Re: [Telepathy] future of Telepathy?

On 29/04/16 14:34, Niklas Andersson wrote: > >> Interoperability doesn't spoil free software. If anything, it >> increases adoption. > > I subscribe to this fully. After working with F/OSS Adoption for big > companies (> 10 000 employees) I understand that interoperability is > the most important

Re: [Telepathy] future of Telepathy?

Interoperability doesn't spoil free software. If anything, it increases adoption. I subscribe to this fully. After working with F/OSS Adoption for big companies (> 10 000 employees) I understand that interoperability is the most important factor for success. Either adapt to this reality,

Re: [Telepathy] future of Telepathy?

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 02:11:36PM +0200, Dominik George wrote: > Then I can live perfectly well with them going away and > using Skype, WhatsApp and $protocol. If they want their > proprietary crap, so shall it be, but please do not spoil > free software and propagate use of that stuff for the >

Re: [Telepathy] status of empathy and XMPP in telepathy

Hi Michael, I'm one of the TelepathyQt-based XMPP Connection Manager developer. Because of distributed nature of Telepathy, there is no technical problem, but indeed, may be GNOME Project would try to avoid it. Telepathy-Nonsense (the CM) is at an early stage of development, literally yesterday

Re: [Telepathy] status of empathy and XMPP in telepathy

On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:52:06 +0200 Daniel Pocock wrote: > telepathy-gabble appears to be based on the telepathy-glib bindings > > A lot of the newer work appears to be using TelepathyQt instead of > telepathy-glib. My first suggestion would be to look for any attempts > to do

Re: [Telepathy] future of Telepathy?

On Thu, 2016-04-28 at 13:44 -0400, Martin Klapetek wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Dominik George   > wrote: > > Hi, > > [...snip..] > > I see no point in running for market share - if you pay close > > attention to this discussion, it becomes obvious that the only