Tell me if I have misread, but I think your argument is that people who are currently using multi-protocol clients will be better served by a Jabber client plus personal server because then all the transport code (etc.) would be based on a common code-base, instead of every client writing the transport code from scratch.
If this is your argument, then it is based on a faulty premise. Clients
can use libraries to much the same effect, without the bloat that comes
with running your own personal server. Also, multi-protocol clients can
support the various protocols the way they are supposed to be supported,
not "a la Jabber". To take an example I've hinted at in a different
sub-thread, MSN's only chat mode is a curious many-to-many creature,
with less features than GC, but more than normal message-passing.
Some people (Jabber's natural userbase) will want this Jabberified, so
it all works the same regardless of network, even if this means a loss
of features. Some people (multi-protocol clients' natural userbase)
will want things to be just like back when they were using Microsoft's
own client.
On top of that, personal servers would knock out many of Jabber's
biggest benefits, like the ability to send files between two users
behind NAT firewalls, the ability to upgrade components without users
noticing, and IM addresses of the form "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" rather than
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
Having said all that, I agree with you that transports need more
attention (see my other post), and that some automatic way of finding a
good (nearest? Lowest ping time? Most featureful?) server would be a
big asset. Since it's your idea, would you like to volunteer?
- Andrew
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
