XSF Discussion - 2017-01-16

Hmm, sending mail to standards@ from this broadband connection is a challenge. Looks like anti spam measures gone wrong. But with a DNS tunnel to my own infrastructure it should have worked now.

Ge0rG, do you send mail directly from your laptop instead of a server? hardly any mail servers will accept mail if at minimum your reverse dns doesn't match your domain

moparisthebest, no, the ISP here is blocking outgoing mail to foreign MTAs.

like port 587/465 ?

this is why I added sni multiplexing to sslh, smtp.example.org:443 goes to postfix, www.example.org:443 and example.org:443 go to nginx, imap.example.org:443 goes to dovecot

evil ISPs only see https

moparisthebest, not the worst of ideas. I'm usually running openvpn on tcp/443

sslh multiplexes openvpn too

I recently switched from openvpn which isn't pure tls, to ocserv which is pure tls and dtls and *so far* it's been great

it's not even been a week yet though so we'll see :)

it's terrible to only expect tls over port 443 to work, but that's how it is at the moment :(

Unfortunately it's very hard to configure a VPN service from a mobile device, without having qwerty.

*cough* Hacker's Keyboard *cough*

ralphm: any news on fosdem accomodations?

intosi, I've tried it once and wasn't quite convinced. It's also not trivial to change the keyboard between what I use normally and a special one for SSH

dwd, is it a physical keyboard?

Ge0rG, Yeah. Xperia Z4, so a netbookish keyboard.

And how is changing keyboards on Android not trivial? It's two clicks.

Ge0rG, Also, switching keyboards is *really* easy on recent Androids.

I accidentally used the wrong From on my last standards@ mail. Is a list admin reading here and could approve, please?

I quite dislike the new default google board thingy. My text prediction suddenly fails to work half of the time, which is annoying.

dwd, only if you have the notification enabled

No, it's on screen whenever there's a keyboard.

Ge0rG, Bottom right corner for me. Not a notification.

dwd, hmm.. Nothing for me with CM13

Or should I send a second copy of the mail with the right From?

Ge0rG, Soft/onscreen action bar?

Ge0rG, If your phone has hardware action buttons, then I imagine it won't be able to add anything else there...

https://www.androidcentral.com/sites/androidcentral.com/files/styles/larger/public/article_images/2014/11/keyboard-button.png?itok=q4vTrQOw

Has been there for ages

It's there for me on CM13 as well. Either way it would be nice if you could configure the keyboard choice per app ...

iirc you can long-press on a key on the soft keyboard in CM13/14 in order to get that

or even earlier

yeah, the comma key

hmm

I've got the arrow keys there, but not the switch button...

Somebody forwarded stpeter's weak moment to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13411735

I wouldn't call that a weak moment. Messages from stpeter typically come after significant thought.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Ge0rG, FWIW, I thought it'd take less time than that.

waqas, I found the question rather demotivational and a bit trolling, and it seems to imply that he hasn't actually looked into why Signal is conceptually inferior. Our maybe it's part of some sophisticated plan to Make XMPP Great Again, and I just missed the point.

dwd: That's fair

dwd, at least it made #1 on the front page, as opposed to most of my writing.

I agree with most of the thread (despite some folks being conflicted)

dwd, Ge0rG: I may have skimmed some messages, so maybe missed it, but it seems like both of you directly answered the "Why is XMPP good?" question, and not the "What are we doing here?" one. They are not the same.

I think the question is how can we attract more full time developers to XMPP which raises the question how can we attract more companies (that are making products for end users) to xmpp which raises the question on what business model those companies could have which ultimately ends up in the question on how can we end capitalism which brings us back to stpeters question on what are we doing?

I for one isn't going to give up on distributed control over communications infrastructure.

XMPP is by far my protocol of choice. I believe it's better than anything which could be considered competition in quite a few ways.

But I'd also assert: If the XSF membership secretly did nothing for the past year or two, movement in the broader messaging landscape wouldn't look much different compared to what we see now.

waqas, what I'm doing here is to help client developers improve their clients so that we can compete with WhatsApp, Signal etc.

The XSF's mission is explicitly to define protocol. I don't believe protocol definition is the key problem in messaging these days.

