arcIt looks like you're going to have a foss foundations drinkup on BigBlueButton video conference on Feb 5 at 7pm Brussels time.
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
NeustradamusThere is a problem with xmpp.com/www.xmpp.com, on Google, when we search XEP, the results can be https://www.xmpp.com instead of https://xmpp.org.
antranigvhas left
moparisthebestDoes the xsf own that domain?
moparisthebestIt looks like it points to our servers, but the certs are wrong
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
NeustradamusYes
moparisthebestNeeds cert and a 301 redirect
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
krauqhas left
alex-a-sotohas left
krauqhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
stphas left
alex-a-sotohas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
chronosx88has joined
murabitohas left
murabitohas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Yagizahas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
Adihas joined
marekhas left
marekhas joined
krauqhas left
krauqhas joined
stphas joined
Andrzejhas left
stphas left
Lancehas joined
Lancehas left
alacerhas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
Tobiashas joined
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
Sevehas joined
jcbrandhas joined
archas left
archas joined
Mikaelahas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
Mikaelahas left
emushas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
adiaholichas left
karoshihas joined
adiaholichas joined
wurstsalathas joined
goffihas joined
neshtaxmpphas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
goffihas left
alacerhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
jonas’those are our nameservers, so yeah
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
moparisthebesthas left
marchas joined
marchas left
mdoschhas left
Danielhas left
mdoschhas joined
moparisthebesthas joined
Danielhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
marchas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
Danielhas left
Danielhas joined
ti_gj06has left
mdoschhas left
mdoschhas joined
LNJhas joined
marchas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
edhelashas joined
jcbrandhas left
jcbrandhas joined
Guushas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
Guushas left
derdanielhas joined
derdanielhas left
esilhas joined
esilhas left
Andrzejhas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
goffihas joined
ti_gj06has joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
Sevehas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
Kevin Smithhas joined
Kevin Smithhas left
antranigvhas joined
marchas joined
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
Sevehas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
adiaholichas left
lorddavidiiihas left
adiaholichas joined
ti_gj06has left
adiaholichas left
adiaholichas joined
lorddavidiiihas joined
matkorhas left
antranigvhas left
stphas joined
goffihas left
goffihas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
ti_gj06has joined
goffihas left
NeustradamusCrash?
stphas left
adiaholichas left
antranigvhas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
adiaholichas joined
goffihas joined
stphas joined
mukt2has joined
antranigvhas left
archas left
archas joined
archas left
archas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
Wojtekhas joined
Mikaelahas joined
Mikaelahas left
Dele Olajidehas left
Dele Olajidehas joined
Steve Killehas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
Steve Killehas joined
Mikaelahas joined
goffihas left
marekhas left
marekhas joined
stpHi, did anyone ever try to make Google replace the term Jabber with XMPP in the Android contacts?
flowi guess that would first require us to have a clear stance that this is what we want
flowanyhow, I am not aware of any such attempt
lorddavidiiihas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
ti_gj06has left
stpflow, According to a discussion I initiated in this MUC some days ago the Jabber term should not be used anymore.
esilhas joined
esilhas left
ti_gj06has joined
jonas’says who?
jonas’my impression was that we’re split in two fractions: one fraction who wishes to market XMPP, one fraction who wishes to market a different term, and for lack of a better one, Jabber is currently their favourite.
dwdMarket to whom, is a key deciding factor, I feel.
jonas’that, too
jonas’given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to users" though
ti_gj06has left
jonas’given that this is about android contacts and the other discussion the other day, I inferred "to (IM) users" though
dwdAh, right. Yes, if we're marketing to users than XMPP is not ideal.
dwdEspecially as the XMPP Standards Foundation doesn't appear to want to market to users.
MattJFWIW it's not only Android, iOS also has a Jabber field
MattJIt probably stems from vCard
dwdProbably not; we added in jabber as a non-standard extension in our standard.
Zashhttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 applies to earlier vCard too I think
stpZash, hm, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4770 just mentions XMPP.
lskdjfhas joined
mdoschMarketing Jabber is also a problem as you scare away people who associate it with 'Cisco Jabber' (happened to me twice) and it's a trademark from Cisco. So as long as there is no better term I call it XMPP even if this is not ideal.
Zashstp, the abstract says that it's an URI, the Introduction lists a number of examples
ZashOnly mention of XMPP I see is that + informative reference to the xmpp URI spec
stpWhile the term XMPP may not be ideal, how many products world wide became very successful using names which were probably not ideal? Having *two* names for the *same* thing though is way worse, near fatal even especially since with XMPP there are also all those client names in the mix and to an extent XMPP provider names. I also think XMPP isn't that bad actually.
LNJhas joined
dwdThe IETF would never refer to XMPP as Jabber. The name XMPP was literally invented to avoid that.
stpZash, ok, but no mention of Jabber.
ZashBut that wasn't what that tangent was about
dwdstp, You might notice that "HTTP" and "The Web" are two different names, yet seem to work OK.
stpdwd, those are two different things though.
ZashThat was about the IMPP vCard property predating vCard4, and is what's used to store Jabber/XMPP addresses in address books, unless some non-standard property like X-JABBER is used
matkorhas joined
stpSince I lack the knowledge I'm confused now regarding the Android contacts/Vcard topic. So to clear that up: Does Google just follow what the vCard standard specifies?
fuanahas joined
flowI think it was labeled "Jabber" in Android many, many years ago
flowBack then Jabber was more used. And nobody ever revisited the name
goffihas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas left
stpflow, I can confirm that in 2011 is was already labeled Jabber.
stpflow, so probably since Android was started.
ZashLooks like this old Android uses X-JABBER in vCard 2.1
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Tobiashas left
Tobiashas joined
eevvoorhas left
eevvoorhas joined
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas joined
sonnyhas left
sonnyhas joined
ti_gj06has joined
antranigvhas joined
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
andyhas joined
wladmishas joined
mukt2has left
Andrzejhas left
andyhas left
mukt2has joined
Andrzejhas joined
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
andyhas joined
antranigvhas left
mukt2has left
marchas left
andyhas left
marchas joined
Mikaelahas left
emushas left
emushas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
Andrzejhas left
antranigvhas joined
Mikaelahas joined
Paganinihas left
nycohas left
edhelashas left
Neustradamushas left
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamushas left
nycohas joined
Neustradamushas joined
Neustradamushas left
edhelashas joined
Neustradamushas joined
Paganinihas joined
lskdjfhas left
Ge0rGIn my legacy Android XMPP code from ten years ago, I have support for imto://jabber/ URIs
DanielThat's still useful today
Ge0rGbut it looks like I have no code to actually handle those intents.
Ge0rGoh, it just ignores the scheme. If host == "jabber" then chatWith(path[0])
lorddavidiiihas joined
stpSo is there any place where it would make sense to file an issue regrading the use of Jabber or XMPP in Android contacts?
mukt2has joined
matkorhas left
matkorhas joined
Ge0rGstp: I think that'd be a task for the Jabber Software Foundation
andyhas joined
moparisthebestCisco?
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: oh please no
moparisthebestI figured "Jabber Software Foundation" was "Cisco", don't know who else it'd be :)
jonas’moparisthebest, old name of the XSF, nowadays nonexistent.
DanielI'm not even sure there is anything in 'android' calling it Jabber. Isn't it just the contacts apps
moparisthebestright, nowadays it's Cisco
DanielYou can probably PR the aosp contact apps
DanielOr other relevant open source contacts apps
DanielBut that only buys you so much
Ge0rGAs a member of the "use Jabber™ for the federated IM network, XMPP for the protocol" faction, I oppose that change.
mdoschIsn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?
NeustradamusThe XMPP network :)
stpDaniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps.
Ge0rGI have written multiple SMTP messages about that which can be obtained from the IMAP and the HTTPS networks.
