HolgerIt's there for me on CM13 as well. Either way it would be nice if you could configure the keyboard choice per app ...
mathieuiiirc you can long-press on a key on the soft keyboard in CM13/14 in order to get that
mathieuior even earlier
mathieuiyeah, the comma key
Ge0rGI've got the arrow keys there, but not the switch button...
Ge0rGSomebody forwarded stpeter's weak moment to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13411735
waqasI wouldn't call that a weak moment. Messages from stpeter typically come after significant thought.
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas left
dwdThe two are not mutually exclusive.
dwdGe0rG, FWIW, I thought it'd take less time than that.
Ge0rGwaqas, 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.
waqasdwd: That's fair
Ge0rGdwd, at least it made #1 on the front page, as opposed to most of my writing.
Steve Killehas joined
waqasI agree with most of the thread (despite some folks being conflicted)
waqasdwd, 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.
danielI 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?
Steve Killehas left
ZashI for one isn't going to give up on distributed control over communications infrastructure.
waqasXMPP is by far my protocol of choice. I believe it's better than anything which could be considered competition in quite a few ways.
waqasBut 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.
Ge0rGwaqas, what I'm doing here is to help client developers improve their clients so that we can compete with WhatsApp, Signal etc.
waqasThe XSF's mission is explicitly to define protocol. I don't believe protocol definition is the key problem in messaging these days.
waqasGe0rG: I agree with you, in case that wasn't apparent
Ge0rGwaqas, 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.
Tobiaswaqas, indeed..i think it's more a community issue than a standard organization issue
waqasAnd I also believe that for software authors, protocols are a means to an end, not the end itself
ZashChange the S back to Software?
Tobiashowever there is no real community outlet/representation for XMPP
waqasIMHO that is significantly more important than a standards body at this point
danielGe0rG: I'm not sure how council or board members can create more client developers out of thin air
TobiasZash, or Super
Tobiaswaqas, indeed..that's why I've been talking to Thijs and Peter to turn xmpp.net into such
waqasdaniel: I'd argue that they are unable to, given the stated mission and tendency to remain neutral
Ge0rGXMPP Something Foundation. Would cover everything!
ZashXMPP Supreme Frontier
danielEven the download button on xmpp.org would go against that neutrality
TobiasXMPP Slacks Freaks
Ge0rGdaniel, what about better supporting the existing client developers with UX guidelines?
danielGe0rG: who is going to implement those guidelines?
waqas(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?)
Ge0rGdaniel, you! And me. And all the other developers out there who suck at UX on their own.
waqasZash: MPP is overused ;)
waqasdaniel: One simple answer: fund raise, and pay client devs. There are other answers as well.
waqasIt doesn't take that much to achieve simple objectives
waqasAnd I don't believe the objectives need be complicated
danielGe0rG: don't you repeatedly state that you don't have time for that?
ZashStart a company, raise all the funds, hire all the people, fix all the UX n' stuff
TobiasZash, and then do a big sellout to "non-profit" signal people ;)
Ge0rGdaniel, and still I managed to implement a bunch of Easy * things in yaxim, just didn't release them yet.
dwdI've been saying for a while now that the XSF needs to stop being quite so neutral.
dwdI think deliberately setting out to showcase particular clients as being good examples of XMPP would be a positive thing.
dwdAnd 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.
Tobiaseven 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
dwdWell... Sort of.
waqasdwd: 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
danielTobias: 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
dwdwaqas, I'd agree if not for financials and legal existence.
waqasdwd: I'd note that an opinionated XSF would have to solve the issue of its membership having differing opinions
Guusdwd: what or who is keeping us neutral?
dwdGuus, Tradition, mostly.
Guusdwd: has it been brought up in a board meeting, recently?
dwdwaqas, Yes, but we can address that by making it an awards thing, and/or making it a conformance thing.
moparisthebestas stpeter said maybe continuing to do the same thing is the mistake
moparisthebest(remaining neutral is what I meant there)
waqasdwd: Protocol compliance isn't a useful property. You get into subjectivity with ease of use, UX, etc
Ge0rGdwd, 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.
dwdwaqas, Which is why I suggested awards.
dwdGe0rG, No way those will ever become anything but subjective.
waqasAnd 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.
waqasIn fact I'd say it incentivizes other server vendors to move out of the XMPP space
Guusor step up their game...
waqasOr at least the XSF's influence diminishes
moparisthebesthow many server vendors are there really? 3? 5ish?