Ge0rG: I agree with you, in case that wasn't apparent

waqas, then we need to redefine the XSF's mission so it also covers UX. Many of the newly elected board and council members promised so in their election campaign.

waqas, indeed..i think it's more a community issue than a standard organization issue

And I also believe that for software authors, protocols are a means to an end, not the end itself

Change the S back to Software?

however there is no real community outlet/representation for XMPP

IMHO that is significantly more important than a standards body at this point

Ge0rG: I'm not sure how council or board members can create more client developers out of thin air

Zash, or Super

waqas, indeed..that's why I've been talking to Thijs and Peter to turn xmpp.net into such

daniel: I'd argue that they are unable to, given the stated mission and tendency to remain neutral

XMPP Something Foundation. Would cover everything!

XMPP Supreme Frontier

Even the download button on xmpp.org would go against that neutrality

XMPP Slacks Freaks

daniel, what about better supporting the existing client developers with UX guidelines?

Ge0rG: who is going to implement those guidelines?

(I'm partial to calling it MIX, and then rebasing the the rest of the protocol on top of it, but that's just me; j/k?)

waqas: MIXMPP?

daniel, you! And me. And all the other developers out there who suck at UX on their own.

Zash: MPP is overused ;)

daniel: One simple answer: fund raise, and pay client devs. There are other answers as well.

It doesn't take that much to achieve simple objectives

And I don't believe the objectives need be complicated

Ge0rG: don't you repeatedly state that you don't have time for that?

Start a company, raise all the funds, hire all the people, fix all the UX n' stuff

Zash, and then do a big sellout to "non-profit" signal people ;)

daniel, and still I managed to implement a bunch of Easy * things in yaxim, just didn't release them yet.

I've been saying for a while now that the XSF needs to stop being quite so neutral.

I think deliberately setting out to showcase particular clients as being good examples of XMPP would be a positive thing.

And I'm somewhat fed up that all the suggestions of "The XSF doesn't have to do everything" tend to lead to nobody doing anything.

even if it were part of the XSF mission there would be nobody doing it...i mean if somebody wanted to doing and it wasn't the XSF's mission they'd just do it..see the xmpp.net TLS analytics stuff

Well... Sort of.

dwd: It seems to me that the path of least resistance would be a sister org, and not the XSF, even if it's the same people

Tobias: well the xsf could for example make specific client / library / server (as in software) / service suggesting. That's probably not a lot of work. Just not part of their current mission

waqas, I'd agree if not for financials and legal existence.

dwd: I'd note that an opinionated XSF would have to solve the issue of its membership having differing opinions

dwd: what or who is keeping us neutral?

Guus, Tradition, mostly.

dwd: has it been brought up in a board meeting, recently?

waqas, Yes, but we can address that by making it an awards thing, and/or making it a conformance thing.

as stpeter said maybe continuing to do the same thing is the mistake

(remaining neutral is what I meant there)

dwd: Protocol compliance isn't a useful property. You get into subjectivity with ease of use, UX, etc

dwd, IMHO we (the XSF) should create objective criteria for what an "Easy XMPP" client or server instance is and recommend those that fulfill the criteria to users.

waqas, Which is why I suggested awards.

Ge0rG, No way those will ever become anything but subjective.

And you get conflicts. e.g., I can claim that Prosody is the best XMPP server in existence, and what the XSF should promote. Other server vendors may disagree and dislike that notion.

In fact I'd say it incentivizes other server vendors to move out of the XMPP space

or step up their game...

Or at least the XSF's influence diminishes

how many server vendors are there really? 3? 5ish?

dwd, there are objective parts in Easy XMPP.

waqas, I don't *think* servers are where we need to be promiting specific cases, actually. But maybe we need to do things differently - a "spotlight on" feature or something.

besides it's easy to focus on a particular use-case, ie for users wanting to chat I think there are 2 server choices, *possibly* 3, right?

Ge0rG, Sure. But not many. Don't get me wrong, I think your work here is very useful, and your effort is appreciated, but "ease of use" is difficult to objectify.

waqas, prosody has only alpha quality implementations of many features needed for mobile / Easy clients. What now?

moparisthebest, At least 5. More if you count the forks, which you probably should do.

there is a huge, very grey, area between "not being neutral" and "promoting a single software application"

Ge0rG: Yes, and, here, let me add this: any XMPP client that isn't good for folks with special needs is disqualified. Any client which hasn't yet received a security audit is also disqualified. Now what happens?

Guus, +1

+1

dwd: What in your experience is the cost (in time and money) of a sister org?

dwd, I'm not talking about subjective "ease of use" at all, but about a set of objective UX guidelines to make the xmpp experience coherent between clients

dwd, I don't mean to de-rail this discussion so ignore me if you want, but ejabberd, prosody, openfire and ?

moparisthebest, M-Link, Tigase.

