[Members] Google Summer of Code 2014 - Should the XSF Apply?
simon at buddycloud.com
Fri Nov 29 14:52:49 UTC 2013
How is letting people join freenode chatrooms from their XMPP client
different from an XMPP transport like spectrum?
Is there really a demand from IRC people to talk to XMPP or is this a
solution in search of a problem?
On 29 November 2013 15:35, Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Arc Riley <arcriley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Freenode uses their own IRCd with their own non-standards-compliant
>> server to server protocol. From my previous discussions with the
>> developers they wouldn't want a 3rd party MUC service linking to their
>> network because they'd lose direct control. They'd want it directly
>> supported by their servers running the same code so the same policies apply
>> regardless to whether you're using IRC or XMPP.
>> Freenode isn't EFnet, and yea Freenode isn't a "IRC network" in the
>> traditional sense, its a network that happens to use IRC, and that's
>> exactly why its a great target for XMPP. Flip a coin, Rob Levin (lilo)
>> could have just as easily picked XMPP MUC for the initial deployment.
>> While Rob is no longer with us, the people running the network do so in
>> his vision. I think we could do this.
> I think that doing so could be very good for XMPP in general - projects
> don't, currently, use XMPP, and I'm not really sure there's much better
> reasoning that Freenode being good enough, and simple inertia. If we could
> break that and lessen the cost of transition, it'd really help.
> Opening up Freenode to XMPP-S2S would also be very interesting, too (ie,
> letting people join Freenode chatrooms from their own XMPP account).
> I'd be inclined to say that anything we (as in XSF) can do to work on this
> would be worthwhile.
Simon Tennant | buddycloud.com | +49 17 8545 0880 | office hours:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Members