Talk:Jabber/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Users

and is used by over a million people worldwide

According http://www.jabber.org/tmp/faq.html are there at least 10 million users. But it is not clear how old that information is and what the mean by "users". Accounts? Used accounts? accounts used in the last 30 days ... Without more information this information is not usefull Walter 13:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

It seems I have looked at an old FAQ, http://www.jabber.org/about/generalfaq.php#id2780706 this says 1 million, version of 2004-02-02 Walter 14:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
I've updated the page according to http://www.jabber.org/press/2003-09-22.php BartVB 19:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jabber Clients with multi protocol support

I've pasted this comment, erroneously added to the main article by an anonymous user:

  • because many jabber client do not connect to other than jabber itself.
  • so, i like to know which client can connect to icq/msn/yahoo/etc...???
  • any link to a jabber client feature comparison?

I don't know how they expected anyone to reply to them--by marring the article with further discussions?

Any client capable of using service discovery can connect to the obsolete IM networks using servers with the appropriate transports (Rationale: the client doesn't support connecting to that network directly or if you prefer having your IM list always organized). Psi is an excellent choice for this if you use a server that has transports. BalooUrsidae 22:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My answer to the user's question would be Gaim; I believe it supports Jabber and I know it supports other popular instant-messaging protocols. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 21:35, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
Gaim, Trillian Pro etc support jabber but this should be a seperate article
They are included, though. If the term "multi-protocol support" is unclear, perhaps we should add an article on Mutli-protocol instant messenging clients or something. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 03:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The XMPP protocol (aka Jabber) supports the use of transport servers to bridge access to other IM services (e.g. AIM, ICQ, MSN, etc.) Psi is indeed one client that supports this functionality.

Updates needed

Hmm ths whole article needs updating -- also i think it should be explained that "Jabber is a distributed system like e-mail"

Edit away if you know something about the topic at hand; always be bold! --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 03:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Ok then -- im going to move all the protocol stuff to xmpp the client list to Jabber Clients

and make this page much less technical --Davelane 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful with your article names! XMPP should be in capitals (and actually redirects to the full name Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol); any Jabber clients page should follow the relevant conventions on capitalisation, although it might be worth considering calling it List of Jabber clients if that is in fact what it will be. - IMSoP 00:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ToS violation

Shouldn't there be at least a warning about potentially violating the TOS of the closed IM networks like aim,yahooim and msn? It seems to be rather misleading to state that you *can* do it without mentioning that it is illegal to do so (at least within the US). See a blog post I just did about this, http://blogs.openaether.org/?p=146 --returnthis

Using any client other than the official one violates the TOS of the obsolete IM networks, which is why the IETF obsoleted them by making XMPP the official IM standard to begin with. BalooUrsidae 23:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think in most countries such TOSes are illegal :-) Maybe the existance of TOSes can be added in the articles about the closed networks in a critics section? Ejabberd 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Jabber Servers

Man, there seems to be so much from one visit to the next finding information about jabber stuff on wikipedia. That's possibly good, that all that information is here, but it's a let down because I still cannot find the ircd that supports irc and jabber. I saw it on a link here somewhere, but I don't recall the article name, nor do I recall what machine I accessed it from.

They are even not all listed in the Wikipedia article: there are at least three times more servers. You probably mean psycMUVE. Ejabberd 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AIM/ICQ and Jabber

Can someone add this: http://arch.jabber.com/archives/2005/04/000141.html

What precisely is Jabber?

I think this article (atleast upto the TOC) should be restructured. I intend to go ahead and do this.

First I'd like to be absolutely clear on on what jabber is. Is it:

  • Just the core protocol (aka XMPP)
  • The core protocol + some extensions (JEPs)
  • The public Jabber network
  • The phenomena of the network and the protocol (a movement)
  • All of the above
  • Other

Comments requested Moreati 14:03, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is about the JEPs, XMPP IM and Core. When you restructure things, it can be interesting to create the category "Jabber Software" to list all software instead of listing it inside the page about Jabber.
Also: "Under the hood, Jabber is a set of streaming XML protocols and technologies that enable any two entities on the Internet to exchange messages, presence, and other structured information in close to real time." ([1]) Ejabberd 17 Aug 2005

Jabber and Polling

One interesting aspect of Jabber is HTTP polling -- for users behind restricted firewalls. Polling is an interesting aspect of Jabber protocol and Jabber server.

HTTP Polling essentially implies messages stored on a server-side database being fetched (and posted) regularly by a jabber client by way of HTTP 'get/post' messages. Since the client uses HTTP, most (if not all) firewalls would allow the client to fetch and post messages without any hinderance. Thus, in scenarios where TCP based direct connection is not possible, clients can use HTTP polling to stay connected and provide instant messaging.

More on this requested; Post if adequate --Shashark 17:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

does anyone know, how much traffic per second is usually generated in native mode, HTTP-polling and HTTP-AJAX modes? That might be interesting to compare. ps: I wish that i could route Native stream via HTTP proxy :)

Google Talk

"in effect simply creating another proprietary, closed IM network" ... I don't know much about Jabber or how it works, but I'm interested in knowing what aspect of Google Talk is proprietary and closed. Could someone please enlighten me about this?

