[jdev] a vision
melo at simplicidade.org
Thu Mar 12 12:24:21 CDT 2009
On Mar 11, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 March 2009 16:24:50 Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> None of this would be exclusive. We'd still strongly encourage
>> people to
>> run their own XMPP services and join the network. But we'd also work
>> hard to have worldwide coverage under the jabber.org banner.
> This proposal reminds me of our discussion in Portland last year with
> Christopher Zorn, about the future of Psi. I was all tied up in a
> because I felt that to truly target average users, Psi would have to
> be bound
> with a service, but that doing so would taint Psi's image and go
> against the
> point of Jabber.
huhs? Why would it go against the point of Jabber? wouldn't the Psi
server be federated with all the others? would the Psi server only
accept Psi clients?
I'm not saying that you should run a server, its a lot of work, but I
don't think that it is against the "spirit of jabber".
> You see, I have this idea that there's generic Jabber services and
> clients and
> then there's integrated services like Google Talk and SAPO, but only
> generic offerings count as being part of the Jabber ideal.
Well, apart from working at SAPO in the past :), I really do not
agree. As long as open federation is there, and you can use any client
with the service, I don't see what offense is there to the jabber ideal.
Sure (and here I'm talking about some parts at SAPO) we could have
used more standards in the clients, but in my defense (and other
before me), they weren't there at the time, and we where both young
> basically said this view is too limiting. Is Chesspark not part of
> Jabber ideal then? His point was that in the end it's all about
> great software and services, and holding on to this "generic client"
> idea is
> self-defeating. Normal people don't want generic building blocks.
I'm not a crusader against MSN/AIM/ICQ/Skype. I'm ok that they exist.
The only thing I really want from them is open federation. Maybe my
view is too limiting, but people who use MSN clients and Skype clients
really like them.
They would be kick-ass Jabber clients for a lot of people out there,
with all the bells and whistles that I loath.
So yes, if you do want to go against those guys, then you should be
selling the client, a very cool, feature-full, integrated with cool
web-N.0 tools and what not.
But I don't expect that to be the end-result of Jabber.org.
I would be very happy for jabber.org to provide a simple IM service,
with a simple Web Interface, with functional file transfer it at all
> Speaking of "first they visit the Psi website", Christopher argued
> that users
> will start at the client, mainly because it is the face of the
> service. They
> will see the software running on a friend's computer, or they'll see a
> screenshot or such, and think "Hey, that's pretty cool, I want
> that." The
> approach of going to jabber.org and having to pick a client is
Sure, but still Jabber.org is the top hit in google for Jabber. I
don't think we should underestimate that.
> The big question of all is whether it is the job of jabber.org to
> compete with
> Skype. Aren't there others in this space already trying to do
> that? If
> jabber.org is truly competitive, and no longer a self-defeating
> service, is it still fair to use the "Jabber" name? Peter, you may
> one of the options we discussed was to actually get rid of jabber.org
> entirely. ;-)
I don't think its the role of jabber.org to compete direcly with Jabber.
But there are certain services that would make the network better
(like a network of sock5 proxys, and all the NAT-busting stuff) that
require some form of central coordination, and that fits perfectly for
As for the IM service, I would keep it running and continue to accept
new users as the "backup route for new jabber users": if they are not
introduced to a more local jabber service then you can always have
XMPP ID: melo at simplicidade.org
More information about the JDev