3 ms·

That last sentiment would be very nice indeed, but I fear this is what we'll get instead: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/

daptaq 5y ago
XKCD should make a comic about pre-emptively 927'ing any suggestion to improve something.
- spicybright 5y ago
  It doesn't mean don't bother improving something, just don't expect everyone to switch to it.
  - upofadown 5y ago
    Having hardly anyone switch to a new standard when there are existing ones could actually be considered a good thing. The problem comes when the new standard is promoted, inevitably fails to become dominant and ends up making the problem worse. Note that sometimes new standards are promoted specifically to destroy an existing open standard. The trick is to push hard for the new standard until it gets sort of popular and then back off. Adjust as required to keep things balanced.
scrollaway 5y ago
Closed IM protocols aren’t standards so this doesn’t really apply. There’s only three realistic “standards” in instant messaging: irc, xmpp and matrix. IRC is essentially dead, xmpp is on its last leg and mostly irrelevant, and matrix is very promising just not popular enough yet.
- tapoxi 5y ago
  XMPP is widely deployed and it's the backbone of WhatsApp, you don't see a lot of servers that openly federate XMPP because there's little business incentive to do so.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    Xmpp can continue being a server side protocol all you want, it doesn’t make it a user facing protocol. So in terms of federated or at least cross compatible IM clients it’s irrelevant.
- zaik 5y ago
  > xmpp is on its last leg Why? Unlike Matrix it's actually an Internet Standard.
  - grandpoobah 5y ago
    It's had about 20 years to hit the bigtime, I think we can safely say it's not going to happen.
    - upofadown 5y ago
      So what is the bigtime open messaging standard?
      - kitkat_new 5y ago
        there isn't any. But if I would have to bet on a standard which could become it right now, then it would be Matrix. It convinces when it comes to adoption, concept, features and growth.
    - MattJ100 5y ago
      A mere protocol will never "hit the bigtime" without some compelling (non-protocol) reason. It's unfortunate that businesses choose to build silos time and time again, but that's where we are - it's not an issue that can be solved at the protocol level. Should this be fixed (e.g. through regulation), XMPP is absolutely a sound choice - given, as you say, its 20 years of experience, evolution and deployment track record.
      - kitkat_new 5y ago
        honestly, given the current adoption, growth and state of the ecosystem, I don't think it is. In theory, you could achieve with it what Matrix achieves, but it would probably be more feasible to start from scratch - like Matrix did That said, I see how it currently has advantages when it comes to resource consumption as well as internal deployment to centralized services.
  - 5y ago
- rohithkp 5y ago
  Doesn't Apple implement XMPP for iMessage as well?

daptaq 5y ago

XKCD should make a comic about pre-emptively 927'ing any suggestion to improve something.

spicybright 5y ago
It doesn't mean don't bother improving something, just don't expect everyone to switch to it.
- upofadown 5y ago
  Having hardly anyone switch to a new standard when there are existing ones could actually be considered a good thing. The problem comes when the new standard is promoted, inevitably fails to become dominant and ends up making the problem worse. Note that sometimes new standards are promoted specifically to destroy an existing open standard. The trick is to push hard for the new standard until it gets sort of popular and then back off. Adjust as required to keep things balanced.

scrollaway 5y ago

Closed IM protocols aren’t standards so this doesn’t really apply. There’s only three realistic “standards” in instant messaging: irc, xmpp and matrix. IRC is essentially dead, xmpp is on its last leg and mostly irrelevant, and matrix is very promising just not popular enough yet.

tapoxi 5y ago
XMPP is widely deployed and it's the backbone of WhatsApp, you don't see a lot of servers that openly federate XMPP because there's little business incentive to do so.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  Xmpp can continue being a server side protocol all you want, it doesn’t make it a user facing protocol. So in terms of federated or at least cross compatible IM clients it’s irrelevant.
zaik 5y ago
> xmpp is on its last leg Why? Unlike Matrix it's actually an Internet Standard.
- grandpoobah 5y ago
  It's had about 20 years to hit the bigtime, I think we can safely say it's not going to happen.
  - upofadown 5y ago
    So what is the bigtime open messaging standard?
    - kitkat_new 5y ago
      there isn't any. But if I would have to bet on a standard which could become it right now, then it would be Matrix. It convinces when it comes to adoption, concept, features and growth.
  - MattJ100 5y ago
    A mere protocol will never "hit the bigtime" without some compelling (non-protocol) reason. It's unfortunate that businesses choose to build silos time and time again, but that's where we are - it's not an issue that can be solved at the protocol level. Should this be fixed (e.g. through regulation), XMPP is absolutely a sound choice - given, as you say, its 20 years of experience, evolution and deployment track record.
    - kitkat_new 5y ago
      honestly, given the current adoption, growth and state of the ecosystem, I don't think it is. In theory, you could achieve with it what Matrix achieves, but it would probably be more feasible to start from scratch - like Matrix did That said, I see how it currently has advantages when it comes to resource consumption as well as internal deployment to centralized services.
- 5y ago
rohithkp 5y ago
Doesn't Apple implement XMPP for iMessage as well?