3 ms·
Everybody I know moved on from XMPP years ago. Google and Facebook dropping their support was indeed big part of it. But all in all centralised protocols have p
by vadfa 5y ago
Everybody I know moved on from XMPP years ago. Google and Facebook dropping their support was indeed big part of it. But all in all centralised protocols have proven to be easier, more stable and simply better. Want to roll out a new feature? No need to sit down with a committee for years or wait for all 3rd party clients to keep up: you just implement the feature yourself.
Wait... what was the question?
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago> But all in all centralised protocols have proven to be easier, more stable and simply better. Show me a centralised protocol that is better at interoperability between various services?
- vadfa 5y agoGiven that as of today xmpp practically doesn't interoperate with anything, well...
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoWhat do you mean, 'xmpp practically doesn't interoperate with anything'?! Dozens of thousands of xmpp servers interoperate and deliver messages to each other. Or do you expect it to interoperate with Telegram? What next would you expect, UDP <--> ICMP interoperability?
- zaik 5y agoThere are in fact transports for Telegram on the XMPP network. https://jabber.hot-chilli.net/server-specifications/#Transports_Gateways_and_Features https://jabber.hot-chilli.net/server-specifications/#Transpo... https://www.jabbim.com/home.html https://www.jabbim.com/home.html
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y agoI don't consider transports as a kind of interoperability. From Telegram's point of view it's just 2 telegram accounts talking to each other. Wherever else this data is sent is not that important. Moreover, I came to a conclusion that reliance on transports reinforces the network effect of external services and weakens XMPP's network effect. Do not use them.
- MattJ100 5y agoThere are at least hundreds of implementations of XMPP that are interoperable (at 5-6 actively developed server implementations, many more libraries and many client applications). There are at least hundreds of thousands deployed XMPP services. In addition XMPP can be linked with other protocols/networks via bridges/gateways. Some examples: - Spectrum: XMPP gateway project based on libpurple (support for many protocols): https://spectrum.im/ https://spectrum.im/ - WhatsApp bridge: https://git.eta.st/eta/whatsxmpp https://git.eta.st/eta/whatsxmpp - Telegram bridge: https://github.com/codingteam/emulsion https://github.com/codingteam/emulsion - Signal bridge: https://gitlab.com/nicocool84/slidge/ https://gitlab.com/nicocool84/slidge/ (replacement of https://gitlab.com/nicocool84/spectrum2_signald/ https://gitlab.com/nicocool84/spectrum2_signald/ ) Given such a diverse ecosystem of open-source and proprietary implementations, I'd say XMPP is one of the best examples of widespread protocol interoperability that there is.
- fragmede 5y agoGood for them, but I can't talk to Gmail or Facebook users on any of them, which is the point. I'm not being flippant here, among the other things that Googlebook does is acquire users. Where number of users isn't a feature of the protocol, it's irellevant, but where that's a feature of why I would want to use a given protocol, it's the single most important thing out there. And XMPP fails miserably at that. Which is why open protocols don't work in practice. I love the theory that they would, and morn the days of Adium on OS X. But unless Facebook wants to build the bridge of XMPP to Facebook Messenger, the time I would spend working on getting XMPP setup is better spent elsewhere.