[Foundation] "Jabber" name again

Ulrich B. Staudinger us at die-horde.de
Thu Oct 16 02:47:08 CDT 2003


johannes.wagener at gmx.net wrote:

>Well as everybody in the jsf is aware of this problem we should stop 
>talking and go and act.
>
>Minimum discussion should result of my two proposals:
>
>- Simply try to avoid the word "Jabber" in all texts published on 
>jabber.org/xmpp.org xmppworld.com ...
>
Avoiding the word jabber is difficult. it's viral marketing - if you 
talk about instant messaging in xml, one usually uses the term jabber. 
However i think the term XMPP should be used, similar to Pop and SMTP or 
IMAP. Many non english natives understand 'java' if i say 'jabber' - 
xmpp is much clearer.

my comment to your proposal is clear:
use JSF instead of jabber software foundation
use XMPP when talking about protocol issues
use jabber when referring to the company.

Especially the term JSF would strengthen the JSF to be a good cradle for 
XMPP related open source developments (however, then i have to ask why 
we don't call it XSF and why so many voted against the name change)

i think the term XMPP will survive longer than jabber - simply because 
XMPP is IETFed and jabber is not.


>- The Marketing team should message all journalists they are aware of 
>that ever mentioned/wrote an article about jabber with a 
>"explaination" about the problem.
>
Which explanation would you like to see?

>
>I don't think we can do more...
>
>Johannes Wagener
>
>On 15 Oct 2003 at 21:52, Bart van Bragt wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Harold E. Gottschalk Jr. wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>>The best solution to this would be to make JSF an acronym no more and 
>>>>merely make it the name.  
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I agree.
>>>      
>>>
>>Eehm, what would this solve?
>>
>>The problem:
>>
>>- The 'Jabber' name (or brand) is fairly well known
>>- XMPP is not known to many people and IMO it's not a very 
>>'userfriendly' name.
>>- Jabber Inc. is a company
>>
>>Dropping 'Jabber' altogether is nearly impossible and also fairly stupid 
>>because it will confuse the heck out of the people that finally know 
>>what Jabber is. Also saying 'JSF' instead of 'Jabber Software 
>>Foundation' won't solve the problem because people will still refer to 
>>the protocol as being 'Jabber'.
>>
>>The people call the protocol 'Jabber' is no problem to me, IMO that's 
>>great even! Sounds a lot better than XMPP and Jabber is a more consumer 
>>focussed product (more IM focussed). What is a problem is the fact that 
>>there is a company that's called 'Jabber'. It's very easy for people to 
>>think that 'Jabber Inc.' is the inventor/maintainer/developer of all the 
>>(core) Jabber software and protocols and that it's the primary company 
>>if you're looking for commercial Jabber based solution. IMO that's 
>>'unfair competition' for all the other companies out there (damn, my 
>>English sucks today :D Need sleep ;)).
>>
>>Is changing the name of Jabber Inc. an option? I really do see that this 
>>is not the prefered solution for the owners/employees of Jabber Inc. but 
>>IMO that's mainly because it will reduce their 'headstart' in the 
>>Jabber/XMPP market. IMO the products that Jabber Inc produces are more 
>>than competitive enough to survive in the market without attaching the 
>>Jabber brand to it.
>>
>>Bart
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Members mailing list
>>Members at jabber.org
>>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Members mailing list
>Members at jabber.org
>http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>
>  
>


-- 
Ulrich B. Staudinger
http://www.die-horde.de
email: us at die-horde.de
jid: uls at jabber.org

current project: REDHORN
http://redhorn.sourceforge.net

Blog: http://jabber.linux.it/jogger/user.php?jid=uls@jabber.org





More information about the Members mailing list