Telegram, the popular messenger with 800 million monthly active users worldwide, is inching closer to adopting an ecosystem strategy that is reminiscent
It’s not about what build they are running. It matters because somebody just glancing at it might misinterpret the situation as “Telegram is open source”, but it actually isn’t because the server isn’t. Just some clients are, which is pretty useless if you can’t run a server to talk to them. Just for arguments sake, let’s say Telegram gets busted tomorrow in an international sting operation and all their servers get taken offline. The clients will be entirely useless at that point, somebody would have to reverse engineer the server.
I’d like to at the very least be able to run my own server. Not even necessarily federated with the original ones. Just run my own instance if I don’t trust the main one runs what they claim.
Not open source, centralized servers that store messages mostly without E2EE.
By using Telegram we are locking ourself in situation where they can turn the knobs as they like, while we can’t do anything about it.
That’s kind of an apples an oranges comparison, WhatsApp doesn’t even try to present a facade of being open source. Telegram does, betting that the distinction between server and client code will go over most peoples heads, which it probably does to be honest.
There are two realistic alternatives with hundreds of millions of users. Whatsapp has a closed source client, Telegram has an open source one. The choice for me is easy.
But isn’t that the whole point of a messaging service? Connect to something else that’s not local and have your messages exchanged?
I think smileyhead is alluding to the fact that Telegram servers are not open source, just the clients are.
Why would it matter if the servers are open source? How would you ever verify they are running the exact build they claim they are?
It’s not about what build they are running. It matters because somebody just glancing at it might misinterpret the situation as “Telegram is open source”, but it actually isn’t because the server isn’t. Just some clients are, which is pretty useless if you can’t run a server to talk to them. Just for arguments sake, let’s say Telegram gets busted tomorrow in an international sting operation and all their servers get taken offline. The clients will be entirely useless at that point, somebody would have to reverse engineer the server.
I’d like to at the very least be able to run my own server. Not even necessarily federated with the original ones. Just run my own instance if I don’t trust the main one runs what they claim.
By running it myself, duh.
Not open source, centralized servers that store messages mostly without E2EE. By using Telegram we are locking ourself in situation where they can turn the knobs as they like, while we can’t do anything about it.
For whatsapp nothing is opensource
That’s kind of an apples an oranges comparison, WhatsApp doesn’t even try to present a facade of being open source. Telegram does, betting that the distinction between server and client code will go over most peoples heads, which it probably does to be honest.
There are two realistic alternatives with hundreds of millions of users. Whatsapp has a closed source client, Telegram has an open source one. The choice for me is easy.
That sounds like a false dichotomy and I’m not sure why you even think the number of users is relevant. Why not choose something fully open source?
Because there is no alternative that is on my friends phone.
That sounds like a solvable problem.