[Members] XMPPD vs JabberD as a name

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Mon Nov 20 11:52:58 CST 2006


Matthias Wimmer [m at tthias.eu] Wrote:

> Versions following on "1.6.0" will be released as "xmppd".

This is actually something I would very much prefer not to see. We're just now getting a protocol that's free of name-related baggage and history, and I would really love to see it remain that way. 

As soon as "xmppd" comes out, we're back to having a term ("xmpp") that has name pollution associated with it. I would, if anything, like to see the XMPP Standard Foundation actively disapprove of brand dilution such as this. 

Also, there's room only for 1 product names xmpp* - and there are already a number of products that could qualify for this name in a very real sense: eJabberD, JabberD 1.x, JabberD 2.x, WildFire, XCP, SoapBox Server, etc. 

Why should the product that used to be JabberD get to use this name? I vote nobody gets to name their product this - that way we eliminate all the issues.

Also, we don't see:
Httpd anywhere as a product name. We see Apache.
We don't see smptd anywhere as a product name, we see SendMail.
We don't see "httpb" anywhere, we see Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape, Opera, etc. 

(Yes, I can think of counter examples too - but I'm ignoring those, as they tend to be much more fragmented).



--
Chris Mullins


More information about the Members mailing list