Also, universal standards are not necessarily a good thing. Decentralization with multiple competing tools and standards is good as it provides redundancy and opportunities for specialization.
Also, universal standards are not necessarily a good thing. Decentralization with multiple competing tools and standards is good as it provides redundancy and opportunities for specialization.
They seem to be doing fine:
~10.0M global visible accounts
~2.5M messages per day
~4.5M unbridged accounts
~500K unbridged messages per day
~2.1M rooms that Matrix.org participates in
~20,000 federated servers
~3000 msgs/s out, ~30 msgs/s in on Matrix.org
~400 projects building on Matrix
~70 companies building on Matrix
They're up to 20k visible servers from about 5.5k servers in September 2018, and if you look here: https://youtu.be/1TPICntbC5w?t=1692 you can see the growth curve looks pretty good.
> Also, universal standards are not necessarily a good thing. Decentralization with multiple competing tools and standards is good
Matrix explicitly doesn't try to be "the one true standard". That's the whole idea of their bridging model: https://youtu.be/1TPICntbC5w?t=296
The ratio is about what we'd expect - there's a mix of DMs, private rooms, and massive public rooms; the DMs will dominate, hence this ratio. Every conversation in Matrix happens in a "room" (even DMs), under the hood, which might be the point of confusion here.
Only things missing (to me) is a full Java API. I built one for bots and quick fleet-history-monitoring, but it's clunky...
Strange argument. This is one of those competing, decentralised standards you are asking for. It’s not clear that fragmentation is better for chat services, even if like you say commercial interests lead to that. Would the web be better if information was spread across 10 competing incompatible versions of http/dns/html/web browser?