Signal vs Molly vs Molly-FOSS

treenutz68

Well, that was on my iPhone. The notifications are centralized through apple's encrypted notification system AFAIK, so signal is not maintaining a constant connection for incoming. Similar to how if you have google play services installed on graphene.

pinetree_raccoon

i was having abysmal battery with stock signal and the permanent connection.

i ended up going with the unified push flavor of molly.

separately i set up mollysocket and ntfy on a vps. i was already using ntfy app on my phone for a few other things so this did not result in any difference in battery. molly-up is now taking under 5% per day, many days closer to 2%.

this is perfect and works incredibly well!

treenutz68

pinetree_raccoon

That is great to hear! Can you use that setup for push notifications for other things to consolidate the connections? Specifically I'm curious about if you can get push for tuta or proton mail apps via unified push?

rufus

treenutz68 One thing I remember another member posting was changing the battery settings from unrestricted to optimized. I believe they said notifications still continued to work fine for them and battery life improved. I haven't tried it myself as I wouldn't trust that notifications would come through, but perhaps its worth you trying it if you've exhausted other options.

Notifications definitely do not work if the app is not allowed to run in background. This must be a wrong information.

Meanwhile I gaved up and hope it gets fixed somehow in the future.

xxx

rufus Notifications definitely do not work if the app is not allowed to run in background. This must be a wrong information.

Molly up with UnifiedPush has this kind of notifications but ntfy needs unlimited battery.

xxx

treenutz68

Take a look here: https://unifiedpush.org/users/apps/

rufus

xxx Molly up with UnifiedPush has this kind of notifications but ntfy needs unlimited battery.

This is not working for me either. MollyUP restricted does not show messages in real time.
And when I set both apps (ntfy, MollyUP) to unrestricted, it works but they use a lot of energy while on mobile network.

I think in my case there must be a other problem appart from molly.

pinetree_raccoon

molly up and ntfy have unrestricted battery access, this doesn't seem to increase their battery usage and with my current setup actually reduces it greatly.

I do use ntfy for many other notifications so I had it running already. this is just one more thing. ntfy is very battery optimized for me.

pinetree_raccoon

rufus do you have Molly socket running?

xxx

rufus Is ntfy working?

hemlockiv

Is there any difference for the end-user between Molly and Molly-FOSS, specifically?

blusterpilgrim

Stewart FCM by far. In fact I created a secondary profile with Play Services installed just so that I could receive FCM notitfications from various services and that drains less battery than allowing WebSocket notifications in the main profile. You could also look at UnifiedPush which apparently doesn't drain battery as much as Websocket but I didn't bother with that.

hemlockiv Molly accepts both FCM and Websocket notifications and the FOSS version accepts only Websocket. But if you do not have play services installed then there's no difference.

Stewart

What I want to know is the difference between FCM and WebSocket and which drains less battery power?

DeletedUser127

blusterpilgrim I would say running two profiles concurrently drains more battery than one with websockets, but of course you will argue your point by something that's been said many times over.

blusterpilgrim

DeletedUser127 Yes it's better to use Websocket in your main profile for battery than to have a secondary profile running. But I also have multiple other apps that rely solely on FCM so that's why I created a secondary profile. Of course you could just install Play Service on your owner profile but, and I'm not trying to create any FUD here, I'd prefer just to keep Play services off my owner profile.

pfr

Jumping in on this thread as it's what brought me here..

Is it possible to use biometric authentication (fingerprint) to unlock Molly's encryption? Instead of using a passphrase which is quite tiresome to do everytime you need to open the app.

I get this might be considered less secure to some people... but getting my finger cut off or having someone try to unlock my phone while I'm passed out isn't in my threat model.

that_guy

pfr Yes, if you do it with a password manager that supports biometric authentication. I use ProtonPass. Here is my workflow:

Launch the Molly app, where the database is currently locked.
An entry for "Molly" is shown in the password suggestion bar above the keyboard, supplied by ProtonPass.
I tap that entry & the ProtonPass biometric authentication dialog appears. I touch my finger to the fingerprint reader on the screen to authenticate to ProtonPass.
The autofill service inserts my 26 character cryptographically secure password into Molly's "Enter passphrase" field.
I tap "Unlock" in Molly & the database is unlocked.

Optionally, you can then set biometric authentication within Molly for accessing the app as well.

starbright

When I get this right:
Signal/Molly use FCM and Molly-FOS not.
Although I think that Signal (if no Gapps/microG) are present works too, but maybe not as reliable in terms of - you will get an incoming call.

What I don't see in this thread is how the battery consumption is suffered?
I mean if this is the only app using FCM that it might be same whether FCM or anything else is consuming battery to keep connection alive. But what is the addon for its alone?

KingNeptune

How the hell do you install unified push to get notifications when the app is encrypted closed ?

xxx

KingNeptune get notifications when the app is encrypted closed ?

That's what the distributor and the push server are for.

« Previous Page