[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
richard at dobson-i.net
Wed May 28 03:45:04 CDT 2003
> Every other commercial company I've talked to says the exact same thing
> (other than Jabber Inc.). I suppose it's possible we're all wrong, but
> then again, it's also possible we're right. :)
What about Tipic what is their position on this? They are competing directly
with Jabber, Inc and do not seem to have a problem mentioning XMPP/Jabber on
their site advertising their products. Also as JoeH has already said even
Jabber, Inc have to explain the difference just like everybody else I would
expect people might be saying things like "why should we buy your product
when their is a free jabber server?", its virtually the same difference for
> Out of the Open Source and non-commercial people I've talked to -- they
> are generally fond of the Jabber name but don't believe that it's right
> that an open standard be branded the same as a commercial company.
Well then why dont they speak up, without that im not inclined to believe
> Now, I realize there are a fair number of JSF members that don't give a
> rip about commercial users of the protocol. However, we all benefit from
> promoting an open standard and the JSF protocol extensions. Surely the
> cause will be hurt if commercial companies aren't participating in that.
Ive got a feeling it will hurt the companies that stop participating more
than it will hurt Jabber as a whole, if you have unwilling to promote your
product as XMPP/Jabber others will take your place in the market since if
you just support the basic XMPP protocol without the enhancements we are
producing here and introduce your own "extensions" to replace those you will
not be interoperable with the rest of the community, hurt your users and
hurt yourselfs by driving your customers to people who are Jabber compliant.
> Please remember that my voice only represents a single viewpoint in this
> debate and others supporting a name change have their own perspective.
> Personally, I see the fact that XMPP will be the dominant terminology as
> self-evident. Jabber has essentially no presence in the IM world today
> compared to the main systems. I hope you'll agree with that point even
> though it's the protocol we all know and love. The IETF process is about
> to change all of that, but under the name XMPP and not Jabber. Any
> company using the protocol will call it XMPP and not Jabber (as I hope
> all we commercial companies have made it clear). And finally, even after
> the "many years of huge brand success" you guys all talk about, every
> single press article I've seen recently makes no mention of Jabber and
> focuses exclusively on XMPP. Are you living in a dream world or is my
> perspective somehow incredibly warped?
Again the press does not represent the marketplace as a whole, the press
will always be the first to adopt the latest buzz words (XMPP) as it is a
way for them to spark interest in their stories and so they seem to be up to
date, just because the press use it doesnt mean the entire marketplace sees
it this way. Take a look for yourself and see how many more sites google
finds with "Jabber" in them compared to XMPP (by my count 725,000 with
"Jabber" in them, 9,500 with "XMPP") quite a difference, and goes completely
against what you are stating as fact.
> From my perspective, we at least have points. :) The only reasons I've
> heard against a name change are that (along with the answers we keep
> making which don't get replies):
> 1) "Jabber is a very popular brand so we shouldn't give it up."
> a) XMPP is on the road to being much more popular.
Not really true at the present time, again just try a search in Google. (by
my count 725,000 with "Jabber" in them, 9,500 with "XMPP")
> b) Commercial users simply won't use the Jabber brand.
Not true, Tipic seem to.
> c) It's inherently confusing to try to explain why extensions to
> XMPP should be called "Jabber" instead of just "XMPP extensions".
As PSA has already said calling anything we do outside the IETF as XMPP is
simply not an option.
> 2) "I like the name Jabber."
> * I do to, but since it's a commercially encumbered term, it's not
> suitable as a name for an open protocol for the entire internet to adopt.
Anyway as I already said in my previous message (which you seem to have cut
out for some reason), why dont you just put your energy into your proposal
and we will all take a vote, thats the only way this is going to be resolved
either way, you restating your points over and over I dont think is going to
change anyones minds.
More information about the Members