[Nasreddin_Hodja]

> without a push system it is useless on modern mobile operating systems.

If by "push" you mean sending notifications through 3rd party servers like google's Firebase, I'd like not to use it.

I was using XMPP on mobile for years, receiving messages in background normal way almost with no battery drain.

I also run k9mail 24/7 with my personal IMAP server, receiving messages in realtime (imap idle) with almost no battery waste.

Battery is wasted more by bloated frameworks like Electron rather than by network activity itself.

[easrng]

> If by "push" you mean sending notifications through 3rd party servers like google's Firebase, I'd like not to use it.

These days there's also UnifiedPush which is an open standard for push on Linux and Android. FluffyChat and SchildiChat (both Matrix clients) support it. I actually switched to SchildiChat from Element because Element's notification service was using too much RAM.

[zaik]

Network activity is quite significant for battery drain, thats why mobile XMPP clients do this: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0352.html

[usrn]

No. Taking the wakelock is significant battery drain. Because of poor mobile OS architecture you have to take the wakelock to leave connections open. On normal Linux you can just have the OS suspend anyway and most of the time the connection will be there when it wakes up and if it doesn't the client automatically reestablishes. (this is exactly how the normal push connection on android is maintained anyway, there's almost no real overhead to having a couple more.)

Mobile push is a combination of brain damage and bizarre propaganda targeting developers.

[Nasreddin_Hodja]

> Network activity is quite significant for battery drain

It's not activity itself but what app does in background in reaction to incoming packets. Clients I used (Bombus and Xabber) didn't support that XEP with no problem. App may just ignore some stanzas when not needed.