36 ms·

This really ought to be the other way around. If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software, then it should expose its service using standard prot

This really ought to be the other way around. If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software, then it should expose its service using standard protocols. So Facebook pulls XMPP and the community reacts by rewarding them with a custom integration? How are we supposed to get ahead here? I know Pidgin is a pragmatic project, not a political one, but this doesn't sit well.

ekianjo 11y ago
> If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software What I find the most funny is that Facebook is seen as a champion of Open-Source, then when it comes to this kind of things they very much take the walled-garden approach just like any other major company around.
- stephenr 11y ago
  > Facebook is seen as a champion of Open-Source By who?
  - drcross 11y ago
    For use in their data centre the parrent means.
- sneak 11y ago
  Well, to be fair, there is really only one company down there who is really and truly constructing a literal walled garden. 😎
leni536 11y ago
>Facebook pulls XMPP When will this happen? Officially it happened back in April [1], however I'm still logged in and can chat with people through XMPP. [1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat
- lucb1e 11y ago
  > Officially it happened back in April [1], however I'm still logged in It was the same with MSN, it was going to be turned off at some time but they kept it running a few months more. It's chance though: one day it may be just gone.
- xnyhps 11y ago
  They have already removed the xmpp_login OAuth permission, they could shut down the XMPP server any day. I am wondering why they would remove the permission so long before shutting down the server, maybe to not break every client at the same time?
- silon3 11y ago
  Before they announced this, I actually considered getting a Facebook account.
comex 11y ago
What's old is new again. Around the time Gaim was created there were AIM/ICQ, MSN, and YIM, each with its proprietary protocol, each lacking good official Linux support. Now, fifteen years later, there's Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, iMessage, Skype, WhatsApp, Snapchat, LINE, Telegram, Kik, WeChat, Twitter (which is evolving DMs into a chat service), and many others... each with its proprietary protocol (undocumented except for Telegram and Twitter), few with support for all the mobile and desktop platforms one might want to use them on, none that actively encourage use of clients that can access more than one service (except iMessage on OS X for a limited set). Given the profusion of services, and the resulting difficulty of managing a separate account on each if you want to maximize your connectivity, I'm surprised there isn't more interest in unified chat clients. Third party Pidgin plugins exist for some of those services, but I've never personally heard anyone mention actually using them, and availability is even more barren on mobile - my barometer might be off, but I feel like everyone has just forgotten about the possibility of interoperability. Then again, maybe it's just a question of the right person writing a new client designed for mobile and modern messaging, and that client taking off...
- xnyhps 11y ago
  I think there are multiple reasons why multi-protocol mobile clients haven't taken off: 1. More complicated protocols. iMessage and Skype are many times more complicated than AIM/ICQ, MSN or YIM, with lots of layers of custom encryption and authentication. Reverse engineering of these protocols has never been close to done. 2. Battery usage. Each new account you add is (likely) another connection that you have to keep open. With one connection you can apply optimizations like the server bundling packets, but you can not do that when you need to keep connections to many different services.
  - darklajid 11y ago
    Given that I know your account/where you're coming from: What's your take on multi-protocol .. servers today? Let's call them 'transports'?
    - 11y ago
cbhl 11y ago
Have you seen XMPP? Chat is so much more than just text now; it's "voicemail", and "photos", and "videos", and "stickers", and "Western Union" and "voice calls" and "video calls" and so much more. Plus, XMPP, is, like, XML. Open protocols and federation are cool and all, but XMPP is not the protocol that will let someone be competitive in this space. (Disclaimer: I work at Google. This is my opinion. I do not work on Hangouts.)
- jkarneges 11y ago
  Standards tend to run behind the state-of-the-art, but that's not a reason to avoid them. For example, the iPhone continues to support SMS for interaction with non-iPhone users, even though the iMessage protocol is richer. If Facebook valued compatibility with as many different products as possible, then they would keep XMPP support. The issue is not about features or XML. Most likely, it's about them wanting full control over the end-user experience: "We recommend people access Facebook Messages on the desktop via Facebook.com or Messenger.com."
  - enos_feedler 11y ago
    An interesting question is "why do standards tend to run behind state-of-the-art"? There are so many examples of this in the past (coming from a graphics background, OpenCL vs. CUDA). Is this something we can fix? Perhaps it is about providing the right hooks into the specification to not compromise the end user experience. I think Docker is an interesting project to follow in this regard. They have shown the ability to get both startups and large players (amazon, google, microsoft) onboard by keeping the platform open. Yet they are clearly focused on providing the best experience for developer/ops interaction with cloud services. It will be interesting to see the rollout of their extension mechanisms and whether they can be a primary interface to cloud services or will become a second-teir compatibility layer. However, even in this case perhaps chat protocols could learn something here.
    - spacehunt 11y ago
      > why do standards tend to run behind state-of-the-art Because otherwise you end up with design-by-committee.
jrochkind1 11y ago
> If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software, Why would you think they want that? It does not seem as if they do. I think it's much more likely facebook will try to stop this integration, than they will see it as a 'reward'.
polarix 11y ago
In the present and future, whenever there is a human need for an integration point between multiple services, those humans will need to invest in producing a human-level intelligence to integrate the information. We are compelled to build secretaries for everything that was nominally built for us, but without our best interests in mind.

