3 ms·

SMTP was there early and with significant adoption - it's not inherent stability or quality of design. Early success and adoption tends to both entrench and fre

by pvg 4y ago

SMTP was there early and with significant adoption - it's not inherent stability or quality of design. Early success and adoption tends to both entrench and freeze protocols despite their deficiencies. XMPP never got the sort of adoption to make it entrenched and its deficiencies were noted far earlier in its lifecycle. Moxie Marlinspike's piece on some of this is well worth reading: https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/ https://signal.org/blog/the-ecosystem-is-moving/

zaik 4y ago
Daniel Gultsch's response is also worth reading: https://gultsch.de/objection.html https://gultsch.de/objection.html
- pvg 4y ago
  Seven years haven't been particularly kind to that (fairly slight, I think), objection. The specifics change but the principal points Marlinspike raises haven't. Of course, XMPP is more dead than ever, SMTP is still around and taking on the piece by moving the goalposts from protocols to something else hasn't become more effective.
  - zaik 4y ago
    > XMPP is more dead than ever What are you basing this on? The opposite is the case: https://takebackourtech.org/xmpp-comeback/ https://takebackourtech.org/xmpp-comeback/
    - pvg 4y ago
      That link says XMPP advocates think XMPP isn't dead.
    - wink 4y ago
      It's declared dead by the people where every single one of your 20 nerd friends in your xmpp contact list has shut down their server, and that happened like 8 years ago in my case. We were on IRC before that and we're still on IRC, that's why IRC is alive.
Beltalowda 4y ago
From that post: > because someone’s choice to use an XMPP client or server that doesn’t support video or some other arbitrary feature doesn’t only affect them It was actually even worse than that, because clients also have complete freedom in which audio and video codecs to support. So you would end up with client 1 and 2 both supporting video, but not the right protocol, so it didn't work, and it was hard to figure out why.

by pvg 4y ago

zaik 4y ago

Daniel Gultsch's response is also worth reading: https://gultsch.de/objection.html https://gultsch.de/objection.html

pvg 4y ago
Seven years haven't been particularly kind to that (fairly slight, I think), objection. The specifics change but the principal points Marlinspike raises haven't. Of course, XMPP is more dead than ever, SMTP is still around and taking on the piece by moving the goalposts from protocols to something else hasn't become more effective.
- zaik 4y ago
  > XMPP is more dead than ever What are you basing this on? The opposite is the case: https://takebackourtech.org/xmpp-comeback/ https://takebackourtech.org/xmpp-comeback/
  - pvg 4y ago
    That link says XMPP advocates think XMPP isn't dead.
  - wink 4y ago
    It's declared dead by the people where every single one of your 20 nerd friends in your xmpp contact list has shut down their server, and that happened like 8 years ago in my case. We were on IRC before that and we're still on IRC, that's why IRC is alive.

Beltalowda 4y ago

From that post: > because someone’s choice to use an XMPP client or server that doesn’t support video or some other arbitrary feature doesn’t only affect them It was actually even worse than that, because clients also have complete freedom in which audio and video codecs to support. So you would end up with client 1 and 2 both supporting video, but not the right protocol, so it didn't work, and it was hard to figure out why.