[Operators] XMPP bashing

Daniel Pocock daniel at pocock.com.au
Mon Feb 3 18:56:25 UTC 2014



On 03/02/14 19:09, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2014 16:44, "Andreas Kuckartz" <a.kuckartz at ping.de> wrote:
>>
>> Claudiu Curcă:
>>> 1. Why is that comment classified as "XMPP bashing"?
>>
>> As far as I know Daniel is mostly an SIP guy and is trying to _help_ the
>> XMPP community by pointing to that comment. But I also do not think that
>> the comment is "bashing" anything.
>>
> 
> It's making statements of fact which are incorrect, and using those to
> justify a strong statement of opinion.
> 
>>> why is the comment interesting to the operators group?
>>
>> The comment states that XMPP "lacks a protocol-level acknowledge and
>> I've seen it loose messages regularly when running through flaky proxy"
>>
>> It certainly is possible to reply to that without taking up arms.
> 
> And I have.
> 

Great, the moderator just approved all the comments too

The Debian stuff is still in the works, had a great discussion with
Matthew and some other free software projects at FOSDEM.

I took the previous discussion points from email and added them here:

https://wiki.debian.org/UnifiedCommunications/DebianDevelopers/XMPP

As for Debian offering a service to our users: that is more complicated.
 It is not up to me to make a decision about that personally, but my own
feeling is that if we did that we would

a) put more stress on our Debian Sys Admin (DSA) team

b) compete with some users of Debian who run public XMPP services as a
business

and so it is probably not going to happen.  What could happen is that we
could discuss (maybe with another thread or on the debian-project
mailing list) ways that Debian can provide a choice of public XMPP
services to new users.



More information about the Operators mailing list