Mongoose, etc

moparisthebest, mongoose IM

the thought of two organizations doing pretty much the same thing does not sit well with me. It's going to confuse everyone that's not a member of one of those organizations.

jabberd2

m-link doesn't strike me as anything an end-user would set up right?

moparisthebest, Well, arguably, end users shouldn't setup a server at all.

dwd, and my point is that such a set of guidelines is both useful and on-topic in the xsf. And objective enough to measure clients

Guus, Again, agreed.

recommendations would be different for an enterprise and an end-user wanting to run their own server

(woohoo, I'm on a roll)

Ge0rG, I agree with the first, not the second. I don't think you could end up with "And therefore this client is the best".

Guus, dwd: A standards body and what is effectively an advocacy organization aren't the same thing, IMO

waqas, Yet we have always combined those before. Just that in more recent years, we've largely forgotten about advocacy.

dwd, not "the best" but "good enough"

waqas, I mean, just look at Matrix - they do exactly this combination, and it's working brilliantly for them.

are you trying to sell to enterprise or people not wanting to use signal? because those are two entirely different things, the discussion seems to be the signal-alternative people?

dwd: +1

dwd, what we want is a set of clients supporting the common UX, where a user can make an informed decision based on further features

for signal-alternative you'd only recommend clients implementing the *new* stuff, omemo etc

it'd be a short list currently

Ge0rG: At that point… why have separate clients, and not push for resources to be pooled, and all but the chosen one be retired? That's where things get interesting :)

That may not be a bad thing, but it's a significant thing

well the people writing python probably don't want to write C++, and vice versa

And Conversations is in Java I believe

yep

and currently I think conversations and gajim are the only omemo clients, but many others seem *close*

moparisthebest: there'd be a lot of features where you just don't have a choice. You can't recommend pidgin for example just because it has a great ux if it doesn't even do carbons

waqas, separate clients are good. Having a filter based on interoperability and basic UX for beginning users is even better

A lot of features are just essential

I know of at least chatsecure on ios, movim, swift? probably many more

daniel: How do you define essential? Are emojis essential?

yea daniel

And if you trim the list down to clients that support those essential features your possible list instead very long

I would think most would agree carbons would be more important than emojis waqas

waqas: well I imagine the compliance suite is a good start for essential features

but it is an organization with members, I suppose we could vote :)

IMHO a XEP based checklist approach to software assessment would fail

there's no one-size-fits-all definition

waqas: it can't be the only criteria

But it can be a baseline

To Ge0rG's point, good UX matters more than most other things

heck, most of my work nowadays involves an XMPP implementation that has zero relation to instant messaging.

waqas, then we need better XEPs.

but imho you need to cut requirements to exactly what you are doing, like alternative to signal/whatsapp etc, then you can make decent recommendations

moparisthebest, so what's the list of recommended WhatsApp alternatives in xmpp land?

Think of web browsers. Defining HTML is great. Users for the most part didn't pick which browser they were going to use based on how compliant the browser was.

at this exact moment in time? I guess it's only conversations and gajim

moparisthebest, gajim is a nightmare. You can't give it to normal people.

and as you said gajim doesn't have the greatest i-know-nothing-about-xmpp setup

waqas: no ux doesnt matter more than basic functionality like receiving messages when logged in with multiple devices

I agree, so fix it

Sorry. Ux is important. But there are some features you just can't be missing

daniel: I'd disagree with that. Good UX is superior to most other things.

Ge0rG, No, it's (mostly) fine once setup. Which is, as you know, our black spot.

daniel, one could argue that receiving messages is part of the UX.

A limited set of very polished features will likely win from a userbase standpoint over a lot of badly implemented ones.

waqas, daniel - You're in agreement with each other.

Indeed, violently so :P

waqas: receiving messages is part of the ux

dwd, which is never achieved by regular people

so what I haven't seen is anyone argue conversations is a bad client with bad ux, it's always the opposite

so maybe the list only has conversations on it, for now...

moparisthebest, yes, and this is sad for xmpp

Technically not compliant by the way because of the avater thing

so then you add a nice 'welcome to xmpp' onboarding dialog for gajim, and add it to the list Ge0rG , etc

The set of essential features vary depending on who you ask

it's not *so* sad by the way, most of the phone messengers only work sanely on a phone anyhow right?