Danielstp: yes a lot of them are probably forked from the asop app
mdosch> Isn't IMPP the vcard standard for im?
But at lest Wikipedia mentions X-JABBER as extension.
moparisthebestif "email" were owned by google I'd be opposed to using the word "email" too
mdosch> Daniel, since all contacts app I came across called that field "Jabber" I suspected that that is baked into a layer below the contact apps. Or also possible that all those apps were just reskinned AOSP contact apps.
Let's have a look at RFC6350 😃
stpGe0rG, That's the worst solution of the four for marketing the system to the general public.
Ge0rGstp: What do you mean by "that", and what four solutions are you talking about?
ti_gj06has left
mukt2has left
Ge0rGAs the developer of Bruno the Jabber™ Bear, I am proud to say that I have both the XSF's and bear's approval to use that name.
mdoschSo, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com
mdoschSo, shouldn't X-JABBER be dropped in favour of IMPP;PREF=1:xmpp:alice@example.com ?
Zashmdosch, this is the way
dwdZash, The IETF Has Spoken.
stpGe0rG, Those four being | XMPP | Jabber | Jabber for the network, XMPP for the protocol | Jabber-XMPP or vice versa.
Ge0rGstp: #5 is "zimpy" :P
SamWhitedI don't especially care what we call the public network (Jabber or something else) as long as we don't call it "XMPP", so I'm with Ge0rG. They are two different things and shouldn't share a name.
stpGe0rG, never heard that, but by four I meant the possiblities without introducing an entirely new name.
SamWhited(and also XMPP is a fine name for a protocol, because "who cares?", it's not a fine name for a product. See also the "email/IMAP" example others have also given)
SamWhitedstp: "zimpy" is a joke, some people pronounce "XMPP" that way.
Ge0rGSamWhited: it's only half a joke
SamWhitedHeh, I was just typing "well, I duno if Ge0rG means it as a joke or not"
ZashIt's all fun and games until Big Corporation owns the trademark.
Ge0rGSamWhited: I think it's a good serious alternative name for jabber in case that one day Cisco wakes up and retracts the XSFs rights
stpThe E-Mail comparison is wrong, since E-Mail covers multiple protocols.
SamWhitedI don't see what that has to do with anything
Ge0rGBut I'm pretty sure that we have enough power to use and re-license Jabber™ in a fashion appropriate for the federated network
SamWhitedemail is the network, IMAP/SMTP/JMAP are protocols, I wouldn't lump them all together under one name.
dwdstp, X.400?
Ge0rGas long as Cisco doesn't stand up to threaten us or users of the name, I think the permissions given by Jabber Inc to the XSF are sufficient and safe enough to keep the well-established Jabber™ name
Ge0rGstp: so why do you think using "Jabber" for the network is bad?
moparisthebestrelying on the goodwill of cisco once the name is in widespread use seems like a terrible plan
DanielGe0rG: because jabber is the crappy Cisco product
moparisthebestand that ^
Ge0rGDaniel: most people don't even know it.
Ge0rGalso IIRC Cisco has been rebranding it to WebEx-something
SamWhitedI tend to agree with Ge0rG that XMPP is a bad name for general users, but also with Daniel et al. that relying on the good will of Cisco seems like a bad idea.
archas left
archas joined
Ge0rGSamWhited: stpeter repeatedly made the claim that we are not relying on their goodwill but on our contracts with them.
moparisthebestI've been telling people to install either Quicksy or Snikket, depending if they want to host it themselves or not...
SamWhitedGe0rG: it's the same thing when one side has billions of dollars and lawyers and the other side doesn't.
stpGe0rG, I don't think it's bad, but the legal uncertainty make it a no-go and the XMPP term already became too prominent by the constant use of terms like Jabber/XMPP and more recently you come across the XMPP more often even than Jabber.
