Pros of Berty

• Fully decentralized and peer-to-peer, offering enhanced privacy and censorship resistance
• Supports offline messaging through a distributed network
• Implements advanced cryptographic protocols for secure communication

Cons of Berty

• Still in development, with potential stability issues
• Smaller user base compared to DeltaChat, which may limit adoption
• More complex setup and configuration process

Code Comparison

DeltaChat (JavaScript):

const DeltaChat = require('deltachat-node')
const dc = new DeltaChat()
dc.createAccount(config)
dc.startIO()

Berty (Go):

import "berty.tech/berty/v2/go/pkg/bertyprotocol"

client, err := bertyprotocol.New(opts)
if err != nil {
    return err
}

Both projects aim to provide secure messaging solutions, but they differ in their approach. DeltaChat builds upon existing email infrastructure, making it easier to adopt and use with existing accounts. Berty, on the other hand, focuses on creating a fully decentralized network, prioritizing privacy and censorship resistance.

DeltaChat offers a more stable and mature platform, with a larger user base and easier setup process. Berty provides advanced features like offline messaging and stronger privacy guarantees but is still in active development and may have a steeper learning curve for users.

Pros of Element Desktop

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Supports end-to-end encryption for enhanced security
• Offers a wider range of features, including voice and video calls

Cons of Element Desktop

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to maintain
• Higher resource usage due to additional features
• Steeper learning curve for new users

Code Comparison

Element Desktop (TypeScript):

export async function getUpdateInfo(): Promise<UpdateInfo> {
    const targetUrl = getTargetUrl();
    const requestResult = await needle('get', targetUrl, updateCheckHeaders);
    if (requestResult.statusCode !== 200) {
        throw new Error(`Update check failed ${requestResult.statusCode}`);
    }
    return JSON.parse(requestResult.body);
}

DeltaChat Desktop (JavaScript):

function getConfigFor(key) {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    ipcRenderer.once('success-get-config', (e, value) => resolve(value))
    ipcRenderer.once('error-get-config', (e, err) => reject(err))
    ipcRenderer.send('get-config', key)
  })
}

Both projects use Electron for cross-platform desktop application development. Element Desktop has a more extensive feature set and active community, while DeltaChat Desktop focuses on simplicity and ease of use. Element Desktop's codebase is larger and more complex, potentially requiring more resources, while DeltaChat Desktop aims for a lightweight approach.

Pros of Signal-Desktop

• More established and widely adopted secure messaging platform
• End-to-end encryption for all communications by default
• Regular security audits and updates

Cons of Signal-Desktop

• Requires phone number for registration, potentially compromising anonymity
• Centralized server architecture, less resilient to censorship
• Limited customization options for users

Code Comparison

Signal-Desktop (TypeScript):

async function sendMessage(message: string): Promise<void> {
  const encrypted = await encryptMessage(message);
  await sendToServer(encrypted);
}

DeltaChat-Desktop (JavaScript):

async function sendMessage(message) {
  const encrypted = await dc.encryptMessage(message);
  await dc.sendToRecipient(encrypted);
}

Both projects use similar approaches for sending encrypted messages, with Signal-Desktop using TypeScript for stronger typing. DeltaChat-Desktop relies on a dc object, likely representing the DeltaChat core library, while Signal-Desktop's implementation suggests a more modular approach with separate encryptMessage and sendToServer functions.

DeltaChat-Desktop offers a decentralized, email-based messaging solution, providing greater privacy and flexibility. However, Signal-Desktop benefits from a larger user base and more frequent updates. Both projects prioritize security and encryption, making them solid choices for privacy-conscious users.

Pros of Wire Desktop

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Larger community and user base, potentially leading to better support
• Comprehensive end-to-end encryption for all communication types (messages, calls, file sharing)

Cons of Wire Desktop

• Closed-source backend, limiting full transparency and auditability
• Requires account creation and phone number/email for registration
• More complex architecture, potentially leading to a larger attack surface

Code Comparison

Wire Desktop:

const env = process.env.NODE_ENV || 'production';
const isDevelopment = env === 'development';
const isProduction = env === 'production';

Delta Chat Desktop:

const env = process.env.NODE_ENV || 'production'
const isDevelopment = env === 'development'
const isProduction = !isDevelopment

Both projects use similar environment variable checks, but Wire Desktop's approach is more explicit in defining production mode.

Summary

Wire Desktop offers a more polished and feature-rich experience with active development and a larger user base. However, Delta Chat Desktop provides a more privacy-focused approach with its decentralized, email-based architecture and fully open-source codebase. The choice between the two depends on the user's priorities regarding features, privacy, and ecosystem integration.

Pros of Rocket.Chat

• More feature-rich, offering a wide range of collaboration tools
• Supports multiple deployment options (cloud, self-hosted, mobile)
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Rocket.Chat

• More complex setup and maintenance
• Higher resource requirements for self-hosting
• Steeper learning curve for administrators

Code Comparison

DeltaChat-Desktop (JavaScript):

const DeltaChat = require('deltachat-node')
const dc = new DeltaChat()
dc.createAccount(config)

Rocket.Chat (JavaScript):

import { Meteor } from 'meteor/meteor'
import { RocketChat } from 'meteor/rocketchat:lib'

Meteor.startup(() => {
  RocketChat.settings.init()
})

DeltaChat-Desktop focuses on simplicity and privacy, using a decentralized approach based on email protocols. It's lightweight and easy to set up but has fewer features compared to Rocket.Chat.

Rocket.Chat is a comprehensive team communication platform with a wide range of features, including video conferencing, file sharing, and integrations. It's more suitable for large organizations but requires more resources and technical expertise to manage.

Both projects are open-source and actively maintained, but Rocket.Chat has a larger community and more frequent updates. DeltaChat-Desktop is ideal for users prioritizing privacy and simplicity, while Rocket.Chat is better for teams needing a full-featured collaboration platform.

Pros of Mattermost Desktop

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Larger community and user base, leading to better support and resources
• Extensive integration capabilities with other tools and services

Cons of Mattermost Desktop

• Heavier resource usage compared to DeltaChat Desktop
• Less focus on privacy and end-to-end encryption
• Requires a Mattermost server, limiting standalone usage

Code Comparison

DeltaChat Desktop (React):

const ChatListItem = ({ chat, onClick }) => (
  <li onClick={() => onClick(chat.id)}>
    <img src={chat.profileImage} alt={chat.name} />
    <span>{chat.name}</span>
  </li>
);

Mattermost Desktop (React):

const ChannelItem = ({ channel, onSelect }) => (
  <div onClick={() => onSelect(channel.id)} className="channel-item">
    <ChannelIcon type={channel.type} />
    <span>{channel.display_name}</span>
    <UnreadBadge count={channel.unread_count} />
  </div>
);

Both projects use React for their UI components, but Mattermost Desktop tends to have more complex components with additional features like unread badges and channel icons. DeltaChat Desktop's components are generally simpler, focusing on core functionality.