I'm pretty sure all of them currently *require* a phone anyhow

Note that in terms of user base, you'd have a much harder time convincing advanced XMPP users vs non-XMPP users, because of preconceived notions and expectations. Same would be true for developers.

and those don't really matter, they are already here and have preferred clients

+1

no offense at all to terminal clients, but are the people that use them setting them up for their mom or wife anyhow? I doubt it

those just never make the list and that's fine :/

moparisthebest: I've heard of at least one attempt…

sounds rough

moparisthebest: well if you have categories for platforms you might as well have a special posix / shell platform

That won't hurt anyone

not sure you want to confuse people though, as long as it's hidden enough

Ha, well, the primary audience is Windows users :)

the guys who xmpp in tmux already know how to find good clients

unfortunately yes I'd agree with that :)

People who use cli clients usually tend to do excessive research anyway. So they probably don't need a recommendation

Windows, Android, iOS, OS X. Linux you can mostly ignore? :P

:'( still agreed

Isn't windows dead?

just ignore the desktop, most messages are exchanged via mobile devices anyway

:P

daniel: with a 90% desktop userbase still I believe, yes, quite dead

On xmpp.org, should we emphasis projects (clients/servers/libs) that are popular, or active, in some kind of semi-objective measurement (install-base, download, project activity on github)?

The Linux XMPP space is over-served. The other more popular OSs are very underserved when it comes to XMPP clients.

because it's mostly devs who know xmpp is objectively superior to anything else anyhow :)

same people who use linux desktops because they are objectively superior

so what about at the top of xmpp.org something like 'Download to chat' link?

that would list currently conversations

again devs can find their own stuff, enterprise users do more research anyway, etc

moparisthebest: So.. opinion pieces on XMPP clients? :)

sure waqas , how else does a random user find a client and sign up?

One interesting thing is non-XMPP clients get a ton of press. New version of the Skype client coming out? Tons of multi-page articles.

And amazingly, people seem to not dwell on and care about protocol, but about actual UX and functionality :)

Maybe a good web client would solve the desktop problem for xmpp.

yea isn't that what we've been talking about? putting clients with good UX and functionality for (skype|signal|whatsapp)-alternative on xmpp.org ?

Even for google chat and such, the articles were all about audio quality, memory usage, emoji support, etc, and didn't seem to really mention of care that there was XMPP somewhere underneath :)

And IMO they were right, because those quality of life things are what would matter to users they were targetting

devs care that it's xmpp underneath, my wife/mom just like that it works well

still if I had just told them to sign up for xmpp, we'd still be using SMS

moparisthebest: Are devs the primary audience? Or is your wife/mom?

I think currently it's just for devs, and there should be a link/page for the wives and moms

We need to address the moms and wives, and give them an easy way to get on board.

Well, the hard question is how do you incentivize them?

A new client can be hard work. What's the carrot to lure them with?

because it works great

and looks good and such, I guess

Erm, so does whatever existing client they are using

don't people 'try new apps' all the time?

Somehow they need to learn about this new client we are promoting. And no, moms aren't browsing xmpp.org looking for client recommendations :)

they are if someone tells them to try xmpp I guess

which I used to do but lately I've been saying try conversations, or trying to

And next they have to think it's cool enough that they should take the effort to try it, AND they should take the effort to get someone else they know to try it (because it's useless if it's just them alone…)

Now, does any existing XMPP client fit that description?

Name a single one, on any platform

also someone good with words, ie not me, should try a quick blurb to explain that it's better because it's like email, not one company controls everything

probably

ie federation, but that word probably means nothing to them so it shouldn't be used

waqas, how is that different than signal/skype/whatsapp? no one installs those without someone saying 'install X to chat with me'

Erm, I don't think the 'not one company' rhetoric resonates that well. Though you could get political, and make it the anti-political-party-X client. That'd get you some users.

I'm under the impression a lot of users have 3+ chat apps installed

moparisthebest: Signal isn't in the same league as Skype and Whatsapp. Skype and Whatsapp delivered multiple things users wanted that weren't widely available at the time.

Signal is actually used exactly by our core audience, and they are better at it than we are.

Skype has MS behind it, and they've been pushing it for ages. You can have high quality (not really these days…) audio and video calls with it

WhatsApp in many areas was replacing SMS (and then platform providers picked up on that, now Messages on iOS and Hangouts on Android are trying to compete in that area)

I don't like Skype's UX. I also think Skype has better UX than any audio/video supporting XMPP client I've tried or heard about.

