Jabber/XMPP: 25 Years of Digital Independence

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

XMPP (formerly Jabber) is marking 25 years as an open, federated chat protocol, prompting renewed interest in how it compares to newer systems like Matrix, Signal, and Telegram. Commenters highlight XMPP’s strengths—mature standards, decentralization, military and enterprise use, agent and IoT integrations, and easy self-hosting via servers like Prosody or Snikket—while criticizing its fragmented extensions, uneven client quality, spam handling, and weaker UX on mobile and desktop. Many see it as technically solid but hampered by poor adoption and usability, arguing that with better funding, tooling, and “good defaults,” it could still be a strong foundation for privacy‑respecting messaging.

Current Usage & Ecosystem

  • Widely used today for small, private networks: families, friends, and small organizations rather than big public communities.
  • Reported “hidden” institutional use: NATO, military, police, intelligence, and corporate environments; NATO’s “JChat” and military HF radio deployments were cited.
  • Underpins several services: Jitsi Meet signaling (Prosody), historical and current WhatsApp protocol, parts of the fediverse, jmp.chat (SMS/telephony bridge), some IoT products, and legacy corporate chat.

Self‑Hosting and Infrastructure

  • Prosody and ejabberd are seen as mature, relatively low‑maintenance once configured.
  • Some found initial setup “brutal” and XMPP “the Apache of chat”; others say modern defaults make it mostly “fire and forget.”
  • Snikket (Prosody-based bundle) is praised for easy Docker deployment but criticized as limiting for later customisation.
  • Gateways to WhatsApp, Matrix, and IRC (via biboumi) are used successfully.

Client Experience & Adoption

  • Major pain point is client quality compared to Signal/Telegram/WhatsApp.
  • Recommended clients: Conversations (Android), Dino (desktop), Gajim, Movim, Fluux, Kaidan, Converse.js, Cheogram, Monal, Libervia.
  • Experiences diverge: some report Conversations as stable and family‑friendly; others see crashes, clunky UX, notification glitches, and multi‑device inconsistencies.
  • Discoverability (finding users/rooms), spam on public JIDs, and E2E setup issues hinder adoption.

Encryption, Extensions & Interoperability

  • OMEMO fragmentation (old vs OMEMO 2) causes incompatibilities; some clients can’t talk, or can’t disable encryption when it breaks.
  • Some appreciate XMPP’s ability to fall back to unencrypted messaging in emergencies; others see that as undermining security.
  • Complaints about “XEP sprawl” and needing an “XMPP: the good parts”; others point to compliance profiles and modern documentation as addressing this.

Comparison with Matrix and Others

  • Some view Matrix as “reinventing the wheel,” wasting funding XMPP could have used, and still de facto tied to one primary server/client.
  • Others see Matrix as better suited to Slack‑/Discord‑like persistent rooms and richer history.
  • Matrix is criticized for long‑polling on mobile and reliance on external push services; XMPP is praised for efficient persistent connections and for powering FCM/APNs (per commenters).
  • Overall split: XMPP seen as simpler, more mature, and easier to self‑host for small communities; Matrix seen as more ambitious but heavier and more fragile.

Overall Sentiment

  • Respect for XMPP’s longevity, openness, and resilience.
  • Simultaneous frustration that, despite technical strengths and independence, it remains niche with uneven UX and fragmented encryption support.