Ge0rGdwd, there are objective parts in Easy XMPP.
dwdwaqas, 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.
moparisthebestbesides 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?
dwdGe0rG, 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.
Ge0rGwaqas, prosody has only alpha quality implementations of many features needed for mobile / Easy clients. What now?
dwdmoparisthebest, At least 5. More if you count the forks, which you probably should do.
Guusthere is a huge, very grey, area between "not being neutral" and "promoting a single software application"
waqasGe0rG: 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?
waqasdwd: What in your experience is the cost (in time and money) of a sister org?
Ge0rGdwd, 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
moparisthebestdwd, I don't mean to de-rail this discussion so ignore me if you want, but ejabberd, prosody, openfire and ?
dwdmoparisthebest, M-Link, Tigase.
Tobiasmoparisthebest, mongoose IM
Guusthe 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.
moparisthebestm-link doesn't strike me as anything an end-user would set up right?
dwdmoparisthebest, Well, arguably, end users shouldn't setup a server at all.
Ge0rGdwd, 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
dwdGuus, Again, agreed.
moparisthebestrecommendations would be different for an enterprise and an end-user wanting to run their own server
Guus(woohoo, I'm on a roll)
dwdGe0rG, I agree with the first, not the second. I don't think you could end up with "And therefore this client is the best".
waqasGuus, dwd: A standards body and what is effectively an advocacy organization aren't the same thing, IMO
dwdwaqas, Yet we have always combined those before. Just that in more recent years, we've largely forgotten about advocacy.
Ge0rGdwd, not "the best" but "good enough"
dwdwaqas, I mean, just look at Matrix - they do exactly this combination, and it's working brilliantly for them.
moparisthebestare 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?
Ge0rGdwd, what we want is a set of clients supporting the common UX, where a user can make an informed decision based on further features
moparisthebestfor signal-alternative you'd only recommend clients implementing the *new* stuff, omemo etc
moparisthebestit'd be a short list currently
waqasGe0rG: 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 :)
waqasThat may not be a bad thing, but it's a significant thing
moparisthebestwell the people writing python probably don't want to write C++, and vice versa
waqasAnd Conversations is in Java I believe
moparisthebestand currently I think conversations and gajim are the only omemo clients, but many others seem *close*
danielmoparisthebest: 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
Ge0rGwaqas, separate clients are good. Having a filter based on interoperability and basic UX for beginning users is even better
danielA lot of features are just essential
moparisthebestI know of at least chatsecure on ios, movim, swift? probably many more
waqasdaniel: How do you define essential? Are emojis essential?
danielAnd if you trim the list down to clients that support those essential features your possible list instead very long
moparisthebestI would think most would agree carbons would be more important than emojis waqas
danielwaqas: well I imagine the compliance suite is a good start for essential features
moparisthebestbut it is an organization with members, I suppose we could vote :)
waqasIMHO a XEP based checklist approach to software assessment would fail
Guusthere's no one-size-fits-all definition
danielwaqas: it can't be the only criteria
danielBut it can be a baseline
waqasTo Ge0rG's point, good UX matters more than most other things
Guusheck, most of my work nowadays involves an XMPP implementation that has zero relation to instant messaging.
Ge0rGwaqas, then we need better XEPs.
moparisthebestbut imho you need to cut requirements to exactly what you are doing, like alternative to signal/whatsapp etc, then you can make decent recommendations
Ge0rGmoparisthebest, so what's the list of recommended WhatsApp alternatives in xmpp land?
waqasThink 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.
moparisthebestat this exact moment in time? I guess it's only conversations and gajim
Ge0rGmoparisthebest, gajim is a nightmare. You can't give it to normal people.
moparisthebestand as you said gajim doesn't have the greatest i-know-nothing-about-xmpp setup
danielwaqas: no ux doesnt matter more than basic functionality like receiving messages when logged in with multiple devices
moparisthebestI agree, so fix it
danielSorry. Ux is important. But there are some features you just can't be missing
waqasdaniel: I'd disagree with that. Good UX is superior to most other things.
dwdGe0rG, No, it's (mostly) fine once setup. Which is, as you know, our black spot.