I've tried to replace SMS with XMPP since 2006. It was hard.

Very hard

Ge0rG: And I don't believe you got a ton of help in doing so. Thanks for the hard work.

I openly admit I haven't the slightest clue about good UX :)

but yes as Ge0rG said I think xmpp has the most to 'win' by targetting signal users

moparisthebest, that's not what I said.

if you are privacy concious and such, it's far better, especially if the UI is up to par, like with conversations

Yes, but what do users have to win? Users are lazy and selfish.

Ge0rG: Indeed; if anything, our niche for XMPP federation is geeks and their friends, i.e. Signal users. Those who we might convince that walled gardens are bad.

IMO users winning is first and foremost. If it ever becomes users vs XMPP, XMPP needs to lose.

they win an axe not being held over their head forever

the axe being signal could just turn everything off at any moment, or change or do whatever, and they are locked in tight

Holger, nope. We need to make xmpp apps easy enough for mom and wife. And then use the Signal crypto nerds as multiplicators.

Holger: Is that what we would settle for then? Just the user base that case about walled gardens? That's a very tiny fraction of the human population.

I agree with Ge0rG

Ge0rG: Totally agreed that we need to make XMPP apps easy enough for mom and wife, so Signal user's moms and wifes will use it.

Ge0rG: We won't go beyond that, just like Signal doesn't go beyond that.

I care way less about 'crypto nerds', they are already over-served IMHO, and too prone to bike-shedding

Ge0rG, waqas: Unless a large company decides to push XMPP like Google did back then.

Holger: Indeed, and the XMPP community disliked them for it

waqas, except at this exact moment the suggestion for crypto nerds and moms/wives are the same, conversations

waqas: Yes, I think there's no commercial incentive behind federation in the current situation, so I see no path to get a user base larger than a very tiny fraction of human population. Unless we escape capitalism (as Daniel suggested).

maybe it changes later, but that's a problem for later

moparisthebest: Well, whatsapp and many others exploded in popularity without having a massive corp behind them. Most messaging systems were tiny companies that got bought after they became big.

waqas: The community disliked Google back then?

and except signal they had great UX (supposedly?) first and no encryption

which points where we should lean probably, even though like I said it's the same client

Holger: They didn't participate in the standards conversation that much, and there were some protocol bugs in their implementation that they were slow in fixing. They had also disabled s2s encryption, but the community sentiment was negative even before that happened.

I see.

And I mean the XSF community, not the broader XMPP community. Almost everyone had more gchat contacts in their XMPP roster than non-gchat.

so what harm would there be in recommending clients on xmpp.org for new users coming from whatsapp/signal exactly?

besides the , well the xsf hasn't done it before, argument

moparisthebest: IMO xmpp.org in its current form is useless, because no-one goes there.

so adding new pages wouldn't hurt then :P

if I try https://duckduckgo.com/?q=xmpp+account&t=ffsb&ia=web jabber.org is the first result for me

and the first link there is to xmpp.org looks like

it then goes on to mention a ton of clients I've never heard of or know to be abandoned, and link to http://xmpp.org/xmpp-software/clients/

moparisthebest: Most people are not actively searching for "xmpp account", are they? :)

possibly

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Yes, I think a page like that is a fine thing to do.

So, you've got conversations on Android. Now what's your pick for iOS, Windows and OS X?

jabber.at had a go at it: https://jabber.at/clients/

not sure there are good choices there

I don't know enough to say, again I'm terrible at good UX and only use a linux desktop :)

Useless ;)

My recommendations would be different from jabber.at's though :-)

Ha

What are your recommendations?

Windows clients all seem to be multiprotocol.

Apple clients are universally shit. In the case of iOS, that seems to be due to the background apps restriction.

Gajim on Windows… has it improved much? It was incredibly crashy back on the day when I tried to use it on Windows, but that was years back

that doesnt' seem so bad Holger I like the little table

No idea why OS X clients are all awful (to Apple fans, I mean).

waqas, I don't think it's actually maintained anymore.

dwd, ChatSecure is getting better on iOS.

What's a good Windows client these days for normal people?

waqas, Pidgin, probably?

waqas, I mean, it's not great. But still.