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: yes, but people then don't understand that they can use Quicksy to talk to Snikket users
Ge0rGstp: I think this is only true among protocol nerds
moparisthebestI explain that with an analogy to email where they can email someone @outlook.com with their @gmail.com address
Ge0rGAnd regarding the legal uncertainity, yes, we are in a sh*tty place. If we (the Jabber Software Foundation) had a million dollars, we could establish Zimpy as the new name of Jabber
mathieuiThere would probably be a better use for a million dollars though.
SamWhitedPersonally, if I were making a chat service I probably just wouldn't mention either at all. Maybe a blurb that says "Also chat with your friends on these networks and more!" and stick the conversations logo or what not at the bottom
stpGe0rG, I don't think so when websites of public XMPP servers don't even mention Jabber.
ZashSam: Like Snikket!
SamWhitedProbably wouldn't even mention Jabber and *definitely* wouldn't mention XMPP, so maybe it wouldn't matter at all to me.
chronosx88has left
SamWhitedZash: indeed!
chronosx88has joined
dwdSamWhited, I think that at some point, a list of networks becomes unweildy, and you need a collective name.
ZashTho if you read until the very end of the page about "The Snikket Network", it does say XMPP there
SamWhiteddwd: I don't have to actually list every possible thing, just a handful of nice products with good logos. Maybe the last one is the XSF logo and it links to the list of public servers or something.
Ge0rGstp: is that a personal impression or do you have stats? Jabber is a very common term in some Jabber communities, e.g. in Russia
moparisthebestsome people call xmpp "part of the fediverse" but that's confusing to me too
Ge0rGSamWhited: that only achieves the effect that only people interested in protocols will realize the important fact that it's federated and interoparble, but they already know that.
stpGe0rG, no stats, but by personal impression the term jabber get's used less and less.
SamWhitedGe0rG: no, it means nobody has to care and users will just see "Oh, my friend used that fancy Snikket logo, maybe I can talk to him too!"
SamWhitedOnly people interested in protocols will care what "federated" means in the first place
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
Ge0rGSamWhited: users will think "oh no, please not yet another chat app!"
dwdstp, It feels as though you have decided your conclusion and are now working on supporting it with evidence.
SamWhitedI don't see why that would be the case if it lists a bunch of shiny logos. If it just says "Compatible with Jabber" though they now have to know that it's not a specific service.
dwdstp, Also, nearly all of my work for the past decade has been with XMPP, but virtually none of it with public chat networks.
SamWhitedBut I dunno, I have zero idea how a marketing person would approach this
moparisthebeststp, regardless you have your answer, a small group of protocol enthusiasts can't agree on what to call it, good luck convincing anyone else :D
Ge0rGWe are getting beaten to death by Matrix marketing.
moparisthebestGe0rG, matrix marketing or element or riot or ?
moparisthebestnaming, it's hard
DanielI think the approach that snikket and to an extend Conversations are taking (establish your own brand) is the way to go
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: for some reason they don't have any issue with just re-using other brands' names.
DanielAnd just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere
mathieuimoparisthebest, it does not matter, they are marketing it as a bundle (and element = riot nowadays)
dwdmathieui, Aren't both of them New Vector?
Ge0rGDaniel: from each project's perspective, focusing on its own marketing is the most reasonable. But from an ecosystem perspective, everybody will profit from a common name.
stpCalling SMS just that worked too, so the general public should've enough brain power to remember a four letter acronym.
Ge0rGSomething something local maxima
mathieuidwd, Matrix is not New Vector, even if it is by and large the same people, they have nonprofit UK foundation
SamWhitedstp: I don't think that's true. It's completely anecdotal, but everyone I know knows what "text messaging" are but have no idea what "SMS" or "MMS" are
stpDaniel, "And just put xmpp compatible in a corner somewhere" I would agree on that, though in the current state there would still be a debate to rather put "Jabber-compatible" there.
