[j1elo]

If that's true, it sounds terrible, and a reason enough to not consider it at all. So much of the work in bug organizations is about just searching for past conversations when a similar issue had been discussed... Search must be flawless.

[olafmol]

It’s open source right? You know what to do ;)

[rolymath]

This is the fastest way to get people to say "I hate proprietary solutions but at least they work"

[throwaway150]

Then you should use proprietary solutions. Open source solutions are written by developers for themselves. They are not writing it for you. They have no reason to write them for you. You are not paying them. It is a labor of love they are doing for themselves.

Yet as a bonus they are offering it to you for free as a gift with the hope that if it doesn't work for you, you can improve it or hire someone you can.

If you only care about consuming open source but not contributing, by all means you should buy proprietary solutions.

[jodrellblank]

This is a subthread of "I wonder why matrix isn't more widespread at this point". When people reply why it doesn't work for them, that's not time for "you didn't say thank you".

> "They are not writing it for you."

From matrix.org[1]: 'The values we follow are: Accessibility rather than elitism. Empathy rather than contrariness.' ... 'act as a neutral custodian for Matrix ... for the greater benefit of the whole ecosystem, not benefiting or privileging any single player or subset of players. For clarity: the Matrix ecosystem is defined as anyone who uses the Matrix protocol. This includes (non-exhaustively): End-users of Matrix clients. Anyone using Matrix for data communications'

> "They have no reason to write them for you."

How are Matrix/Element going to get anywhere with their mission to replace proprietary chat networks if they don't write their new one for millions of ordinary people to be willing to use?

[1] https://matrix.org/foundation/about/

[throwaway150]

> This is a subthread of "I wonder why matrix isn't more widespread at this point".

Exactly. My point is that the question itself is misplaced. It reflects a consumer mindset, which makes sense when you are paying for a product, but feels out of place with open source projects built largely through voluntary effort.

However noble the foundation's mission sounds, the reality is that Matrix is a complex protocol sustained by people investing their time and energy because they care about it.

It will not magically solve every user problem. If something does not work for you, the constructive path is to help fix it or at least propose concrete improvements. Otherwise, choosing a proprietary solution is perfectly reasonable but expecting open source projects to behave like consumer products is out of place.

[rolymath]

OK great. I guess you answered why Matrix is not more popular.

[throwaway150]

Yes, it is not popular, for the reasons I already mentioned.

What puzzles me is why so many HN comments, including yours, frame this purely in consumer terms: "If this open source tool doesn't meet my needs, I'll switch to a proprietary one."

And that is perfectly fine. Use whatever works for you. No issue there.

What seems misplaced is the expectation that Matrix must be popular. Why should it be? It is not your project, and you are not contributing to it. Where does this expectation of its popularity come from?

Matrix already serves its developers and contributors. If it does not serve you, you can either help improve it or choose a proprietary alternative. Both are reasonable paths.

What feels off is the dismissive tone suggesting that if Matrix is not widely adopted, something must be wrong and proprietary options are therefore superior. In reality, this is just how open source works: projects exist to serve those who build and support them, not necessarily the mass market.

There is nothing wrong with an open source project not meeting everyone's needs, leading some people to choose proprietary alternatives. Remarks like "This is the fastest way to get people to say: I hate proprietary solutions but at least they work" or "OK great. I guess you answered why Matrix is not more popular" are not really the decisive critique you think they are.

Open source and proprietary software each have legitimate roles. For some use cases and users, open source tools are a better fit. For others, proprietary solutions make more sense. Popularity alone is not a meaningful measure of value and choosing what works best for you is entirely reasonable either way.

[ilvez]

> What seems misplaced is the expectation that Matrix must be popular. Why should it be? It is not your project, and you are not contributing to it. Where does this expectation of its popularity come from?

Partly it's the wish and need for particular project to succeed. They use/like it and want their friends to do so, but then getting brought down by the reality. And communication software is all about critical mass..

Also the promises given and then seeing them not delivered. Everyone can't be builders..

Just to be clear, have been using Matrix from around 2015 with friends and family. Keeper of souls..

[rolymath]

> What seems misplaced is the expectation that Matrix must be popular. Why should it be? It is not your project, and you are not contributing to it. Where does this expectation of its popularity come from?

Brother, what even are you talking about? Have you read their missiom statement? They specifically say they want to maximize the number of users and maximize the number of self hosted networks.

You saying they don't want to be popular is, with all due respect, completely from your ass. Matrix and Elements mission statement has them declaring they want to be as popular as possible.

[karel-3d]

Get into an online argument with the developers about what is the right approach and which dependency is to blame?

[throwaway150]

There is no need to get into an online argument with the developers. The open source software is still offered to you as a gift. You can modify it however you need and keep it for yourself.

The developers developed the open source software for themselves. Doesn't work for you? Too bad. But they are not going to develop it for you. Definitely not, when you are not paying them.

If it doesn't work for you, you shouldn't think, "Oh, I need to get into an online argument with the developers." Here's what you do.

1. Develop the fix/feature you need for yourself. If you cannot do it yourself, hire someone who can.

2. Send a pull request to the developers. But don't expect them to merge it. Remember they developed their stuff for themselves. You developed your stuff for yourself. If they merge, great. If they don't merge, you've still got your stuff for yourself.

3. If they don't merge your stuff, you could maintain a fork. Yes, it's a pain to keep your fork updated but you need to do your own work. Nobody else will do your work for you.

If all this is too difficult for you, why even consider open source? Just use proprietary software.

I truly don't understand the self-entitled HN comments that think for some strange reason that someone else should give you a software for free and then do all the work for you.

[Klonoar]

You need to learn how to read sarcasm.

[throwaway150]

You need to learn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[Klonoar]

No, I don’t. It doesn’t apply here because the comment you responded to is written in such a sarcastic manner that you have to be willfully obtuse to miss it.

[j1elo]

Meh, already got enough in my plate. That "do it yourself if you need it" is technically correct for FOSS, but only when people need it, not the case here until it gets so popular that the whole organization decides to use it ;-)