Doesn't it violate the spirit of Jabber, the protocol? To bridge together and deproprietarize the IM world, though Google probably will do this eventually. And now Yahoo AIM etc... can connect to Google Talk by supporting Jabber!!!!! 4.230.240.65 03:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Various Google Talk FAQ items indicate that Google are working on vetting other Jabber networks to open up to. Ubernostrum 11:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

New category for Jabber/XMPP related articles?

Would people mind if I move all items from sections 6, 7 and 8 to a new category that contains links to Jabber/XMPP related articles? The reason behind this is that it is not real content for this article; it is just stuffing... Ejabberd 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

There's a section for Advantages... what about disadvantages, or is Jabber perfect? ~01:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jabber is a work in progress, however, with so many things going right about Jabber, especially compared to proprietary systems, that problems worth mentioning are usually specific to one client or another and not systemic to Jabber itself. BalooUrsidae 23:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It reads like a PR Release.. and I echo the other coment above me about NPOV --Alohawolf 09:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't imagine any disadvantages from jabber as protocol. If anybody know one feel free to add it in the article. 80.139.51.24 15:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The first thing that comes to my mind is the high bandwidth usage due to XML nature of Jabber/XMPP - for example. Another could be that there are not many clients and servers implementing all the new JEPs. etc..
To solve that issue, you can use stream compression. NaturalBornKiller 09:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think XML and such uses a lot of bandwidth, if it did we would have run into issues with web pages long ago (Although gzip encoding has solved that issue, it takes my blog page down from 26KiB to 7KiB, and even uncompressed it wouldn't cause much strain on a 56k user) The Decryptor 08:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Changing the section to be named 'Features', so that it hopefully does not conflict with the NPOV policy. 137.155.150.118 21:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Prose is better than... whatever this is. It also does sound a lot like ad copy. Changing the sectoin name to features doesn't make it NPOV. kotepho 22:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
It reads somewhat like ad copy because the entire section is taken almost verbatim from Jabber.org's About page. – Mipadi 01:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--

Ive been saying i will rewrite this for a long time

It really needs a rethink -- what if it started with something like

Jabber is a system for instant messaging (IM) and presence information. It's aim is to replace propritary IM systems with a common standard, in a similar way that Simple Mail Transport Protocol did for email in the 1980's. Like email, it is a distributed system so there are many servers and clients - It's impossible to calculate how many Jabber servers exist but it is estimated to be...

Jabber is not only IM: "Jabber applications beyond IM include network management, content syndication, collaboration tools, file sharing, gaming, and remote systems monitoring.[2]" It is also not the aim to replace proprietary IM systems. Its aim is to provide the protocols to allow open real time communication and presence sharing. NaturalBornKiller 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Yes this is true BUT thats probably not what people want to see - Maybe we should have seperate sections for each aspect of Jabber eg Jabber IM, Presence etc -- AFAIK Jabbers aim most certanly IS to replace propritary protocols (ok thats not NPV) -- I will have to have to find a quote or two at the very least. OR What if we moved jabber IM to a different article --Davelane 20:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Then we can do.. Using Jabber, how it works, history, Issues etc.

Theres way to much technical information at the start of this article and it needs a rewrite

--Davelane 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

A rewrite would be nice. NaturalBornKiller 12:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

From the looks of it people agree that only the 'features' section is guilty of POV, so I've moved the NPOV warning there. Does need a serious rewrite though! Greenman 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it should be possible to figure out how many federated jabber servers there are by scanning the entire IPV4 space for the port said servers listen on. Plugwash 13:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regional Jabber communities

Is this section really useful? Maybe it can be removed? NaturalBornKiller 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Network latency is somewhat proportional to geographic distance to servers, language barriers are also largely geographically isolated. Regionalism isn't a non-issue: People prefer to talk to others with low latency in their native language. --BalooUrsidae 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A long list with little encyclopaedic value. I also don't see geographic distance to servers as a major issue: With instant messaging lag is a non-issue. Some people might prefer to talk with people in their native language, but others might not. --Teemuk 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Spam" in criticisms...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that accusation is complete tripe. The difference between email and Jabber is that you have a server-side roster with Jabber... and that effectively serves as a white-list. We should maybe change that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.187.83 (talk • contribs) 14:46 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Server side rosters are not the same as whitelists. Just because Google Talk implements their whitelists based on server-side roster listings doesn't mean it is at all commonplace (it's unique to Google Talk, AFAICT) and isn't confusing (because no other XMPP server works that way). Ditto for not being able to send offline messages to Google Talk users: GT's XMPP implementation is unusual and counterintuitive. --BalooUrsidae 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


Jabber.txt

Does anyone have more info on the jabber.txt reference at the beginning of this article? Following the link doesn't provide much illumination. Greenman 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that link since there is no information at Jabberwocky about jabber.txt Strait 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)