Re:Open source P2P alternative to Slack and Discord built on...
by lolinder on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @08:42AM
(#37480265)
What you're defining is possible future feature parity, not feature parity.
A project does not have feature parity until the features are actually built—promises that the features are possible and if you really wanted it you could build it yourself are nice in their own way, but they're not features.
Re:Open source P2P alternative to Slack and Discord built on...
by lucideer on Tuesday September 12, 2023 @08:52AM
(#37480390)
You're technically correct (the best kind of correct), but in the context of this comment thread the comment I was replying to said:
> many messaging softwares seem to not understand what feature parity is.
That implies either no intent to implement feature parity, or having had enough time & resources to do so without bothering to. Neither of those things are the case here - hence my breakdown.
I've edited my comment to better address your particular point though, thanks.
1. Can the protocol support it (well)
2. Is the tech mature enough / is there enough contributors to ensure the client adds support
For a new tech only the first bullet point is relevant - from a brief scan it seems like a hopeful but emphatic yes.
I guess there's a third soft question which is, does the project have the branding, polish, marketing clout to gain traction: much harder to gauge but looks polished at least.