On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:12, you wrote: > By contrast, Jabber is not 'the only game in town' when it comes to > instant messaging. In fact, if it's trying to become a popular > end-user IM solution, instead of just a corporate solution (where, yes, > it is in a much smaller playing field), then it is actually struggling > against several very-entrenched players. Each of the Sendmail > alternatives offered something to the target audience (system > administrators): better performance, less security holes, modular > design, etc.
A second ago we were talking about one implementation of a protocol, but now
we're talking about a protocol in a sea of closed protocols. I'm sure there
were plenty of closed electronic mail implementations when Sendmail reared
its head too, and their existence is largely irrelevant here.
Why? Well, if you think it's so hard to set up Jabberd, try setting up an MSN
server. What's that, you can't? Why not? Too hard? Maybe the best selling
point of Jabber is "that you can."
The competitors in the space I was really talking about are Ejabberd and
Jabberd. Ejabberd is probably far better on the usability side... I wouldn't
know, as it still can't do virtual hosting, which would be the top priority
feature if it were to take the place of Jabberd on a server which uses this
feature.
Jabberd is less than ideal, but only because whatever distributions are
shipping it, must be shipping it with a configuration which simply doesn't
work. If it worked, there wouldn't be so much criticism around here.
Is Apache so easy to set up? Hell no.
Start with a blank configuration, and now you tell me what needs to be
added to make it work. You might know, but if you know, then you're probably
an expert.
Start with the sample config which came in the distribution and it might
work, but it won't necessarily help.
But install it from a distro's packages, and the configuration _there_
will work out of the box. There is your ease of use for Apache.
Now Jabberd.
Starting with a blank configuration, hard as always.
Starting with the sample config, you have to replace a few strings,
basically the same as Apache... the server name, admin names, and a couple of
other things.
But again, install it from a competent distro's packages, and the
configuration is supposed to work out of the box.
That there is still so much criticism directed at Jabberd for its difficulty
to get working, reflects not only on Jabberd itself, but on the people who
created packages for their distros, which were supposed to work out of the
box.
So why don't we direct the attention _there_? If all Jabber packages on all
distros worked out of the box, would there still be a good excuse not to run
it?
TX
--
'Every sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' -
Arthur C Clarke
'Every sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology' - Tom
Graves
Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
pgpiv61G7rMoO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://jabberstudio.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
