenced it? Don't tell me what I've done. That's not a way to have productive conversations.Regardless, I can't provide any more technical insight than that - I know solely that the clients provide so much more functionality that irrespective of the protocol, it's better in practice. Fedora, openSUSE, the Bundeswehr, NATO, and Beeper - all chose Matrix over XMPP, not least partially because of Element (which they also all chose).
Nah, XMPP is an abomination.
Why should this be at the editor level? There should be a linter that applies all these stylistic formatting changes to all files automatically. If the developer's own editing tools or personal workflow have a chance to introduce non-standard styles to the codebase, you have a deeper problem.
I want both. When I am typing code in my editor I want it to follow the styles of the project. Then when I run the linter/formatter it will fix the mistakes.
The last thing I want is to start a new
if foo {statement and the indent is half of the indent of the if above. That would be too distracting.i wish all the big players would agree on one of the many open chat and IM protocols. it's like kindergarten where the toddlers don't want to share toys
Was it really back in 2009 that both Google and Facebook used XMPP compatible chats? Those were the days.
I was the cool guy with all the chats in one place: Pidgin.
We had the future in our hands but our corporate platform overlords made a wrong turn at Albuquerque.
Facebook had an XMPP client API. It didn't federate (and wasn't really true XMPP resulting in many quirks).
TeX. I was able to use it during school for some beautiful type setting and formatting but nobody I work with wants to use anything other than plain text or unfortunately more commonly binary wysiwyg editor formats. It's frustrating and ugly.
One way I do TeX now is a few templates (letter, memo, etc) and circulate files in PDF.
If you must use Word to circulate files, consider Pandoc as a way to get them out.
What WYSIWYG binary formats have you been using? OpenDocument is zipped XML. OOXML is also zipped XML. RTF is plain text. Everything else is dead. RTF is too, actually.
I somewhat disagree.
WYSIWYG document editors are terrible at getting things exactly as you want.
If you're a perfectionist, especially in presentation, it's probably easier to adopt TeX than it is to get (Open)Office to do exactly what you want into.
Binary wysiwyg is shit for versioning, I hate it. Plaintext is fine but limited. I like both markdown and tex.
I sincerely wish all of my messages were delivered to me by an owl holding a scroll.
I'd love to see more adoption of... I2C!
Bazillions of motherboards and SBCs support I2C and many have the ability to use it via GPIO pins or even have connectors just for I2C devices (e.g. QWIIC). Yet there's very little in the way of things you can buy and plug in. It feels like such a waste!
There's all sorts of neat and useful things we could plug in and make use of if only there were software to use it. For example, cheap color sensors, nifty gesture sensors, time-of-flight sensors, light sensors, and more.
There's
lmsensorswhich knows I2C and can magically understand zillions of temperature sensors and PWM things (e.g. fan control). We need something like that for all those cool devices and chips that speak I2C.I2C is a bit goofy though. As a byproduct of being an undiscoverable bus you basically just have to poke random addresses and guess what you're talking to. The fact lmsensors i2c detection works as well as it does is a miracle. (Plus you get the neat issue where even the act of scanning the bus can accidentally reconfigure endpoints)
Yeah, the lack of proper discoverability on i2c truly sucks. You have to just poke random addresses and hope for the best to see if an i2c device exists on the bus. It's a great standard but I wish it would get updated with some sort of plug and play autodetection feature. Standardized device PID/VID system like USB and PCI would be acceptable or a standardized register that returns a part string. Anything other than blindly poking registers and hoping you're not accidentally overvolting the CPU or whatever because the register on your expected device overlaps with the overvolt the CPU register on the same address of a different device.
I'm curious. There was some i2c connected memory devices before. Is there some forgotten spec that allows for a flexible device lookup / logging capability. Something that acts like device tree but stays specific to the bus. It wouldn't be practical for a lot of applications but I could see it being useful for some niche stuff.
If you have an unused VGA port, you can use the DDC pins for I2C. Be sure to add ESD protection if you do this. An I2C isolator would be even better.
I2C is really not meant to be used over cables. It has a very limited common mode input voltage range and it can't handle much capacitance on the bus.
Except that in the case of VGA (and DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort) the i2c interface is intended for use over the cable. All of those ports have a pair of i2c pins and corresponding wires in their cables. The i2c interface is used for DDC/EDID which is how the computer can identify the capabilities and specifications of the attached display. DDC even provides some rarely-used control functionality. Probably the most useful of which is being able to control the brightness of the display from software. I use the ddcci module on Linux and it lets me control my desktop monitor brightness the same way a laptop would, which is great. I have no idea why this isn't widely used.
Edit:
This i2c interface is widely used to control the lighting on modern graphics cards that have RGB lighting. We've spent a lot of time reverse engineering these chips and their i2c protocols for OpenRGB. GPU chips usually have more i2c buses than the cards have display connectors, so the RGB chip is wired to one of the unused buses. I think AMD GPUs tend to have 8 separate i2c buses but most cards only use 4 or 5 of them for display connectors. There is also an i2c interface present on RAM slots normally used for reading the SPD chip that stores RAM module specifications, timings, etc. This interface is also used for RAM modules with controllable RGB lighting.
