[Members] Is this thing on?
us at activestocks.de
Wed Dec 22 08:43:51 CST 2004
Bart van Bragt schrieb:
> If we are going to put development time into something then we should
> put this time into decent servers. There are a LOT of clients out
> there but only a few half decent servers. There still is only one
> (unfinished) pubsub implementation, etc, etc. IMO there is quite a bit
> of work todo before we should start worrying about sub-optimal
> libraries :) Besides that most platforms only have one mostly finished
> library available.
I think / imo jabber.org should head the community way and not so much
the implementation way. J.o should be a platform for developers and j.o
should help those developers build better software, use that software
and get some audience.
> Regarding the top-down (early adopting companies) vs the bottom-up
> (home users) thing. IMO we shouldn't disregard the homeusers. The
> needs of the companies and the endusers have a LOT of overlap. Both
> want easy to use, fairly feature rich and stable clients. Both need
> decent servers that they can use or deploy. Both need features that
> set XMPP apart from 'the rest'.
> Besides that XMPP's share in the corporate world is nice but IMO
> Microsofts LCS is going to be a very tough competitor. Office
> integration, anyone? :D
> So for me the endusers are the main target. I think that's the same
> with most of the people in the JSF and especially in the larger Jabber
> community. Otherwise we would have seen quite a bit more commercial
> clients/servers and less open source projects.
Problem propably is, big commercial IM companys have their own legacy
protocols already and untargeted end user IM can only be profitable with
a very large user base. Of course targeted communitys (like this gay
community) can be profitable since those companys have something to sell.
> IMO endusers are key, tackle this from the bottom up, IMO the
> corporate battle is very hard to win with all these small commercial
> XMPP companies that are all separately trying to win from companies
> like MS.
> So Jabber should become the Firefox of Instant Messaging :)
Let's engrave that sentence - i 100% agree and wanted to say that already.
> But before that can happen we need decent info for endusers (but
> www.jabbercentral.org is getting in shape. BTW if someone could ask
> Justin Mecham to set the nameservers for jabbercentral.com to the same
> nameservers as jabbercentral.org I'd be VERY grateful. Can't get a
> hold of Justin, have been trying for months now :( ). Then there is a need
> for decent/stable servers and good documentation and registration
> procedures on the server side.
Agreed - end user sites are important - we noted that on the board list
in a minor sentence already ...
> All this to get the early adopters in the enduser world started. Then
> we'll need to get on par with the legacy networks. If I look at the
> people that I know video/voice is starting to become more and more
> important. Lots of people are buying webcams at the moment (ok, mostly
> the 16 yo girls :D). But I'm also using Skype to stay in contact with
> some people when it's too expensive to use the phone. Works perfectly,
> should work perfectly with Jabber too IMO. But implementing this is
> pretty hard so I think just integrating a library/application with the
> already existing clients is the way to go. Client developers have too
> much work to do as it is, adding voice/video would be a very large
> extra burden if they all had to start from scratch.
Problem is audio and video with legacy librarys are not that easy to
implement. The time factor is frightening and a nightmare without an
> And then I'm going to stand on my soapbox again and say it once more:
Am adding that to a target paper.
More information about the Members