[webteam] vendor lock-in, what the .... is it?

[Robert Martinez]

Alex Jones wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 17:50 +0200, Robert Martinez wrote:
>> Sander Devrieze wrote:
>> > 2007/9/22, Robert Martinez <mail at mray.de <mailto:mail at mray.de>>:
>> >   
>> >> Hal Rottenberg wrote:
>> >>     
>> >>> Can someone justify the existence of this field?  I don't think it's necessary.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>       
>> >> The vendor lock-in field marks projects that allow users only to use it
>> >> with only certain accounts.
>> >> google talk would be the most prominent here.
>> >>     
>> >
>> > Then you should choose something else than vendor lock-in: I also
>> > would call vendor lock-in all undocumented extensions to XMPP. I also
>> > would call all documented extensions without any interest and help of
>> > the software project to get them standardized in the future, vendor
>> > lock-in.
>> >
>> >   
>> This is about a client software listn not a documentation or extension 
>> judgement.
>> And if the -> jabber <- client does not actually work if you don't have 
>> the "right account" it is something very special.
>> The vendor lock-in field is thought to warn users (there is a small lock 
>> icon behind the name).
>> Every user expects that jabber is open after all!
>>     
> Hang on a minute... I think you're missing the point, Robert. There is 
> no vendor lock-in here. A Google Talk user can take his roster and 
> migrate to another XMPP service with no problem whatsoever.
>
> Please don't discourage the audience from joining federated services, 
> as ultimately, that is all that matters, right? 
I didn't know that I open up such a hot pot here :D

I don't want to discourage anybody.
As I said I just thought there is reason to believe that users coming to 
our page will do so in order to find new/other/better clients. Not services.
And the last thing I would want to do then is to send a long-time 
"Gajim" user with an "amessage.de" account to the google talk page!

I think when you browse our jabber client database it is only natural 
that you don't want to browse solutions that force you to make a deal 
with some corporations before you can use the clients.

Then this would be a list of services that use jabber AND jabber 
clients. But as their clients seem to be part of their service AND be 
clients i think it is ok to list them anyway.

So if I would want anything at all: it would not be to discourage users, 
but to encourage them to use open solutions for their needs.
Just like jabber itself.

Google has enough advertising for their service/client, and I hope our 
interest isn't to provide google with new users, but to strengthen the 
network for everybody. (including corporations)