I don't understand why #xmpp has no more success?
-
I don't understand why #xmpp has no more success?
There are many clients over all operating systems and hosting a server is not very complicated.
If you use activate some xep, you can get a secured solution to communicate.
For me, it's the good tool for instant messaging. -
@adele I was an XMPP advocate long time ago. I gave up, here is why:
- file transfert have multiple XEPs, clients were never compatible, even with same client, it never worked (NAT...)
- same story for voice/video, multiple XEPs, never worked (until very recently with very few clients)
- encryption is broken. You have to set it up. It's too easy to misuse. A serious app should make everything to prevent you to send unencrypted messages.
- global defederation (the small traction from Gtalk died) -
@adele
- apps were available when people ditched apps (MSN, AIM, ICQ) for the web (Facebook chat, Gmail chat). Too late, out of market move.
- the "Jabber" brand which was good was killed (with Cisco buying it) and we had to rebrand everything to "XMPP" which is bad brand. I want to "jabber you" not "XMPP you" -
over-doing protocol: Jabber was about connecting people, make them "chat" then XMPP became a protocol to handle extensible whatever and every discussion was about "PubSub", xml extension, generic, dynamic discovery of service blablabla everything about solving "passing computer data" and no one longer cared about "make people chat" use case
-
Matrix is going this way too, read the last MSC: it's about "Error code for disallowing threepid unbinding" (wtf is that) while people waiting for years for "custom emoji" (which every app has since years)
XMPP is centralized: a chatroom is hosted on 1 server, once down, everything is dead. Matrix host the room on many server so one server down is not a problem.
-
It's really not a matter of marketing. The XMPP community completely failed its mission to connect people. There are design decisions which are bad, a "protocol-first" approach before an "UX first" and the federation/fragmentation (all clients years after the rest of the market in features) was the last nail in the coffin.
-
@lutindiscret while I mostly agree with the rest, the "XMPP is centralized" part about chatroom being on a single server feels weird to me. I consider the data deduplication for matrix channels with people from 100 servers seems like a real issue in terms of resource usage @adele
-
@silmathoron @adele fair!
-
@adele forgot about the "transports". XMPP was supposed to federate everything with transports to ICS/AIM/MSN whatever.
This worked to a certain point but once more: you can implement only feature supported on both sides: file transfer/voip/images/emoji/etc ~everything is broken and, you are the one where the problem come from since you are the one using XMPP while everyone is on MSN the problem is your side and "XMPP/Jabber" doesn't work from the outside so you won't convince anyone to join.