SimpleX. No federated messenger is good for privacy.
But I see how SimpleX is impossible for public groups, as spam is basically unavoidable.
Does it support video calls?
Yes, also PiP now
Do you have a link? All I see in a quick internet search is about a crypto company
Simplex.chat
OpenTelemetry everywhere please
FTP
Seriously guys, let's share files the old fashioned way. Without bullshit.
I'd like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as FTP is, in fact, smelly hot garbage.
For context, I wrote this while waiting for a migraine to pass. I was angry at my brain for ruining my morning, and I like to shit on FTP. It's fun to be hyperbolic. I don't intend for this to be an attack on you, I was just bored and decided to write this ridiculous rant to pass the time.
I must once again rant about FTP. I've no idea if you're serious about liking it or you're just taking the piss, but seeing those three letters surrounded by whitespace reminds me of all the bad things in the world.
FTP is, as I've said, smelly hot garbage, and the infrastructure built to support FTP is even worse. Why? Well, one reason is that FTP has the most idiotic networking model conceivable. To see how crazy it is, let's compare to a more sane protocol, like HTTP (for simplicity's sake, I'll do HTTP/1.1). First, you get the underlying transport protocol stuff and probably SSL. The HTTP client opens a connection from some local ephemeral port to the destination server on port 80/443/whatever and does all the normal protocol things (so syn->synack->ack and Client Hello -> Server Hello+server cert -> client kex+change cipher -> change cipher -> encrypted data). FTP does TCP too! Same same so far (minus SSL, unless you're using FTPS). Next, the HTTP client goes like this:
and you know what fucking happens here? The fucking server responds with the data and a response code on the same goddamn TCP connection. You get a big, glorious response over the nice connection you established:
So that's nice, and the client you're using to read this used that flow (or an evolution of that flow if you're using HTTP/2 or HTTP/3). So what does FTP do? It does one of two really stupid things depending on whether you're using active or passive mode. Active mode is the default for the protocol (although not the default for most clients), so let's analyze that! First, your FTP client initiates a TCP connection to your server on port 21 (by default), and then the server just sends this:
ok, that kinda came out of nowhere. You're probably using a modern client that saves you from all of the godawful footguns, so it then asks the server what it supports:
There's some other bullshit we don't care about right now, although highlights include sending the username and password in plain text. There's also ASCII vs binary mode. WE'LL GET BACK TO THAT. :|
So then we want to do a LIST. You know what happens in active mode? Your computer opens up some random fucking TCP port. It then instructs the FTP server to CONNECT TO YOUR GODDAMN COMPUTER. Your computer is the server, and the other side is now the client. I would post a more detailed overview of the FTP commands, but most servers on the internet disable active mode because it's a goddamn liability. All of the sudden, your computer has to be internet facing with open firewall ports, and that's just a whole heap of shit.
I'm probably not blowing many minds right now because people know about this shit. I just want to mention that this is how FTP was built. The data plane and control plane are separate, and back in 19XX when this shit was invented, you could trust your fellows on ARPANET and NAT didn't exist and sure HAM radio operators here's the entire goddamn
44.0.0.0/8block for you to do packet switched radio. A simple protocol for simple times, back before we knew what was good and what was bad.So, active mode sucks! PASV is the future, and is the default on basically all modern clients and servers! Passive mode works exactly the same as the above, except when the client goes to
LIST, the server opens some random TCP port (I've often seen something like 44000-44010) and tells the client, "hey you, connect to 1.2.3.4:44000 to get you your tasty data." Sounds great, right? Well, there's a problem that I actually touched on in my last paragraph. Back when this dogshit was first squeezed out in the 70s, everyone had a public address. There were SO MANY addresses! 4 billion addresses? We'll never use all of those! That is clearly not the case anymore. We don't have enough addresses, and now we have this wonderful thing called NAT.Continued in part 2.
Wait, encryption counts as bullshit now? ;)
In that case, I'd like to chime in and add NFS to this list. The often overlooked jewel of the glorious past days. /j
Stream Control Transmission Protocol. It’s the Betamax of low level networking.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_Control_Transmission_Protocol
xmpp (jabber)
Idk I just wanna finger my server
I wish my employer just accepted my push to use OAuth...
finger [email protected]I used to have an open public SIP address that would ring a home phone, complete with a retro answering machine, but nobody uses SIP...
Say what?
In my part of the world signaling for literally every phone call, be it mobile or fixed, traverses networks and operators using SIP.
Yeah, I mean nobody uses SIP as an open protocol with email-like addresses. You could call me with an unregistered softphone. It would have been way cooler if I had any use for it outside of like two other nerd friends of mine who run personal Asterisk servers.
