This project looks impressive and I will definitely want to contribute.
I have been thinking of making a similar peer to peer chat using a web app that runs either on browser or as a standalone web app using Web Storage API and a service worker. Has there been any plans or discussions about making a similar version of jami?
I was thinking that approach because I have understood that non-web apps can be easier to block and censor than web apps using nothing more than HTTPS. Please point me out if and how my thinking is flawed.
What is driving me to find alternative ways is the current trend of censoring and blocking websites and apps all over the world to advance various political and financial agendas. The last drop for me was Telegram blocking certain groups in certain countries arbitrarily. I believe we need a communication system for sharing out thoughts and discussing all kinds matters that can not be silenced.
I noticed that jami is written with python so this idea is quite far fetched and would require rewriting it with javascript.
If the intention is to overcome censorship, there might be more suitable tools than Jami. Personally, I have only been able to use one-to-one chat so far.
Would this web client allow one to sign up to a Jami server or self host a Jami server and therefore always have a Jami client that is running on a server be online 24/7 to receive messages and will sync to your other devices?
If that is the case, I hope it is designed so that the server operator cannot read users messages, contacts, Jami IDs or any other metadata.
Oh, and that means nonfree JavaScript? There may not be a need to think about this here. And JavaScript can also be stored in local files instead of being downloaded from the server.
I don’t see any fundamental reason why any non-free javascript should be needed. Jitsi Meet works without it, as far as I know. It would be great if Jami could do the same.
Hello, as I understand it, the Jami Web Client is actually a self-hosted server and not suitable for public servers, is that correct? Must the server be trusted or can Jami be E2EEd from the Web Client? If not the latter, is that due a protocol reason or just this specific implementation?
Personally, for me, a Web Client promises an easily accessible solution (from anywhere, for anyone). If it requires self-hosting, this unfortunally nullifies that point.
Jami Web is not ready yet. When Jami Web will be released, you will be able to install it on a server in your organization’s infrastructure and allow several users to log into that web interface and communicate with Jami without installing a Jami client on their desktops (of course the more users log into that server, the more bandwidth and computing ressources will be required).
We will not host a public instance of Jami Web but since it is Free Software, anyone can host it on their server and provide access to other users if they wish.
Thank you for the prospect. Can you shed some light on what this means in practice, for potential public hosting? Is it possible security wise, or must the server be trusted? Is the Web App basically just a frontend to the Jami Client which runs on the server, or will some traffic (thinking bandwidth heavy stuff like Video) go P2P? What were the difficulties with realizing “Jami Web” as a true web client without server infrastructure?