[webteam] XML files for public transports

[Sander Devrieze]

2008/4/14, Robert Martinez <mail at mray.de>:
> > >  I care. Switching to jabber should not imply to spill around your
> > > credentials everywhere. We're supposed to make things better :).
> > >
> > >
> >
> > But you're not Aunt Tilly! ;-) And there are more Aunt Tillies than
> > there are Robert Martinez'es, wether you like that or not.
> >
> >
>  You didn't get my point here. In my eyes it  is a huge problem that too
> many users don't care about giving away their data. - I absolutely believe
> that there are many that don't care! - But we can agree that this isn't good
> - right?

Yes, but does that mean we should focus fix the problem of these users
instead of focusing on what we want to accomplish? That was my point
here ;-)

> >
> > >  Transports as a feature are nice to have, and clearly you _have_ to
> give
> > > way your credentials away.
> > >  But doing it quickly without letting the user know of the implications
> > > isn't a perfect solution.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > btw: I don't see the difference between giving your credentials to a
> > closed network owner and between giving it to one of the transports on
> > a list that went through a procedure of trust.
> >
> >
>  When you create an account on MSN I guess it is obvious that Micrsosoft
> "pwwns" your data ;)
>  (Which I think we agree isn't perfect, your data should remain with you
> only  - as far as possible)
>
>  Now how don't you see a difference when there is an ADDITIONAL player that
> has your data, and on top of that you don't even know who that is!?
>  (or do you want to provide terms and conditions with every of your random
> servers?)

Yes, I understand this, but same as above: Aunt Tilly users do not
care about this. They are used to using Windows and buying lots of
money for expensive anti-virus and firewall software instead of simply
avoiding insecure software. They don't care that their software sucks,
they only want it to *work*. So, if we can provide them with
transports that work great they will be satisfied, even if this may
mean possible security issues. They simply don't care about this.

> >
> > >  I don't consider the transports as a true, reliable solution (not with
> > > those instable small servers out there).
> > >  So I also don't see the benefit of scripting stuff that won't be a
> solution
> > > in the end.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Obviously this will not save the world, but IMO it is one and
> > relatively easy to implement measure to improve transport experience
> > for users...so, a small first step to save the world ;-)
> >
> >
> >
>  This seems to be an ideological question.
>
>  Transport experience may be improved - But I would rather stick to improve
> actual XMPP employment.
>  There is still so much to do in order to make XMPP use "only" more
> comfortable. Why start there where we please our "customers" but do a bigger
> favor for MSN and Yahoo rather then ourselves?

My answer is in here: http://coccinella.im/whytransportsmatter It's
all about Judy Strategy.

>  Imho it is really "poor" if we achieve a really perfect transport
> experience, and XMPP gets known for THAT.

XMPP should get known for interoperability amongst Aunt Tilly people
in the same way as it currently *already* is known for
interoperability amongst tech people.

>  XMPP isn't a nice glue to the inferior IM systems - nor should we actively
> make it appear like it is.

XMPP is about interoperability, but today Aunt Tilly people don't see
XMPP like that and this is a problem hindering world domination of
XMPP...I would like to see this bug fixed ;-)

-- 
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.