Yeah, we need good marketing skills that can promote XMPP for what it
really is. I try to do that every day!. :-)
Maybe Twitter and facebook can't make the switch that quickly, but if
startup businesses and others can see the possibility as we can, they
will start to use it more often. It is also only because of me that we
use XMPP in our infrastructure, otherwise we would have used some
other technology as such.
-Cheers!
--
Steffen Larsen
http://www.zool.dk
xmpp:[email protected]
On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Jason Salas wrote:
I've got a similar gripe against RIM as you guys do with
Facebook...my beef is the inability of BlackBerries to federate with
other XMPP networks. I've tried to crusade against this, but not
surprisingly to no avail: http://www.igniterealtime.org/community/thread/37288
Now, as far as the webbification of XMPP goes - I agree that for
most web devs, hearing that real-time systems involve socket
programming and persistent TCP connections rubs us the wrong way and
has most running for something more familiar (i.e., AJAX Comet,
BOSH, web hooks, etc.). XMPP isn't quite been injected into the
lexicon of the mainstream development community just yet and -
pardon me for bringing this up - but the non-FOSS crowd's response
is meager, with only a few clients and libraries for .NET and Mono.
So that side of the fence isn't largely involved. For better or
worse.
As a .NET developer, I've lobbied for years for a transport that
would facilitate web form-to-SMTP marshaling, but it never
happened. That was sorely needed, beyond my ability, and never
accomplished. If the seamless continuing integration of Atom or
BOSH can be simplified to the point of being stupidly simple for
coders to leverage messaging and presence in IM and non-IM
applications across most major web frameworks, I believe that'll be
key to getting over the hump of just a promising project that passed
us by. How does Facebook make such a system accessible to a widget
or few lines of code? Amd what precedent does this set for other
social systems?
However, I believe that XMPP's got a lot of momentum in its favor at
the moment, has built strong community support outside the usual
suspects and channels, and is at present the darling of the media.
(And as a member of the mainstream media and former platform
evangelist, I can say the promotional push and marketing is
impressive and is in the right direction.)
On the Facebook issue - that company's not exactly at a stage
anymore where it can do sample projects at a whim...akin to trying
to get a nuclear submarine to stop on a dime: it can't. And
Twitter's always going to be the acid test for scalability planning
snafus from here on.
I'd like to help in any way I can - technically, marketing, or
community-wise. Count me in.
Jas
--
Jason Salas
Interactive Media Director / News Anchor
KUAM News
E-mail: [email protected]
Site: http://www.kuam.com
Blog: http://jasonsalas.com
Friendfeed: http://friendfeed.com/jasonsalas
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jasonsalas
From: "Steffen Larsen" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:26 PM
To: "XMPP and Social Networking, Two Great Tastes That Taste Great
Together!" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Social] Facebook and XMPP?
Hey All,
First of all, I am happy that I brought the subject up!. It seems
like we have a lot to discuss about. :-)
I see a clear advantage for my company using XMPP, because you get a
working messaging/presence infrastructure, that are able to scale and
a lot of different gateways that enables you to already given
services, such as SIP, MSN messanger, twitter, and even some SOA
platforms like apaches ServiceMix (a ESB solution for java).
This is why I also want facebook to come into the game and use XMPP
(BOSH), instead of DWR/REST solutions. It would be easier to integrate
for me.. But probably not for facebook. ha ha ;-)
So for me, I see XMPP for a great connector/enabler of already
existing services. That can either be enables though the web via. BOSH
or either normal TCP/UDP connections..
-Well just my 50 cent. :-)
/Steffen
On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 09:34, Aaron Miller
> wrote:
>> Seems to point to a larger issue. With over 100 million users, we
>> need them
>> in the game. Otherwise, it's just Google on the numbers.
>
> it would be great to have another big player.
>
>> Why isn't this protocol important to Web communities?
>
> I don't have the answer to your question.
> We have to show the benefits you get from XMPP. If you already have
> 100 million users then I think federation is not what you are
looking
> for.
> All this social web networking site have already some kind of
build in
> presence. For them its often easier and faster to write new code
based
> on their existing structures than learning new protocols like XMPP
and
> try to integrate them with existing code.
> And I don't think we have the server and BOSH component which they
can
> just drop in and scales for 100 million users out of the box. Google
> started the IM service from scratch, this was a totally different
> initial situation.
>
> We have to work out the advantages you get from XMPP in such
> scenarios. Case studies and whitepapers could help there. This could
> be interesting task for the XSF or a working group.
>
> Alex
>
> --
> Alexander Gnauck
> http://www.ag-software.de
> xmpp:[email protected]