What do you mean nobody uses SIP? Most mobile calls these days are SIP based as SIP is part of VoLTE. If you have 4G/5G signal and make a call you can be sure it's a SIP call.
Uds, shm, fuse for ipc. Ini for configs.
what language am i reading?
Unix domain sockets, shared memory (classic and/or over anonymous file descriptors), file system in userspace, the (ms) ini format.
Was going to sleep when i wrote that.
Idk, I'm fine with Yaml/json + json schema. A JSON SCHEMA IS A REQUIREMENT for a good config in my opinion.
IPFS I'm really glad things like nerdctl and guix support it, but I wish more things too advantage of the p2p filesystem.
Petals.Dev and hivemind ml P2P AI inference and training seem like the only true viable options to make foundational models that are owned soley by authoritarian government s and megacorps.
Matrix for federated general real time communication. (Not justs chat, video, images, but just data, with third room being on the cooler demos for what is possible)
Activity Pub for asynchronous communication between servers. The socialmedia aspect is obviously the focus and the most mature, but I'm also excited for things like Forgejo (Codeberg.org) and Gitlab's support.
I am also excited for QUIC for increased privacy of metadata and reduction of network trips.
matrix, or at least interop standards for online communications. It's such bullshit that you make a shitty chat app, and just because it's free and relatively featured, become the single existing monopoly of chat applications.
Like idgaf as long as i can host a bridge between discord and matrix or some shit, and you technically can, but it's a right pain in the ass to do so.
I’m really into CloudEvents because I love event-driven systems, and since events can come from, or be consumed by, so many different services, having a robust spec is super duper useful.
So what problem is this solving? What are some event-driven systems that need to interoperate? Seems like even if you have a common encapsulation method, you still need code to understand and deal with the message body. Just seems like an extra layer around a JSON blob.
I wish the protocol used by Hotline Client took off, it was basically Discord in the 90s with its support for announcement/news posts and file sharing
Also KDX. I was too young to use that, but tried and it's cool. Sadly even FOSS clients are all dead and don't build anymore. (I think I had limited success with patching one called Fidelio to build, but that was a few years ago and I can't find any traces of that attempt.)
NBD (Network Block Device), it's like a remote hard drive.
I've been playing with MQTT on meshtastic. I really hope LoRa and meshtastic continue to grow.
The more they grow, the busier the spectrum will be. I really hope it doesn't grow too much.
Just enough to grow the network so we don't need mqtt.
OpenTelemetry and in particular I wish more protocols had Traceparent propagation support and more software had support for sending spans and traces to an OTLP endpoint to construct a full picture of everything that is going on in a distributed system.
Many years ago I found Silc very interesting.
definitely some alternative internet mesh routing standart, just imagine if every device with wifi or ethernet could just extend the network without relying on an isp, yeah they could still serve as a fast backbone, but they just wouldn't be needed and no disaster could really ever disrupt the whole internet again
honestly: activity pub, matrix, xmpp, markdown and soo many more probably. All of these would be able to solve our walled gardens problem, but the apps with a basically monopoly don't have much of an incentivw to implement them
There are a bunch of message broker services out there, and having a consistent set of common keys along with a documented process for transforming events to/from different systems means that this kind of data can move through different systems without getting mangled. It does have a spec for JSON, so it can be considered just a standardized JSON blob with transformation rules. But it also has a protobuf spec, specs for MQTT, NATS, HTTP, Avro, etc. It’s a common language for all these systems.
FHIR instead of all legacy standards. Also ISO IDMP to make referencing medicines way easier.
Dconf
RCS compatibility between iOS and Android operating systems
Google has used RCS as their latest attempt at entering the messenger market. I really don't see why anybody else would want to adopt it under these circumstances. I mean Samsung did but Samsung is playing their own little paranoid game with Google, they don't really give a crap about RCS.
Basically Google killed RCS. They will never be able to make anybody adopt it against their will in the EU, people will stick to what messenger services they're already using. If they ever attempt to turn it on by default in their own app it will turn into a regulatory issue so fast their head will spin.
I want us to stop using communication protocols that are tied to our connectivity providers. Let alone tied to a specific piece of hardware (SIM card).
"Telephone providers" should be just another ISP. And whatever I do over the network shouldn't care if it is running on a mobile network or a landline fibre.
While we are at it let's fuck off with this SIM shit. You don't get to run code on my device. Give me an authentication key that I can use to connect to your network and then just transfer my packets. My device runs my code.
I actually feel the opposite.
Rcs was designed from the ground up to be handled by the carrier in clear text like sms, it doesn’t incorporate encryption in any way and doesn’t do much at all to address the untrustworthy nature of carriers and law enforcement nowadays.
It’s like those two protocols started developing at the same time and only google kept extending rcs to keep some degree of feature parity with imessage.
If we had to ditch iMessage it ought to be for some third type, not for questionably secure rcs and what new bubble color can be used to indicate that someone’s using an unencrypted rcs server?
Hashcash