It would be nice having native programs. At least you can use any native xmpp app with the same account to do text, audio, and visual comms (including groups). The only thing they don’t support is the actual social feeds/posts aspect (and soon spaces!).

I love ipv6 but I don’t see how it is related to anything here

Yes your description is just right and is the heart of my question. To use your terminology:

Currently:

• Away from home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server
• At home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server (inefficient!)

Ideally:

• Away from home: Phone -> VM -> Home Server
• At home: Phone -> Home Server

In the ideal case, I would never have to change anything about the wireguard config/status on the Phone, nor would I have to change the domain name used to reach the resource on the Home Server.

Oh hm I didn’t think about your last point, maybe it’s not really an issue at all. I think I’m not 100% on how the wireguard networking works.

Suppose I tunnel all of my traffic through wireguard on the remote server. Say that while I am home, I request foo.local, which on the remote server DNS maps to a wireguard address corresponding to my home machine. The remote will return to me the wireguard address corresponding to the home machine, and then I will try and go to that wireguard address. Will the home router recognize that that wireguard address is local and not send it out to the remote server?

Yes that would work, but it feels a bit cumbersome to have 2 fqdns per service, which I would have to switch between using depending on on whether I’m local or not.

Right but I want to be connected to wireguard always, I just want the DNS/routing to be different based on home vs foreign network.

And so when away do you just directly connect to the external IP and do port forwarding?

So you have a public DNS record pointing to your home IP?

I think tailscale would work, though I’d ideally want to use something like headscale instead, but that’s a bit of a logistical hastle for my setup. Do you know if pangolin can handle this as well?

Try Orgzly with Emacs Orgmode

emacs org-mode publish

https://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-publish-html-tutorial.html

Have you heard something recent? I feel Signal has been saying that for years now.

I don’t care about XMPP as a protocol versus some other messaging protocol much, but I care a fair bit about the wdespread adoption of federated XMPP

I don’t quite understand what this means, could you elaborate?

if this service using this protocol becomes very popular, will the service seek to eliminate the open role of the protocol

That is a valid concern, though the point of the article is to try and convince people why it won’t happen like it did with Google or might with Meta for structural reasons (rather than “oh but we’re different” reasons).

The main difference I see with Snikket vs Google Talk is that Snikket is not only libre client software, but libre server software as well. The point of Snikket is that individual people host it themselves, not that the Snikket devs run a bunch of Snikket servers which require their Snikket client for connection and just so happen to use xmpp to power it. Really all Snikket is (right now) is a prosody server with some pre-configurations and easy install, as well as an android/ios app which are general xmpp clients that are designed to work well when connected with Snikket servers.

Now it could still go south in a similar way to Google Talk, in that maybe a bunch of people start running Snikket servers and using Snikket clients, and then the Snikket devs start wall gardening the implementation. That would be bad, but the users (both server runners and client users) would be in a much stronger position to pivot away from those decisions.

I think it’s at least an interesting idea (hence why I posted it) for the reasons the author mentions: striking a balance between trustless freedom and interface stability/agility.

That sounds roughly correct, though I don’t see the connection with the article? Unless you’re saying that “products” (like Signal) will always exist, which is probably true but is orthogonal to whether or not other models will succeed.

As for email, I think posteo does a pretty good job, but you’re right options are few and far between. But self hosting email is just as viable as ever? Perhaps less so since e.g. gmail will instantly flag your incoming mail as spam if you’re sending it from randomsite.tld, but honestly that issue hasn’t gotten that bad (yet). Yes, whenever there’s a protocol like email or xmpp, companies will create gmails and signals and turn them into walled gardens, but that doesn’t spoil the protocol for everyone else. It just causes frustration that companies build closed products on top of open technologies, but not much to be done about that.

Nice to see a measured (though somewhat pro go) article about a big language’s strengths and weaknesses from someone who has been real world using it for long enough to experience the evolution of the language.

I’ve always liked go, and also think it made fundamentally good decisions and has evolved in a way that respects the original philosophy (e.g. adding genetics, but only after massive consideration).

Reddit had an enormous hate totem for go, more than virtually any other language imo, and I always thought that was strange. Curious what people here think.