SamWhitedIf it's just a brand with a tiny XSF logo in the corner I'm not sure that it matters as much if I put "Jabber" and someone else puts "XMPP"
Ge0rGSamWhited: well, let's use the XSF logo then!
moparisthebestactually not a bad idea
Ge0rG"Bruno, the XSF-compatible Chat Bear"
stpSamWhited, in which part of the world is that?
Ge0rGMy biggest (but rather small) point with that is that XMPP is more than just federated IM
SamWhitedstp: U.S.
dwdGe0rG, I'm not convinced by "Chat". Or "Bear".
dwdGe0rG, And yes, as I noted above, I've done a lot with XMPP, some of it federated, none of it on the Internet for consumer chat.
dwdWell, almost none.
stpWhy does the XSF not do a democratic vote to settle the matter before it's too late (if it isn't already)?
Ge0rGstp: it's probably too late by 17 years.
moparisthebestprobably get a different answer today vs tommorow
moparisthebestand you are asking for a democratic vote between what? 30 people?
SamWhitedWhat is the goal of actually picking one for everybody to use when saying what their messenger is?
dwdstp, The XSF doesn't market consumer chat *at all*.
dwdstp, So a vote would be largely pointless.
Ge0rGSamWhited: to make people understand that their messenger can messenge with other messengers that are not named the same
moparisthebestdwd, except for when it does? :) https://xmpp.org/2021/01/instant-messaging-its-not-about-the-app/
dwdstp, You'd need to get the membership to agree to start marketing consumer (and/or enterprise) chat first.
dwdmoparisthebest, I'm not sure that is either, actually.
SamWhitedI dunno, I'm pretty convinced it won't matter at all unless we get one or two big well known networks using it again. "XMPP" or "Jabber" as a marketable concept basically died with Google Talk IMO. If you don't have a popular brand to advertise compatibility with, it hardly matters if that compatibility is called "Jabber" or "XMPP".
SamWhitedSo let's get Conversations or Snikket really popular or something first, then we can hash out what logo to put in the corner when it actually matters.
LNJhas left
stpSamWhited, but it matters if it's called both variantly.
DanielI've been advocating for 'Conversations compatible' for a while
moparisthebestdwd, I mean it's certainly not an article targeting developers "Several people have recently reached out to me asking what kind of messenger they should be using now" (first sentence) sounds like consumer chat to me
SamWhitedstp: I don't think it does if no one cares about the compatibility anyways
SamWhitedI'm not even really convinced it does if there were a giant popular service using it, but at least then there's maybe an argument that it actually maters in some real way
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
moparisthebestthe point I've seen everyone (including me) trying to push lately is that *federation* is what matters
dwdmoparisthebest, And then it goes onto suggest that the technology matters more than anything else. If that's marketing to consumers, it's terrible marketing. :-)
SamWhitedWhat dwd said. Nobody outside of a fairly tiny tech crowd cares what federation is or what technology is in use under the hood as long as they can chat with their friends and it has shiny features.
dwdmoparisthebest, And broadly, yes, I agree that Federation is a crucial feature.
moparisthebestthey do care about federation though, they just don't know the word
moparisthebestthey would care if they couldn't email people at different domains though
andyhas left
stpSamWhited, so how would an Monal on iOS user figure out that he can chat with his Conversations using friend?
dwdmoparisthebest, SamWhited - I think moparisthebest is right here, users don't know the word federation, but they do understand the outcome.
SamWhitedYah, that's fair, but the point is that still means we shouldn't market federation as a feature (at least not by that name).
papatutuwawahas joined
SamWhitedGet a big popular chat product, then market as "compatible with other big popular chat product!" and people will use it and still won't know that it's federated.
stpIt also created a mess when consumer electronic manufacturer all introduced their own name for HDMI-CEC.
moparisthebestright, I think the question is how to say "this app federates with all the other XMPP app" in a way a normal person would understand
dwdmoparisthebest, Exactly that.
ZashCall it "bridges" for confusion bonus
stpSmall XSF badge on app's, server's and provider's logos would be a start.
