4 ms·
I don’t understand your XMPP example. Google didn’t and doesn’t decide the fate of XMPP. Most developers who targeted it only cared about where the users were,
by kogir 8y ago
I don’t understand your XMPP example. Google didn’t and doesn’t decide the fate of XMPP. Most developers who targeted it only cared about where the users were, and features supported by the most popular servers and clients.
Would you have preferred that those developers reverse engineer something closed source Google developed instead? Libpurple has advanced messaging not at all, only been great for interoperability.
- dontchooseanick 8y agoI've worked on XMPP. Google talk / now hangouts once was an XMPP pusher. XMPP is decentralized. As with mail servers you can advertise your own XMPP servers, see https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/SRV_Records , you can even publish a per-user DNS record with an OTR key. I shut down my XMPP endpoint a few monthes ago because Google had stopped supporting XMPP bridging to hangouts. Now that everybody uses hangouts (coders) or slack (teams/corporates) or whatsapp/messenger/skype (everyone else) there is no incentive to support it anymore (I speak now only IRC with coders) They gave their support and a lot of traction to the protocol, and removed it on a second step (once advocates of XMPP, _yes, like me_ said to everyone, "yes you should prefer gmail+talk, they are supporting open standards") Looks like an approaching-with-good-intentions and then disrupting strategy to me. Even if you disagree on the responsibility of XMPP rise and fall, they are the bull in a china shop : don't drink the kool aid, you'll end up broken.
- jononor 8y agoGmail/Google was one of the biggest platforms that supported XMPP. Then they removed it completely, with of course made supporting XMPP less meaningful/attractive for others.