This is perhaps too strong. To announce a project, and say “I have a UI layout I like, some working code, wanna come help?” seems fine. But to call it a 1.0? Yeah, I agree with you.
You say that a working open source client being announced is a bad thing because it’s not feature complete?
Now l understand that you might not want to use it yet and I neither would. However unlike some people claim e2e encryption isn’t widespread and hosting your own server to talk with others in it might be an improvement.
But more importantly it’s working and it’s probably good that contributors learn about something like this to get to a feature complete state.
I think it gives a better impression than something that might have e2e encryption already implemented but not really usable. That currently makes me worry a bit and it’s driving users away associating bad implementations with a somewhat sound protocol.
It can be really hard to find trust in software that is overall confusing. So I think it’s at least not a bad approach to go a different route.
I’m not getting a good impression. I wouldn’t from any matrix client doing any sort of announcement before getting e2e encryption support is there.
I took at the state of matrix clients recently:
All these clients use 200-300mb ram by just opening them, which is insane.
I’m hoping an usable lightweight client with a classic UI (maybe amirc-inspired, like xchat/hexchat) will appear at some point.
This is perhaps too strong. To announce a project, and say “I have a UI layout I like, some working code, wanna come help?” seems fine. But to call it a 1.0? Yeah, I agree with you.
You say that a working open source client being announced is a bad thing because it’s not feature complete?
Now l understand that you might not want to use it yet and I neither would. However unlike some people claim e2e encryption isn’t widespread and hosting your own server to talk with others in it might be an improvement.
But more importantly it’s working and it’s probably good that contributors learn about something like this to get to a feature complete state.
I think it gives a better impression than something that might have e2e encryption already implemented but not really usable. That currently makes me worry a bit and it’s driving users away associating bad implementations with a somewhat sound protocol.
It can be really hard to find trust in software that is overall confusing. So I think it’s at least not a bad approach to go a different route.
I cannot -in good faith- try and convince anyone to move to some chat application that doesn’t do e2e.
If anything, I feel the right thing to do is to steer people away from such a thing.