[Members] Google and XMPP federation

Steffen Larsen zooldk at gmail.com
Sun May 26 18:35:56 UTC 2013


+1 on this!. 
We have all of us written a blogpost, g+ posting about this subject. All of the writings are very good, but we need to assemble this into an "official" statement from the XSF.
Post it on xmpp.org and push it to the medias.

 I think it is most important to show that the claim from google is pure wrong in many of their statements and we need to show that federation of messaging is upmost of importance!.

/Steffen


On May 26, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> Sorry for the top posting, on the phone, but I do think we should be putting together a detailed rebuttal on technical grounds.
> 
> If Google wishes to create a walled garden for business reasons, they're free to do that, despite my strong feelings that this is not the best solution for their users. Their shareholders are their primary concern, I do appreciate this.
> 
> I do however see no possible excuse for their constant misinformation about XMPP, and their attempts to justify a business decision on false technical grounds, at our expense as an organisation and individually, must be challenged.
> 
> I'm happy to devote some time to this rebuttal.
> 
> On 26 May 2013 08:37, "Philipp Hancke" <fippo at goodadvice.pages.de> wrote:
> Am 26.05.2013 01:19, schrieb Ralph Meijer:
> On 2013-05-25 20:44, Mike Taylor wrote:
> [..]
>  >
> The only definitive article i've seen to date is the one I read this
> morning and, IMO, it's a hack piece.
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039820/google-weak-xmpp-support-capabilities-led-us-to-proprietary-tech-in-hangouts.html
> 
> 
> I wrote a extensive rebuttal on all of the points raised in this article
> (on TechHive):
> 
> https://plus.google.com/116276248303121270590/posts/ggNwh9eLYWu
> 
> I just watched a whole hour of https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KMr8etxIbjY -- can someone else go through the rest of the show please?
> 
> There are some interesting statements:
> In the conversation starting at 11:00 chee chew seems to say that xmpp is based on http. Am I getting that right? The arguments he's making sounds more like he means TCP... even though that doesn't make them more valid.
> 
> 
> 
> The conversation about presence starting at 28:45 is even more interesting. The key quotes here are that "in the mobile world the idea of presence is a bit more blurry" and "with the hangouts product you can send a message whether they're online or offline".
> First the presence part. For me, this describes a very naive notion of presence, reducing it to online/offline. XMPP has a slightly more elaborate model, allowing you to specify what you're currently doing in your presence. For enterprise unified communications there are other factors that influence your presence like being on a phone call or having a meeting (i.e. calendar integration).
> 
> Now the delivery of offline messages... I think the notion that you can only write to people who are online comes from aol instant messenger, possibly from IRC. Again, this is not true for XMPP as a protocol and the only major xmpp implementation that did not implement offline message storage or allowed you to send messages to contacts who are not online was... gtalk.
> 
> 
> I'm still struggling to the see the technical argument in "the model of xmpp did not work for us" given those... misinterpretations of how xmpp works.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20130526/9ec5ed43/attachment.html>


More information about the Members mailing list