Ge0rGdaniel, one could argue that receiving messages is part of the UX.
waqasA limited set of very polished features will likely win from a userbase standpoint over a lot of badly implemented ones.
dwdwaqas, daniel - You're in agreement with each other.
waqasIndeed, violently so :P
danielwaqas: receiving messages is part of the ux
Ge0rGdwd, which is never achieved by regular people
moparisthebestso what I haven't seen is anyone argue conversations is a bad client with bad ux, it's always the opposite
moparisthebestso maybe the list only has conversations on it, for now...
Ge0rGmoparisthebest, yes, and this is sad for xmpp
danielTechnically not compliant by the way because of the avater thing
moparisthebestso then you add a nice 'welcome to xmpp' onboarding dialog for gajim, and add it to the list Ge0rG , etc
ZashThe set of essential features vary depending on who you ask
moparisthebestit's not *so* sad by the way, most of the phone messengers only work sanely on a phone anyhow right?
moparisthebestI'm pretty sure all of them currently *require* a phone anyhow
moparisthebestand those don't really matter, they are already here and have preferred clients
moparisthebestno 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
moparisthebestthose just never make the list and that's fine :/
waqasmoparisthebest: I've heard of at least one attempt…
danielmoparisthebest: well if you have categories for platforms you might as well have a special posix / shell platform
danielThat won't hurt anyone
moparisthebestnot sure you want to confuse people though, as long as it's hidden enough
waqasHa, well, the primary audience is Windows users :)
moparisthebestthe guys who xmpp in tmux already know how to find good clients
moparisthebestunfortunately yes I'd agree with that :)
danielPeople who use cli clients usually tend to do excessive research anyway. So they probably don't need a recommendation
waqasWindows, Android, iOS, OS X. Linux you can mostly ignore? :P
moparisthebest:'( still agreed
danielIsn't windows dead?
Tobiasjust ignore the desktop, most messages are exchanged via mobile devices anyway
waqasdaniel: with a 90% desktop userbase still I believe, yes, quite dead
GuusOn 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)?
waqasThe Linux XMPP space is over-served. The other more popular OSs are very underserved when it comes to XMPP clients.
moparisthebestbecause it's mostly devs who know xmpp is objectively superior to anything else anyhow :)
moparisthebestsame people who use linux desktops because they are objectively superior
moparisthebestso what about at the top of xmpp.org something like 'Download to chat' link?
moparisthebestthat would list currently conversations
moparisthebestagain devs can find their own stuff, enterprise users do more research anyway, etc
waqasmoparisthebest: So.. opinion pieces on XMPP clients? :)
moparisthebestsure waqas , how else does a random user find a client and sign up?
waqasOne interesting thing is non-XMPP clients get a ton of press. New version of the Skype client coming out? Tons of multi-page articles.
waqasAnd amazingly, people seem to not dwell on and care about protocol, but about actual UX and functionality :)
Ge0rGMaybe a good web client would solve the desktop problem for xmpp.
moparisthebestyea isn't that what we've been talking about? putting clients with good UX and functionality for (skype|signal|whatsapp)-alternative on xmpp.org ?
waqasEven 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 :)
waqasAnd IMO they were right, because those quality of life things are what would matter to users they were targetting
moparisthebestdevs care that it's xmpp underneath, my wife/mom just like that it works well
moparisthebeststill if I had just told them to sign up for xmpp, we'd still be using SMS
waqasmoparisthebest: Are devs the primary audience? Or is your wife/mom?
moparisthebestI think currently it's just for devs, and there should be a link/page for the wives and moms
Ge0rGWe need to address the moms and wives, and give them an easy way to get on board.
waqasWell, the hard question is how do you incentivize them?
waqasA new client can be hard work. What's the carrot to lure them with?
moparisthebestbecause it works great
moparisthebestand looks good and such, I guess
waqasErm, so does whatever existing client they are using
moparisthebestdon't people 'try new apps' all the time?
waqasSomehow they need to learn about this new client we are promoting. And no, moms aren't browsing xmpp.org looking for client recommendations :)
moparisthebestthey are if someone tells them to try xmpp I guess
moparisthebestwhich I used to do but lately I've been saying try conversations, or trying to
waqasAnd 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…)
waqasNow, does any existing XMPP client fit that description?
waqasName a single one, on any platform
moparisthebestalso 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
moparisthebestie federation, but that word probably means nothing to them so it shouldn't be used
moparisthebestwaqas, how is that different than signal/skype/whatsapp? no one installs those without someone saying 'install X to chat with me'
waqasErm, 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.
moparisthebestI'm under the impression a lot of users have 3+ chat apps installed
waqasmoparisthebest: 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.