SamWhitedExactly. And I doubt they'd understand "Jabber" or "XMPP", so that's why I suspect it would need a big popular service everything can glomp on to (that's a technical term) first.
andyhas joined
SamWhitedBut sure, put the badge in the corner for those that understand it. They'll probably understand it whether it says "XMPP" or "Jabber", so I doubt it matters the more I think about it.
moparisthebestthe point is to *not* get a big popular service though, it's to get a healthy distributed/federated service going, at least in my mind anyhow
moparisthebest"you can use any or all of these and still be able to communicate with everyone who chose differently"
SamWhitedI didn't say it had to be the only service, but if literally none of them are popular at all it's not helpful
SamWhitedBecause it doesn't matter what we do, Google or whomever *will* develop a big popular chat service. The question isn't "can we compete with them as a network", because the answer to that is "no". The question is "can we be compatible with them because we convinced them to use a federated protocol"
SamWhitedAnd then use that to our advantage and get people on other nodes.
debaclehas joined
dwdI think there are actually two big "Magical Things"; one is federation (You can talk to us with any compatible service!) and the other is the End To End Principle (If you're both using our great app Discussions, you can use our great new feature).
moparisthebestI'm not so sure, it's obvious people will switch en-masse very quickly
SamWhitedEven better "then can we also convince <other big popular messenger> to be compatible because Google is" or whatever. Then again, maybe we've already seen that the answer to that is also "no", I'm not sure.
dwdSamWhited, Actually, it was other things starting to hook into Google Talk that appeared to pressure Google into dropping interop.
Ge0rGSamWhited: Google is developing a big popular chat service once a year.
Ge0rGdwd: "other things" being spambots?
dwdGe0rG, Also true Probably XMPP again next year.
dwdGe0rG, No, Microsoft, for one.
SamWhitedGe0rG: exactly, so let's convince them to do new ones that are actually compatible
SamWhiteddwd: how so? I thought their argument was "no one else will federate with us, so why bother?"
Ge0rGSamWhited: I'm sure you know as well as I do that federated messaging is the opposite of the vendor lock-in goals the bigcorps are following
SamWhitedGe0rG: of course? I don't understand your point
Ge0rGSamWhited: unless by "convince" you meant "create legislation"
SamWhitedIf you want people to understand federation and actually switch to smaller providers, they have to be able to talk to their friends on the big providers. If they start on the big providers, then their friend says "I use small provider with more features", they can switch easily. Also it makes it easier for us to say "Compatible with Google Talk 2.0!" or whatever because everyone will know and care what that is.
SamWhitedGe0rG: sure, I dunno if it's possible or even easy, I just think it's the necessary thing we should be working towards if we're going to talk about marketing names.
SamWhitederr, "easy or even possible", you know what I mean.
Ge0rGSamWhited: if it would align with their business interests, we would have it for decades now. If it would be orthogonal to their business needs, we'd have somthing like google talk 1.0
Ge0rGUnfortunately, it's opposite to their business needs
SamWhitedI'm not sure that it is, we just have to position it correctly.
Ge0rGI'm sure Google would disable federation for gmail as soon as they could get away with it.
Ge0rGSamWhited: please tell me more!
SamWhitedThere were murmors interanlly at HipChat (though I never convinced anyone to let me start on it before it all went under) that if we were federated people would use us because their contractors could be on a different instance, for example. That made handling security between the two domains easy. It also made it easy to bring in a random one-off customer or something into a chat without having to buy them a seat
SamWhitedWe never got buy in because the feature would have been so expensive to develop, but there were at least a lot of discussions about how it could be a selling point.
Ge0rGSamWhited: good point; it's important to the business customers
Ge0rGI'm using MS Teams day-to-day, and its "federation" is just a cruel joke.
Ge0rGAnd technically it's not even federation because it's all in the same clown.
