2 ms·

Hey, thanks a lot, those clients look really quite great (and polished). Still, if you look at movim you imho experience the problem of the whole open XMPP-ecos

by fock 8y ago

Hey, thanks a lot, those clients look really quite great (and polished). Still, if you look at movim you imho experience the problem of the whole open XMPP-ecosystem. Somehow nobody cares for getting other people to support their features and in the end everything moves closed-source. At this point I think this really is a problem of years of standardizing new features and a lot of projects being sold under the label XMPP being 10 years behind on those features. In theory XMPP today (together with jingle?-based mediation of a jitsi-videobridge) is ready for everything. But in practice I didn't find 2/3 clients you recommended (google+xmpp-foundation site). EDIT: featured on HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16948597 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16948597. Look at the comments and you understand why I'm not the only one thinking, the UX is bad...

stevenicr 8y ago
I;d like to see a table / chart showing the top 10 or 20 or so xmpp things - and what features are missing from each, along with notes about the language app 1 2 etc is written in, and an estimate in how long it would take coders to add the amount of missing features that others have.. then we could see an estimated total, like for $xx we could get most of these apps all on the same page of features running... if that is the major hurdle - a crowdsourced money or and time to get them all modernized may make the whole ecosystem 2.0 and worthy of use? Surely it can't be that much that is needed - yet it seems that fixing just one or two is not having the same network effects of having them all speaking the 2.0 feature language.
- fock 8y ago
  https://compliance.conversations.im/ https://compliance.conversations.im/ not for clients but slowly getting there for the servers. And this is only for a working text-based chat, AV is really of the table. Basically except for conversations, most of the "clients" should be labeled protocol explorers because most of them have serious usability issues with most of the listed XEP... The worst thing isn't that the standard isn't defined or something, but that a lot of projects are claiming to support XMPP when they only support some core functionality...

by fock 8y ago

stevenicr 8y ago

I;d like to see a table / chart showing the top 10 or 20 or so xmpp things - and what features are missing from each, along with notes about the language app 1 2 etc is written in, and an estimate in how long it would take coders to add the amount of missing features that others have.. then we could see an estimated total, like for $xx we could get most of these apps all on the same page of features running... if that is the major hurdle - a crowdsourced money or and time to get them all modernized may make the whole ecosystem 2.0 and worthy of use? Surely it can't be that much that is needed - yet it seems that fixing just one or two is not having the same network effects of having them all speaking the 2.0 feature language.

fock 8y ago
https://compliance.conversations.im/ https://compliance.conversations.im/ not for clients but slowly getting there for the servers. And this is only for a working text-based chat, AV is really of the table. Basically except for conversations, most of the "clients" should be labeled protocol explorers because most of them have serious usability issues with most of the listed XEP... The worst thing isn't that the standard isn't defined or something, but that a lot of projects are claiming to support XMPP when they only support some core functionality...