Ge0rGSignal is actually used exactly by our core audience, and they are better at it than we are.
waqasSkype 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
waqasWhatsApp 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)
waqasI 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.
Ge0rGI've tried to replace SMS with XMPP since 2006. It was hard.
waqasGe0rG: And I don't believe you got a ton of help in doing so. Thanks for the hard work.
moparisthebestI openly admit I haven't the slightest clue about good UX :)
moparisthebestbut yes as Ge0rG said I think xmpp has the most to 'win' by targetting signal users
Ge0rGmoparisthebest, that's not what I said.
moparisthebestif you are privacy concious and such, it's far better, especially if the UI is up to par, like with conversations
waqasYes, but what do users have to win? Users are lazy and selfish.
HolgerGe0rG: 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.
waqasIMO users winning is first and foremost. If it ever becomes users vs XMPP, XMPP needs to lose.
moparisthebestthey win an axe not being held over their head forever
moparisthebestthe axe being signal could just turn everything off at any moment, or change or do whatever, and they are locked in tight
Ge0rGHolger, nope. We need to make xmpp apps easy enough for mom and wife. And then use the Signal crypto nerds as multiplicators.
waqasHolger: 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.
waqasI agree with Ge0rG
HolgerGe0rG: 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.
HolgerGe0rG: We won't go beyond that, just like Signal doesn't go beyond that.
waqasI care way less about 'crypto nerds', they are already over-served IMHO, and too prone to bike-shedding
HolgerGe0rG, waqas: Unless a large company decides to push XMPP like Google did back then.
waqasHolger: Indeed, and the XMPP community disliked them for it
moparisthebestwaqas, except at this exact moment the suggestion for crypto nerds and moms/wives are the same, conversations
Holgerwaqas: 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).
moparisthebestmaybe it changes later, but that's a problem for later
waqasmoparisthebest: 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.
Holgerwaqas: The community disliked Google back then?
moparisthebestand except signal they had great UX (supposedly?) first and no encryption
Holgerwasn't part of the community back then, and wasn't aware.
moparisthebestwhich points where we should lean probably, even though like I said it's the same client
waqasHolger: 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.
waqasAnd I mean the XSF community, not the broader XMPP community. Almost everyone had more gchat contacts in their XMPP roster than non-gchat.
waqasstill has @gmail.com contacts in his roster
moparisthebestso what harm would there be in recommending clients on xmpp.org for new users coming from whatsapp/signal exactly?
moparisthebestbesides the , well the xsf hasn't done it before, argument
waqasmoparisthebest: IMO xmpp.org in its current form is useless, because no-one goes there.
moparisthebestso adding new pages wouldn't hurt then :P
moparisthebestif I try https://duckduckgo.com/?q=xmpp+account&t=ffsb&ia=web jabber.org is the first result for me
moparisthebestand the first link there is to xmpp.org looks like
moparisthebestit 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/
waqasmoparisthebest: Most people are not actively searching for "xmpp account", are they? :)
waqasBut I'm getting ahead of myself. Yes, I think a page like that is a fine thing to do.
waqasSo, you've got conversations on Android. Now what's your pick for iOS, Windows and OS X?
Holgerjabber.at had a go at it: https://jabber.at/clients/
moparisthebestnot sure there are good choices there
moparisthebestI don't know enough to say, again I'm terrible at good UX and only use a linux desktop :)
HolgerMy recommendations would be different from jabber.at's though :-)
waqasWhat are your recommendations?
dwdWindows clients all seem to be multiprotocol.
dwdApple clients are universally shit. In the case of iOS, that seems to be due to the background apps restriction.
waqasGajim 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
moparisthebestthat doesnt' seem so bad Holger I like the little table
dwdNo idea why OS X clients are all awful (to Apple fans, I mean).
dwdwaqas, I don't think it's actually maintained anymore.
