[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
srlee at myjabber.net
Fri Jul 11 16:26:47 CDT 2003
Your kidding right?
I don't recall the U.S. ever trying to sell a product called English
language, I'm afraid I'm having a little trouble seeing the relevance
Could be just me..
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
Behalf Of Constantin Nickonov
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 5:05 PM
To: 'members at jabber.org'
Subject: RE: [Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
Oops... the send key must've pushed itself.
I just wanted to quickly bring back the language vs. nationality point
I'd made earlier. Everyone knows that people in the U.S. speak English,
and few doubt that, since its humble beginnings as a colony of England,
the U.S. has somehow differentiated itself -- not to mention winning its
independence and going on to become rather dominant on the world scene.
So, the whole David vs. Goliath line of reasoning some of the name
change proposal's proponents are taking doesn't even make historical
sense. You have to educate your customers whether you're selling the
concept of Jabber or of Boo. Should the early Americans have changed
their language to "Colonial" or "American"? I doubt that it was their
top concern -- and it certainly made sense for them to continue using
the known "English"... even if some people associated that with
implication of being a part of England.
And we're not going around in the U.S. today talking foul about England,
as they gave this country (and its language) roots and we have somehow
managed to educate the rest of the world about nationality vs. language.
So much so, I might add, that the U.S. is probably more credited with
being the reason for Enligsh's ubiquity.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tucker [mailto:matt at jivesoftware.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:51 PM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
> > Then take the example of WebDAV. It is a set of protocol
> extensions to
> > HTTP that provide the ability to do web-based distributed
> authoring and
> > versioning. In the same way, Jabber is a set of protocol
> extensions to
> > XMPP that create, what you have called, a "full-featured IM
> system." Both
> > HTTP and XMPP are complete and usable protocols without the
> addition of
> > WebDAV and Jabber, and there is nothing preventing any
> users from taking
> > them and using them as is.
> I think WebDAV is actually a pretty bad example. Although it
> is built on
> top of HTTP, it's purpose is significantly different. On the
> other hand,
> XMPP and "Jabber" (as you're defining it) essentially do the
> exact same
> thing with a few minor feature differences. The criteria it
> makes sense
> to apply is: do the systems have the same purpose? If the
> answer is yes,
> then it makes most sense to have a unified naming approach. Since the
> protocol is already called XMPP in the IETF, we should stick
> with that.
> > There is certainly nothing preventing folks who feel that
> they cannot
> > promote the Jabber terminology from creating their out
> community, and
> > their own set of enhancements to XMPP. Microsoft has often
> taken broadly
> > used protocols, and extended them to serve their purposes
> better. I hope,
> > however, that in the interest of broader compatibility across all
> > "full-feature IM systems" based on XMPP, that those folks
> choose not to do
> > so.
> Yikes, this is exactly what we want to try to prevent. We
> think there is
> a real danger of this as long as the Jabber name is used,
> which is part
> of the reason we've made this proposal. Let's use
> vendor-neutral naming
> so that nobody is ever encouraged or forced to take XMPP protocol
> extension work outside of the JSF.
> > as Tony said, there has been no evidence presented that makes > me
> believe that I couldn't clearly communicate that what I do > is
> related to an open protocol, as opposed to a corporate entity > that
> does similar work with a similar name.
> Our experience has been the exact same as Barry's. There is
> the implicit
> assumption that "Jabber" means Jabber Inc by our customers. As a more
> specific example, we have a product in development that is
> built on top
> of XMPP (much like WebDAV is built on top of HTTP). We made
> the mistake
> of using the Jabber terminology with a potential customer of the
> product. Even though Jabber Inc. has no products even
> remotely similar
> to this one, the reaction of the customer was "Hey, I just got a
> brochure from Jabber Inc. If it's 'Jabber' that you guys are
> doing, then
> why shouldn't we be using their server instead?" Of course, I
> was able
> to explain the difference, but I shouldn't have to. At that
> instant in
> time I knew we'd never use the Jabber name ever again to describe our
> products. :)
> Jabber Inc.'s own homepage doesn't do much to help with the issue.
> Here's how they define Jabber at the top of their website:
> "Jabber is a software platform for moving your ideas forward - in
> real-time. Deploy secure, scalable, business-class instant messaging.
> Extend presence into workflow, supply chain, and knowledge management
> systems. Integrate a real-time communications channel into
> existing web
> sites and customer service portals. And do so with ease using
> open, XML-based, natively interoperable architecture."
> If you dig into the site, you can find a page that further
> defines what
> Jabber is and it at least mentions that it's an open protocol (but
> without mention of XMPP) -- again, not much clearer.
> How can this situation not harm the adoption and ubiquity of the
> protocol extensions we're developing in the JSF as long as those
> extensions are called Jabber?
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members