quaff

I imagine the code is not the problem, but more of a philosophical one. I am on your side that this is sorely needed in KDE. But I’ve been seeing KDE devs shoot down this type of functionality for a decade now and the state of this MR looks like more of the same.

Try clicking the URLs.

SSD: Server Side Decorations

CSD: Client Side Decorations

It’s how kwin fundamentally works. And why you can’t just have application specific buttons and widgets in kwin window decorations like how in Gnome you can.

The article I linked is from 2013. They’ve been discussing this for a long time.

KDE has always favoured SSD over CSD. So it kind of makes sense that LIM was rejected.

https://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/02/client-side-window-decorations-and-wayland/

Aesthetically, I think CSD is the way to go. But functionally, I love KDE too much to use anything else.

Personally, I can’t wait to inline PHP in my rust code!

Telegram needs to enable e2ee by default, cause the way it is now, you may as well not have it.

I mean that is a fair point. But open source client only matters if people were using Telegram’s secret chats consistently. The closed source server is what’s most important when almost all communication happens plain text.

You can hide your phone number now with the release of usernames in Signal. Still need it for registration tho.

I suspect that’s because Telegram’s marketing and it’s users consistently try to place Telegram in the same categories as actually secure and encrypted messengers. Whereas I don’t see tech blogs claiming that FB messenger is secure.

Good catch 🫡

Maybe it’s different on Android or Desktop/Web. On iOS it’s more than 2 clicks. And it’s tucked away. It would be surprising to me if the UI is that inconsistent across different platforms. But I can’t know for sure. So I will defer to the subject matter experts on Telegram.

It’s 100% not just two clicks. You make it sound easier than it really is. But there’s no way for a new or infrequent user to know where it is unless they explore a bit or even knew to look for it. It’s hidden away behind a hamburger menu.

I mean, I was merely referring to how FB Messenger and Telegram functions the same.

Speaking to the protocol used for encryption is a moot point… because even if MTProto 2 was better, it’s still not enabled by default in both messengers.

Right. But it’s also not exactly “easy” which is what you’re saying it is.

If easy was a sliding scale. Easy would be enabled by default. Hard would be making it obscure and hard to find. I would say it’s definitely closer to the harder to find side. But that’s just me. But 3 clicks, and having to switch chats and maybe delete the old one to avoid confusion, none of that is easy.

Ah good point, gotta delete the old unencrypted chat too to avoid confusion. That’s definitely more than just 3 clicks.

If you’re talking to 30 people, it’s 90 clicks. It might be 3 clicks if you know where to look, but end of the day, even if you know where to find it, that’s still that many clicks times how many people you chat with. It’s not ideal. I wouldn’t say it’s complicated sure, but it’s not easy.

Yeah, the fact that FB messenger uses Signal protocol, means the encryption is better recognized than the one used in Telegram. But the lack of on-by-default or the need to drill in a few options before enabling secret chats… I mean it’s even named the same thing as Telegram.

It’s three clicks. And it opens a separate chat from the existing one. It’s obscure enough that you could say the UX deprioritizes (which at best is not an actively malicious design choice) usage of end-to-end encryption.

If Telegram is considered an encrypted messenger, than FB messenger should be too. Works exactly the same. 🙄

You should try out https://pcpartpicker.com/

Great tool to spec out a computer and give you an idea of how much it’ll cost you.