SamWhitedI think you could argue the same for a lot of individual chats too though. Chat isn't where you're making your money if you're Google, it's a value add. Is it a bigger value add if your friends can talk to their friends on Microsoft Chat and say "wow, yours is doing that? That's terrible! You should switch your email to Google, I'm chatting on them right now and it will keep working with all your other friends"
moparisthebestSamWhited, I disagree, just have to make it easy to convince your friends on big providers to talk with you from not-big-provider account
SamWhited(or whatever the thing you're actually competing on is, I suspect email isn't a money maker for them either)
NeustradamusGaim is the old name of Pidgin
Jabber is the old name of XMPP
SamWhitedmoparisthebest: that's the point, if they can still talk to their friends you can move them over 1 by 1 based on a feature or something they'd like and not have the complete blocker (for most people) of adding another chat app and moving their entire network at once.
moparisthebestall big providers actively block 3rd parties from connecting, that's a non-starter
moparisthebestyou make it easy for them to install an app to talk to you
Ge0rGSamWhited: vendor lock-in means that once you have a critical mass, federation is harmful to your growth
SamWhitedThat was the whole point, I was aruging we shoudl be trying to convince them that federation is in their best interest, and then it's also in the interest of the smaller providers
moparisthebestyou'll never get there
SamWhitedGe0rG: not if it's only a value add and not your primary product (I think)
moparisthebestI mean, it's a good goal, wouldn't hurt to try, I'd just bet money it wouldn't happen
moparisthebest"hey buddy I know your entire goal is vendor lock-in but how about you implement this thing that works against vendor lock-in as a favor to me?"
Ge0rGSamWhited: if it's only a value add, then it's a means to get people onto your vendor solution
SamWhitedGe0rG: sure, so Google wins because they convince people to switch to Google Docs or whatever without losing their social networking bits, and we win because we can convince people to switch to smaller providers by saying "Wow, compatible with Google Talk 2!" or whatever
moparisthebestthat's how you get people who hate crappy XMPP because pidgin+google talk sucked
SamWhitedSure, but that's not a problem that we're going to solve by calling it "XMPP" vs "Jabber" and trying to market direct to consumer either.
stpPidgin and Google Talk sucked? I think it was great at the time.
SamWhitedAnyways, I've pretty much convinced myself that we need someone marketing to big providers, but I'm not sure who that is, and the best thing for smaller services is to just ignore XMPP/Jabber and create their own brand, because ours isn't going to do them any favors.
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
SamWhitedstp: at least for me a lot of people I know really liked it at the time, but everyone moved off of it when other providers came along with more features and Google Talk / Pidgin never moved on.
moparisthebestmaybe modernxmpp can agree on a logo that means "compatible", perhaps also host a page it can link to to explain in human words what it means, that all projects that want to can link to? cc MattJ
ZashPidgin and GTalk was probably great ... in 2006. And then it stayed mostly the same.
SamWhitedGood idea! I like that
moparisthebestwhether that's XSF logo or not no idea
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: ModernXMPP is even more cumbersome than XMPP
dwdGe0rG, Now there's a statement we can all get behind.
MattJmoparisthebest, I agree with that sentiment, for sure
stpSamWhited, Yes, same for our circle of people allthough we only changed when Goolge announced they would scrap their federating XMPP service and we left Pidgin when it couldn't keep up with XMPP developments.
SamWhitedGe0rG: it doesn't have to say "ModernXMPP", it just has to be a pretty page with some logos on it that says "This service is compatible with all these other services!" o
SamWhitedOr be a page that has some general advice on how to do that, which seems like something ModernXMPP would be good at providing
jonas’.oO(Snikket?)
dwdA new logo that tesselated might be a fun thing.
moparisthebestyes exactly what SamWhited said
ZashMight be something to learn from "The Fediverse" aka ActivityPub/MastoPub
LNJhas joined
MattJModernXMPP probably isn't the best term for users, but that can be solved
moparisthebestI mean it'd be cool if xmpp.org could host the page too/instead but that seems more controversial :)
Ge0rGSamWhited: let me remind you of XMPP Compliance Suite Compliance Badges.
dwdBagders!
