XMPP Service Operators - 2021-02-18


  1. tom

    raucao: realtime collaboration doesn't belong in a document rendering system

  2. tom

    Nor does javascript

  3. tom

    And javascript is an absolutely terrible language for implementing realtime event driven collaboration in

  4. tom

    The problem is what your trying to use here for collaboration and feedback is inacessable to a large amount of people

  5. tom

    I'm telling you now about it

  6. tom

    Imagine if some big corpo like Facebook came around here, with a modified spec server and client

  7. tom

    That was completely incompatible with everything else and did not gracefully degrade

  8. tom

    It's only expected to get some pushback

  9. tom

    Especially from the people who need special accommodations who the XMPP equivalent of "just use chrome" won't work

  10. tom

    Javascript isn't standard and it doesn't gracefully degrade

  11. tom

    And it's probably just about the worst scripting language not make as a joke

  12. tom

    The only thing worse that comes to mind is brainfuck

  13. tom

    Imagine if a person in a wheelchair tried to enter a shop, and bouncer at the door put his hand out blocking the path and yelled "YOU NEED LEGS TO ENTER THIS STORE"

  14. tom

    That's what your doing when you do the html equivalent of <noscript>YOU NEED JAVASCRIPT YOU USE THIS APP</noscript>

  15. tom

    Even OMEMO (XEP-0284) can graefully degrade to plaintext

  16. tom

    Altough argument it does a terrible job of it

  17. tom

    Although arguably it does a terrible job of it

  18. tom

    Really though, the problem with google chrome and web2.0 webshit is that it is practically a completely different system with completely different scope for some stupid reason running over the same wire protocol

  19. tom

    That is incompatible with each other

  20. tom

    And no raucao the whatwg is not a place to go to discuss this, that's a place to go to have google, your supreme corporate overlord dictate to you an impossible to implement spec

  21. tom

    That changes every 2 weeks

  22. tom

    The w3c did not make html5

  23. tom

    They made HTML4 and XHTML

  24. tom

    They just tongue-in-cheekingly snapshot whatwg's html5 every now and then

  25. tom

    Copyright © WHATWG (Apple, Google, Mozilla, Microsoft)

  26. tom

    If you make to make a website, make a website

  27. tom

    If you want to make a google chrome app

  28. tom

    That's something completely different

  29. tom

    God i hope that never happens to the XSF

  30. tom

    There is a XEP for what service operators should fill in for XMPP servers https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0157.html

  31. Menel

    Constructive would be to tell what software to use instead to do that collaboration. Isy there something similar? If the only goal is to take the site down then "the bouncer" will $Kik everyone out"

  32. mjk

    One big fat *+1* to xhtml

  33. mjk

    > Constructive would be to tell what software to use instead to do that collaboration. Isy there something similar? Git? :3

  34. mjk

    Also, if my memory serves me right, _ther's a xep for that_

  35. mjk

    Also, if my memory serves me right, _there's a xep for that_

  36. mjk

    Or at least a gajim plugin

  37. Menel

    XHTML is fine. But be realistic, they won't write something with that now just like that by themselves.. If there is nothing already done..

  38. Kris mumbles something about running Javascript in the browser being no different from any other kind of autoupdated software...

  39. pintosesk

    See a need, fill a need...

  40. pintosesk

    To quote a cheeky 2005 movie.

  41. pintosesk

    > Kris mumbles something about running Javascript in the browser being no different from any other kind of autoupdated software... There's a difference between autoupdated software, and an autoupdated *protocol*.

  42. mimi89999

    Ge0rG, why on yax.im there is no `mod_proxy65` and no `mod_vcard_legacy`?

  43. pintosesk

    Especially one that moves fast and breaks itself.

  44. Ge0rG

    mimi89999: because I'm allergic to untested modules, and there was a time when I had to pay for data traffic on yax.im

  45. mimi89999

    What happened?

  46. Licaon_Kter

    What was the usecase for 65? I keep getting connections on its port and I don't thing my users actually do that...

  47. mimi89999

    Jingle FT behind NAT

  48. Licaon_Kter

    I had some of those but...don't think there where used that much though

  49. Holger

    Not just to circumvent NAT but also for performance (avoid splitting up the file into tiny chunks and base64-encoding them).

  50. jonas’

    (performance compared to IBB, not performacne compared to a direct non-NATed connection

  51. jonas’

    (performance compared to IBB, not performacne compared to a direct non-NATed connection)

  52. Holger

    Ah indeed :-)

  53. jonas’

    et ceterum censeo NAT delendam esse

  54. Holger

    Licaon_Kter: Anyway, file transfer with old-school clients, or with Conversations if the file size exceeds the HTTP Upload limit.

  55. Licaon_Kter

    Ok, albeit given the rate of connections and dates, looked phishy, will look at logs again, maybe it was legit. In theory it's limited to local users so it should be safe. Maybe the fact that it's hosted on `proxy.mydomain.tld` attracts unwanted attention...

  56. Menel

    High, non standard port helps too to reduce noise

  57. tom

    What does it matter? It's not like they are able to use it without a key from your server

  58. tom

    Background noise of the internet

  59. tom

    I run ssh on standard ports

  60. tom

    Key-based auth only

  61. mimi89999

    Can somebody tell chapril that `dns.chapril.org` is very slow to respond or does not respond at all?

  62. mimi89999

    neox

  63. mimi89999

    I can't connect to them

  64. neox

    mimi89999, we're rebooting the whole cluster

  65. mimi89999

    OK. Why?

  66. neox

    mimi89999, kernel+libssl update

  67. mimi89999

    No announcement on the MUC?

  68. neox

    Well I did an annoucement

  69. neox

    In french x)

  70. mimi89999

    When?

  71. neox

    19:40

  72. neox

    And I did an annoucement via mod_announce too

  73. mimi89999

    https://lebihan.pl/xmpp-upload/index.php/26c0d2ae-a410-4d8f-857d-68f60cd6b7b5/Capture%20d%e2%80%99%c3%a9cran%20du%202021-02-18%2021-43-00.png

  74. mimi89999

    OK

  75. neox

    mimi89999, Next time I'll do in english clear and loud 😉

  76. mimi89999

    I speak french, but I don't see it