ekianjo 11y ago

> If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software What I find the most funny is that Facebook is seen as a champion of Open-Source, then when it comes to this kind of things they very much take the walled-garden approach just like any other major company around.

stephenr 11y ago
> Facebook is seen as a champion of Open-Source By who?
- drcross 11y ago
  For use in their data centre the parrent means.
sneak 11y ago
Well, to be fair, there is really only one company down there who is really and truly constructing a literal walled garden. 😎

leni536 11y ago

>Facebook pulls XMPP When will this happen? Officially it happened back in April [1], however I'm still logged in and can chat with people through XMPP. [1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat https://developers.facebook.com/docs/chat

lucb1e 11y ago
> Officially it happened back in April [1], however I'm still logged in It was the same with MSN, it was going to be turned off at some time but they kept it running a few months more. It's chance though: one day it may be just gone.
xnyhps 11y ago
They have already removed the xmpp_login OAuth permission, they could shut down the XMPP server any day. I am wondering why they would remove the permission so long before shutting down the server, maybe to not break every client at the same time?
silon3 11y ago
Before they announced this, I actually considered getting a Facebook account.

comex 11y ago

What's old is new again. Around the time Gaim was created there were AIM/ICQ, MSN, and YIM, each with its proprietary protocol, each lacking good official Linux support. Now, fifteen years later, there's Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, iMessage, Skype, WhatsApp, Snapchat, LINE, Telegram, Kik, WeChat, Twitter (which is evolving DMs into a chat service), and many others... each with its proprietary protocol (undocumented except for Telegram and Twitter), few with support for all the mobile and desktop platforms one might want to use them on, none that actively encourage use of clients that can access more than one service (except iMessage on OS X for a limited set). Given the profusion of services, and the resulting difficulty of managing a separate account on each if you want to maximize your connectivity, I'm surprised there isn't more interest in unified chat clients. Third party Pidgin plugins exist for some of those services, but I've never personally heard anyone mention actually using them, and availability is even more barren on mobile - my barometer might be off, but I feel like everyone has just forgotten about the possibility of interoperability. Then again, maybe it's just a question of the right person writing a new client designed for mobile and modern messaging, and that client taking off...

xnyhps 11y ago
I think there are multiple reasons why multi-protocol mobile clients haven't taken off: 1. More complicated protocols. iMessage and Skype are many times more complicated than AIM/ICQ, MSN or YIM, with lots of layers of custom encryption and authentication. Reverse engineering of these protocols has never been close to done. 2. Battery usage. Each new account you add is (likely) another connection that you have to keep open. With one connection you can apply optimizations like the server bundling packets, but you can not do that when you need to keep connections to many different services.
- darklajid 11y ago
  Given that I know your account/where you're coming from: What's your take on multi-protocol .. servers today? Let's call them 'transports'?
  - 11y ago

cbhl 11y ago

Have you seen XMPP? Chat is so much more than just text now; it's "voicemail", and "photos", and "videos", and "stickers", and "Western Union" and "voice calls" and "video calls" and so much more. Plus, XMPP, is, like, XML. Open protocols and federation are cool and all, but XMPP is not the protocol that will let someone be competitive in this space. (Disclaimer: I work at Google. This is my opinion. I do not work on Hangouts.)

jkarneges 11y ago
Standards tend to run behind the state-of-the-art, but that's not a reason to avoid them. For example, the iPhone continues to support SMS for interaction with non-iPhone users, even though the iMessage protocol is richer. If Facebook valued compatibility with as many different products as possible, then they would keep XMPP support. The issue is not about features or XML. Most likely, it's about them wanting full control over the end-user experience: "We recommend people access Facebook Messages on the desktop via Facebook.com or Messenger.com."
- enos_feedler 11y ago
  An interesting question is "why do standards tend to run behind state-of-the-art"? There are so many examples of this in the past (coming from a graphics background, OpenCL vs. CUDA). Is this something we can fix? Perhaps it is about providing the right hooks into the specification to not compromise the end user experience. I think Docker is an interesting project to follow in this regard. They have shown the ability to get both startups and large players (amazon, google, microsoft) onboard by keeping the platform open. Yet they are clearly focused on providing the best experience for developer/ops interaction with cloud services. It will be interesting to see the rollout of their extension mechanisms and whether they can be a primary interface to cloud services or will become a second-teir compatibility layer. However, even in this case perhaps chat protocols could learn something here.
  - spacehunt 11y ago
    > why do standards tend to run behind state-of-the-art Because otherwise you end up with design-by-committee.

jrochkind1 11y ago

> If Facebook wants to be accessed by popular client software, Why would you think they want that? It does not seem as if they do. I think it's much more likely facebook will try to stop this integration, than they will see it as a 'reward'.

polarix 11y ago

In the present and future, whenever there is a human need for an integration point between multiple services, those humans will need to invest in producing a human-level intelligence to integrate the information. We are compelled to build secretaries for everything that was nominally built for us, but without our best interests in mind.