I wonder how much Objective-C would be required to convert Conversations to iOS

Pidgin seems to be easier

Back in the day I used to like Pandion quite a bit. Then I found that security issue and it was unmaintained.

waqas: Well personally I'd recommend Swift over Gajim, Monal over ChatSecure, and Poezio on the console. But those choices aren't obvious of course. I think such a page is good either way.

with something like xmlvm or the billion other things like that

waqas, Or Swift.im. Although that does seem very marmitey.

waqas, Oh, Pandion was maintained again, briefly.

moparisthebest, Oh, and doesn't ChatSecure use the Conversations library now?

IMO if there's one client that deserves to be revived and reconstructed, it's Pandion :)

I didn't think there was a conversations library

It was the *only* client that my non tech friends ever commented about being nice to use

oh unless you mean, chatsecure for android was going to be a conversations fork before it was abandoned

Ah, possibly.

The only other client that non-technical people liked in the XMPP space was the gchat desktop client.

the @gmail.com people I know chat on google's web interface, or used to

not positive it still works

My mu used the desktop client.

Not that my mum is exactly non-technical.

my wife is throwing my sister-in-law a baby shower, and the invites said rsvp to mywifesname@ourlastname.org , and the sister-in-laws mom messaged her on facebook saying she got an error when she tried to visit the mywifesname@ourlastname.org website....

I guess people with that level of technical skill will never use an xmpp client... :)

moparisthebest: She knew what a website was and how to visit it! That's amazing. Most people of that age likely may not know how.

Well, maybe, with a decent Web UI.

waqas, but when you see something@something.org shouldn't you know it's an email or JID at least and not a website? meh

waqas, My mother's 70, and can use a website just fine. Her mother, on the other hand, never got on with a mouse.

dwd, yea she did message her on facebook, so whatever facebook's website messenger looks like should work

waqas, Instead, my grandmother reinstalled her machine with CP/M because it worked better.

dwd: she isn't wrong ;)

intosi, Yeah? Do you remember the command to copy a file in CP/M?

I do, as a matter of fact. It's POP

PIP

Bloody typo at the wrong time.

Right, for Peripheral Interchange Program.

Pipboy?

My grandmother liked command lines because she could write down the useful commands on a notepad beside the computer.

pip does something else these days

what did she use the computer for dwd ?

moparisthebest, Word processing, mostly.

ah ok I could see that

moparisthebest, Although she also did cryptography on holleriths before, so I suppose she had some experience.

I'm pretty sure I had the first computer in our whole extended family and it was a 486 with windows 3.1 so we were all rather late to the game

moparisthebest, I think my brother beat me to a 486, but I overtook him with a DX2 I slammed 40M into. Can you even imagine that amount of memory?

my 486 had 4mb I think which was like a ton back then

Right - most machines had 4, a handful had 8, and mine had 40. Then again, I was running chat servers back then, so...

oh yea I didn't have internet until like 2002, late there as well :)

Um. 1994? I think?

in fact I remember when I got the computer being told about this thing where you could read newspapers for free over the phone line

Maybe 1993.

like that was all it was for, reading free newspapers :)

It was basically for reading free newspapers, MUDs, BBSs, and Talkers.

But we all sneered at Talkers.

I've heard of the other ones but not Talkers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talker

can anyone help me with getting a dev environment for the website setup?

I thought IRC was around back then

I followed instructions at https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org, which gave me a running process that does not respond with a webpage

moparisthebest, IRC was around 1988, and talkers were a few years before that.

moparisthebest, But talkers survived until the mid-to-late '90's.

Oh, that Wikipedia page has a See Also to "Spod". I'd forgotten about that bit of slang.

What the spod?

Wow. The momentum is gone again. That really didn't last long.

what momentum?

Guus, on the ML, regarding Easy XMPP

actually, I'm wrapping up a quick xmpp.org addition, to spark some new discussion

pull request in a couple of minutes

Ge0rG, you said you had some of your ideas implemented but not released. Are there packages one can try somewhere, without setting up an android build env?

Zash, yes, apks on yaxim.org and Google play beta channel

Zash, https://yax.im/i/#yaxim@chat.yax.im?join

https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/246

Guus: I like it thanks for making it more than just idle talk :-)

moparisthebest: no problem. Please suggest improvements.

Guus: is there scripting that can be done on the site? Maybe randomly sort suggested servers to spread the load some?

Possibly mention account creation is built into conversations?

I don't know. I'm not very familiar with the website source code. Just enough to make it run locally.

moparisthebest: do add the suggestions to github, if only because I am about to go to bed. 😉

Guus: will do on PC tomorrow thanks :-)

Ok