I totally agree with cross-platform and zero conf. (Justin Karneges, Steve
Brown et al.)
To get around the CLIENT knowing many transports and many clients having to
do that, I suggest we have each desktop run a small private SERVER that has
all the transports.
The server can use s2s to connect
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Timothy Carpenter
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 2:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JDEV] Best way to drive Jabber adoption?
To get around the CLIENT knowing many transports and many
On Saturday 14 June 2003 02:18 am, Timothy Carpenter wrote:
do that, I suggest we have each desktop run a small private SERVER that has
all the transports.
The problem is that the current Jabber transport software is notable for being
much less featureful than the multi-IM clients out there.
Hi,
I wrote another post earlier but I hadn't figured out the mailing list thing
yet -- if it turns up, sorry, I really don't mean to post the same thing
(more or less) twice.
I'm not sure to which list I should post, here or jadmin.
I've written a jabber client that is almost ready for use,
But I really do think there's value in a Jabber client that's aimed
specifically at obscuring the developer-nature that most Jabber clients
expose, obscuring the complexity of Jabber while still retaining the
power... that really would be of value to the Jabber community. It isn't
wholly in
Bart van Bragt wrote:
Another example; a friend of mine was watching me use Psi and she asked
me if she could use that too. She really liked the cute little stars in
front of the contacts... :D Do you think she cares about the fact that
Jabber is using a distributed network? That it uses XML?
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 04:16:19AM -0700, Justin Karneges wrote:
The problem is that the current Jabber transport software is notable for being
much less featureful than the multi-IM clients out there. If you could make
all of the transports super-featureful with file transfer and everything
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
Justin Karneges wrote:
snip
Yes, this totally goes against the philosophy of Jabber, but I think it is
worth pursuing in order to drive adoption by typical end-users. We've
already got the developer, tech crowd, and standards groups covered. I see
no problem in exploring other paths at the
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 03:12:03PM +0200, Mattias Campe wrote:
I'm also considering such a plan... I've read on forums of Trillian
that the free version will support Jabber in the future, but what if
they don't? And I don't want to purge friends to use an illegal version
of Trillian Pro...
Jabber religion aside for a moment
I just went through this very excerise ... getting the normal user to
use Jabber. We have some users who have been exposed to IM and others
that have not. Here's a suggested approach that will probably address
most everyones concerns. However, it will
On 14/6/03 3:10 pm, Andrew Sayers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
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
Nathan Walp wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 03:12:03PM +0200, Mattias Campe wrote:
I'm also considering such a plan... I've read on forums of Trillian
that the free version will support Jabber in the future, but what if
they don't? And I don't want to purge friends to use an illegal version
of
I'm a bit confused about where this is going...
Are you looking for a development model that will lead to better
transports? If so, we need to talk about why transport developers are
so thin on the ground, and you should be prepared to turn words into
code (give me a decent Jabber component lib
Rachel Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14-6-2003 20:03:04:
Are you looking for way of making a better user experience?
Different users want different things, and I still don't see how
Jabber can tempt users away from all-in-one chat programs like Fire
or Trillian without putting in
On 14/6/03 8:41 pm, Tijl Houtbeckers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rachel Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14-6-2003 20:03:04:
Are you looking for way of making a better user experience?
Different users want different things, and I still don't see how
Jabber can tempt users away from
Timothy Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 14-6-2003 23:05:12:
An option could be to target ISPs so they can provide a multi-transport
service to their customers.
That's a good example of a localised portal. But it will be hard to
offer serverside tranports for an ISP. Apart from the
That's a good example of a localised portal. But it will be hard to
offer serverside tranports for an ISP. Apart from the instability, they
make themselves a target for blocks and maybe even legal action from
AOL. On top of that they'll have to put up with question from users
about why
On 15/6/03 1:08 am, Rachel Blackman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's a good example of a localised portal. But it will be hard to
offer serverside tranports for an ISP. Apart from the instability, they
make themselves a target for blocks and maybe even legal action from
AOL. On top of that
Timothy Carpenter wrote:
The issue of getting transports firm is a given. Blocking? Well this might
therefore suggest a personal server to provide the transports after
all...but with account details held centrally to enable multipoint access
with one logon.
Tim
A personal server still does not
20 matches
Mail list logo
