@cwebber I made these diagrams, can you please tell me if my understanding is correct?

@alexl You could think even bigger. There shouldn't be "Mastodon" or "PeerTube" native clients, but rather everything should be specified in RFCs such that entirely generic clients can be written. Then trouts could be applied to certain BDFLs until they actually implement said RFCs

@tomas there would be confusion, see XMPP clients... we need very different platforms (blogging, microblogging, newspapers, video and audio streaming, issue tracking, collaborative editing, ) each one with its own user experience but federating "actions" and "objects".

For example I could use even a Mastodon client to reply to comments in a issue on GitLab but I would still need a native GitLab client to perform actions like pull request or fork.

ยท ยท Tusky ยท 1 ยท 0 ยท 0
@alexl Myes, but a lot of these things would need to be implemented in most clients anyway. Webtorrent for example, would be useful in all kinds of places, not just PeerTube. And if you have that in your generic AP microblogging client, and the client knows about banggroups, then it is effectively also a PeerTube client. But that said, branding can be a very useful and good thing.

You know, the comparison to XMPP is apt. I've said before that AP will start having the same problems that XMPP has had to deal with. This always happens.

@tomas I disagree, it's not a matter of just branding, but having different platforms with different features for different people. If an actor is on another platform expect less interactions with one using the same platform or login in the other platform with the same account and enjoy it.

XMPP approach was proven wrong and in fact anything else follow it so I don't know what you are referring to...

@alexl I dunno, to me "platforms" in a federated open system are the same as branding. I guess time will tell..

@tomas Mastodon and Pleroma target different users, same for Plume and Write.as. Different user experience, different hardware resources needed. Different developing models (community-driven etc). Different languages, frameworks and technologies.

AP is intended to federate everything around the concepts of activities. How can you think an all-in-one social network would be better? We had Diaspora already. AP can be a totally new approach to Web not only social networks

@alexl You know what? Sure. People are excited about federation again and that's good. It's not me who has to roll the boulder up the hill after all, and maybe the API incompatibility issue will be resolved in time

@alexl @tomas

Mastodon and Pleroma target different users, same for Plume and Write.as

Thatโ€™s not true. Theyโ€™re targeting the same space and same users. They have different UX because theyโ€™re different projects built by different teams. These AP projects fall into buckets like (microblogging, macroblogging, video sharing) and any client made for one would likely work for another project in the same bucket. Specific features may be missing or only available on specific servers, but the overall experience should be the same.

@0x1C3B00DA of course they target different users, I don't really understand how you can disagree on this

@alexl I just explained how. Pleroma and mastodon are targeting people who want microblogging. If you don't recognize server names, you wouldn't even know if people you're chatting with are on Pleroma or mastodon. An AP Note is a Note regardless of where it comes from.

The well written fediverse apps work with both fairly seamlessly. What software a user is using is most likely down to the people and topics on the local timeline.

@0x1C3B00DA Come on, Mastodon and Pleroma are very different, I can say to each of my not-geek friends to join Mastodon, I can't with Pleroma.

"Microblogging" is very generic, or do you think that WordPress, Tumblr, Drupal, Joomla, Blogger, Hugo, Jekyll, Plume, Write.as target the same users because they are about blogging?

@alexl why couldn't tell your friends to use Pleroma? It doesn't require any more technical knowledge than mastodon. If you web up a pleroma account on the mastoFE and a mastodon account, an end user wouldn't find much difference between the two.

As for the software, you named multiple different types of applications. There's a CMS, static site generators, and hosted blogging platforms and that's how I would group them. So I would say Plume and write.as are targeting the same users, though write.as is targeting more users since it offers a paid service

@0x1C3B00DA "MastoFE"... let's complicate things. After all Arch is easy to install and use, no? No need to reccomend distro like Ubuntu or Mint

About the second part, you got it...

@alexl one of the first things users do on the fediverse is ask about other apps. Having multiple frontends isn't unique to Pleroma. Most existing clients work with both mastodon and Pleroma.

It sounds like you're just talking about different features but a lot of AP services are in active development. They have planned features but that doesn't mean they have a different audience

@0x1C3B00DA of course they have different audience, I can't really get your point

@alexl what do you imply that !XMPP's approach was? And how does it differ from ActivityPub's approach?

I'm not an expert but my understanding is:

XMPP: trying to define spec per-feature, hope people implement XMPP servers and clients, assuming the user knows each client and each server which feature/spec support.

ActivityPub: federating everything that involves actions, actors and objects, defining how communications happen and provide some example of actions etc for common use cases.

Every platform can implement AP because is very abstract, see Mastodon.

@alexl Right, I think you've managed to misunderstand both XMPP _and_ AP in this case.

You might want to check out the well authored, established and implemented XEPs out there for XMPP and compare with AP where this doesn't exist for the most part. The AP base spec might be object agnostic, which I think you're using as the base argument?, but XMPP is too.

They're not comparable in maturity.

@mmn XMPP totally failed, it was OK for very basic single chat ten years ago. Now clients for Android, desktop and Web implement different sets of features.

With XMPP I can't say to someone "register to platform.com and download a client for your device". Instead Mastodon IS a platform and it has ITS OWN clients that offers consistent UX.

XMPP can't be abstract as AP because they are protocols for totally different things. Matrix replaces XMPP.

@alexl Yes, and even more, ActivityPub, XMPP and Matrix are different to each other in the sense they all are run SMTP under the hood. @mmn
@alexl Well not completely, AP is written in node.js, the others aren't. @mmn
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!