Ge0rGdwd, ChatSecure is getting better on iOS.
waqasWhat's a good Windows client these days for normal people?
dwdwaqas, Pidgin, probably?
dwdwaqas, I mean, it's not great. But still.
moparisthebestI wonder how much Objective-C would be required to convert Conversations to iOS
xyzPidgin seems to be easier
waqasBack in the day I used to like Pandion quite a bit. Then I found that security issue and it was unmaintained.
Holgerwaqas: 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.
moparisthebestwith something like xmlvm or the billion other things like that
dwdwaqas, Or Swift.im. Although that does seem very marmitey.
dwdwaqas, Oh, Pandion was maintained again, briefly.
dwdmoparisthebest, Oh, and doesn't ChatSecure use the Conversations library now?
waqasIMO if there's one client that deserves to be revived and reconstructed, it's Pandion :)
moparisthebestI didn't think there was a conversations library
waqasIt was the *only* client that my non tech friends ever commented about being nice to use
moparisthebestoh unless you mean, chatsecure for android was going to be a conversations fork before it was abandoned
waqasThe only other client that non-technical people liked in the XMPP space was the gchat desktop client.
moparisthebestthe @gmail.com people I know chat on google's web interface, or used to
moparisthebestnot positive it still works
dwdMy mu used the desktop client.
dwdNot that my mum is exactly non-technical.
moparisthebestmy wife is throwing my sister-in-law a baby shower, and the invites said rsvp to firstname.lastname@example.org , and the sister-in-laws mom messaged her on facebook saying she got an error when she tried to visit the email@example.com website....
moparisthebestI guess people with that level of technical skill will never use an xmpp client... :)
waqasmoparisthebest: She knew what a website was and how to visit it! That's amazing. Most people of that age likely may not know how.
dwdWell, maybe, with a decent Web UI.
moparisthebestwaqas, but when you see firstname.lastname@example.org shouldn't you know it's an email or JID at least and not a website? meh
dwdwaqas, My mother's 70, and can use a website just fine. Her mother, on the other hand, never got on with a mouse.
moparisthebestdwd, yea she did message her on facebook, so whatever facebook's website messenger looks like should work
dwdwaqas, Instead, my grandmother reinstalled her machine with CP/M because it worked better.
intosidwd: she isn't wrong ;)
dwdintosi, Yeah? Do you remember the command to copy a file in CP/M?
intosiI do, as a matter of fact. It's POP
intosiBloody typo at the wrong time.
dwdRight, for Peripheral Interchange Program.
dwdMy grandmother liked command lines because she could write down the useful commands on a notepad beside the computer.
waqaspip does something else these days
moparisthebestwhat did she use the computer for dwd ?
dwdmoparisthebest, Word processing, mostly.
moparisthebestah ok I could see that
dwdmoparisthebest, Although she also did cryptography on holleriths before, so I suppose she had some experience.
moparisthebestI'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
dwdmoparisthebest, 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?
moparisthebestmy 486 had 4mb I think which was like a ton back then
dwdRight - most machines had 4, a handful had 8, and mine had 40. Then again, I was running chat servers back then, so...
moparisthebestoh yea I didn't have internet until like 2002, late there as well :)
dwdUm. 1994? I think?
moparisthebestin fact I remember when I got the computer being told about this thing where you could read newspapers for free over the phone line
moparisthebestlike that was all it was for, reading free newspapers :)
dwdIt was basically for reading free newspapers, MUDs, BBSs, and Talkers.
dwdBut we all sneered at Talkers.
moparisthebestI've heard of the other ones but not Talkers
Guuscan anyone help me with getting a dev environment for the website setup?
moparisthebestI thought IRC was around back then
GuusI followed instructions at https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org, which gave me a running process that does not respond with a webpage
dwdmoparisthebest, IRC was around 1988, and talkers were a few years before that.
dwdmoparisthebest, But talkers survived until the mid-to-late '90's.
dwdOh, that Wikipedia page has a See Also to "Spod". I'd forgotten about that bit of slang.
ZashWhat the spod?
Ge0rGWow. The momentum is gone again. That really didn't last long.
Ge0rGGuus, on the ML, regarding Easy XMPP
Guusactually, I'm wrapping up a quick xmpp.org addition, to spark some new discussion
Guuspull request in a couple of minutes
ZashGe0rG, 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?
Ge0rGZash, yes, apks on yaxim.org and Google play beta channel