gomuks VS nheko

The problem with this is that this is just fundamentally untrue. There are plenty of non-Electron apps that are viable. For core functionality of e2ee, messages, exploring directories, sending images, etc, those are available in multiple alternative apps. If you're talking about other integrations like video calling, plugins, and spaces, then you'd be right as I don't know other clients that have those. But, none of those things are really required in the matrix protocol anyways, and those available features in other clients already far surpasses what IRC can do. You don't need these bleeding edge features to have an enjoyable experience on Element, and given the IRC crowd, I would assume they're adverse to bleeding edge anyways. If you want an experience similar to irssi, then you can use gomuks for a superior experience in a familiar(ish) client. So saying Element is the only suitable client implementation is outright false.

There's also a nice terminal client called gomuks.

gomuks is probably the most feature complete one.

gomuks is a command line-based Matrix chat client

I am running my own home server, everyone in my family has an account they use there (the domain is our surname). Non-techy people use it and like it (past the initial setup, since setting up a custom domain requires a few more clicks than :matrix.org account). I am not waiting for the day, though, when they will need to set up a new device without access to the old one.

> I personally haven't met any "real" people who are even aware of Matrix. When I broached it with a non-IT friend, they were actively uninterested in unifying messaging applications as they had "facebook friends" and "whatsapp friends" and interacted with them differently.

I tried to sell it too with the "unify your messaging apps", but this is a wrong selling point to new users. First they need to start using matrix as their messaging app, realize that it works well, including VoIP and video calls. Once trust is there, only then start thinking about using bridges. Because there will be rough edges (e.g. federated voice/video calls do not work).

Because of the way bridges integrate to third-parties, they are not bug-free. Reliability is just not great yet. Maybe except a hosted service, Beeper[1], which is run by people who know most about these bridges and can provide support.

To sum up, I am using Matrix for my family network, and some bridges personally; I am not yet planning to spread the use of bridges beyond myself. Besides the encryption setup, I like the UI a lot. I also use gomuks[2] from time to time, which is a terminal matrix application. I have not stumped into server-side problems.

I am donating monthly to Tulir[3], the most prolific Matrix bridge developer (and, to my knowledge, co-founder of beeper). Because I started using Matrix because of the bridges.

Oh, and I love the Matrix sms bridge[4]. I set it up to see if it works, and I am not going back. It's great.

[1]: https://www.beeper.com/

[2]: https://github.com/tulir/gomuks

[3]: https://github.com/tulir

[4]: https://github.com/tijder/SmsMatrix

Look at this, notice anything different? https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/issues/new/choose

Nheko has been around for a number of years. Never used it myself though.

https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko

Matrix clients hit different than pretty much any other chat client I've use before. Theres multiple clients I've found like nheko, moments, element that are a pleasure to look at and smooth as hell. Even better you can have users use web services like Element Web to sign-up and chat. Its sick.

The Nheko flatpak is official. Just compare the source to the nightlies we build and upload to our nightly repo.

Like almost every client out there it has no support for e2ee. I was happy to find https://nheko-reborn.github.io (I'm a KDE user so Qt apps are preferred).

There's also FluffyChat or Nheko if Element is too heavy.

I probably wouldn't have guessed that `e.dataTransfer.items` gets cleared at the first await (since I'm not a proficient web developer), but I would've been extremely wary of this code in general. Additionally (not tied to async-await but race conditions in general), is `item.getAsFileSystemHandle()` a TOCTTOU vulnerability where the type of an item can change between folders and files and symlinks etc., while this code is running?

Rust's & vs. &mut system largely eliminates shared state hazards in both threading and asynchronity (&mut is exclusive/unaliased and can't be mutated by other threads or event loop jobs, and & is difficult and unidiomatic to mutate), though it doesn't solve async cancellation errors (https://carllerche.com/2021/06/17/six-ways-to-make-async-rus..., discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27542504), or filesystem TOCTTOU (https://blog.rust-lang.org/2022/01/20/cve-2022-21658.html as well as user code).

Qt event loop reentrancy is fun(tm) as well. It looks like a blocking call, but spawns a nested event loop which can do anything (but rarely enough to lull you into a false sense of complacency), resulting in segfaults like https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/issues/656 (workaround at https://github.com/Nheko-Reborn/nheko/commit/570d00b000bd558..., I didn't look into it). And Qt lacks "easy" await syntax and a framework based on calling red functions (though I didn't look into C++20 coroutines yet, perhaps https://www.qt.io/blog/asynchronous-apis-in-qt-6 or https://github.com/mhogomchungu/tasks or https://blog.blackquill.cc/asynchronous-qtquick-uis-and-thei...?).