- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/5635914
Back at FOSDEM we announced the idea of Matrix 2.0 - a series of huge step changes in terms of Matrix’s usability and performance, made up of Sliding Sync (instant login/launch/sync), Native OIDC(industry-standard authentication), Native Group VoIP (end-to-end encrypted large-scale voice & video conferencing) and Faster Joins (lazy-loading room state when your server joins a room).
Now, we’re excited to announce that as of today everyone can start playing with these Matrix 2.0 features. There’s still some work to bring them formally into the specification, but we’re putting it out there for folks to experience right now. Developers: watch this space for updates on the spec front.
Practically speaking, this means there are now implementations of the four pillars of Matrix 2.0 available today which you can use to power a daily-driver Matrix 2.0 client. The work here has been driven primarily by Element, using their new Element X client as the test-bed for the new Matrix 2.0 functionality and to prove that the new APIs are informed by real-world usage and can concretely demonstrably create an app which begins to outperform iMessage, WhatsApp and Telegram in terms of usability and performance… all while benefiting from being 100% built on Matrix.
The last public comment I could find from them was this month on 8/7 on Element’s Mastodon, and it seems they had other comments as well around that time. Which is pretty recent
The bill was passed less than a week ago and hasn’t come into effect yet. I have no doubt that the folks at Matrix/Element will do what they need to do. We haven’t seen them act in a concerning way before, so I don’t think a delayed response is a sign of a red flag. It’s quite possible they want to have things done on their end before announcing anything. Not to mention they clearly wanted to message about the Matrix 2.0 features, and bringing up the Online Safety bill would muddy that message