MattJWhat ModernXMPP is missing most is wider participation. A few people have contributed a few things, and that's great. But for it to work it needs to be far more comprehensive, well-structured and supported/reviewed by XMPP developers
dwdBadgers!
SamWhitedGe0rG: is your argument that because one thing never materialized another project shouldn't bother making a page or providing guidance?
MattJI also would like some actual UX people involved
Ge0rGSamWhited: not at all. I think that ModernXMPP is a good home for this kind of effort (only second to the Jabber Software Foundation)
marekhas left
MattJMy other problem with ModernXMPP is that moving an open ecosystem is like herding cats... it can be done, but it's painful and takes time
moparisthebestwe got that solved, I think Neustradamus can create issues for each project to link the new page+logo ? :D
marekhas joined
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: oh dear god please no
moparisthebestthis logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg
SamWhitedPlease don't even joke about that 😤
Ge0rGmoparisthebest: the xmpp network logo needs to have client tentacles on all those circles
mdoschmoparisthebest: A colorful pentagram?
> this logo seems pretty good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fediverse#/media/File:Fediverse_logo_proposal.svg
jonas’tentacles!
moparisthebestfediverse has clients too and they aren't on that logo
ZashI'd just like to mention this glorious logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NROL_39_vector_logo.svg
SamWhitedoh man, the US military and intelligence agencies come up with awesome logos all the time
Ge0rGmaybe we need to hire a designer to make an awesome logo
ZashGe0rG, worked for Snikket
Ge0rGif it has some pyramid-eye or kraken symbol, it will trigger the fediverse, and as we all know bad press = good press
Zashall press is good press indeed
SamWhitedIDGI, is that some fedivserse conspiracy theory iconography?
Zashjust don't mention "the competition"
Ge0rGZash: the snikket logo is cute, not controversial
SamWhitedActually, I probably don't want to know
ZashGe0rG, I mean the "hire a designer" part
Ge0rGSamWhited: nah, it's just the usual conspiracy theory iconography
SamWhited*sigh* okay, TIL. I do not need or want to know more.
SamWhitedThe garage I've been trying to find funds to open for years uses a font from an old CIA operation. So far no one has noticed, but I'm waiting for the day that people decide we're a front for a secret government takeover of auto mechanics or something
Andrzejhas joined
dwdSamWhited, But that's just what you *want* me to think, right?
ZashObs: That was satire. Do not use in actual debates.
moparisthebestMattJ what if you toot out a call to the fediverse for logo proposals, seem to be a fair share of graphic-ly inclined people on there? or lazily use the XSF logo, I have no opinions :)
MattJI think using the XSF logo would confuse matters too much :)
Ge0rGUsing the XSF logo for what exactly?
dwdGe0rG, Everything.
SamWhitedI tend to lazily use the XSF logo and see a lot of other sites doing it, but I tend to agree that having something else for "compatible with lots of other things" would be better if we can manage it and make it catch on somehow
moparisthebestthe image+link to simple "explains why this is compatible to normal person" page
Ge0rGSamWhited: I agree that the logo is actually good enough for that.
ZashXMPP logo on top of a globe and the text "NOBODY IS BEYOND YOUR REACH"
Ge0rGthe logo, embedded into a catchy compliance badge
Ge0rGZash: and a kraken.
Ge0rGcan we put a pyramid with an eye into the bottom half of the "X"?
ZashKraken in the XMPP logo colors?
Ge0rGZash: yeah, or the fediverse rainbow. Your choice.
dwdI am concerned that there is no discussion of Cthulu in our logo plans.
dwd(Also amused that Kraken was, after all, a popular XMPP-to-anything transport gateway back in the day)
moparisthebestthis is why we need graphic-ly inclined people and not developers
Ge0rGvanitasvitae: just one minor nitpick. We need to be gender-neutral, so it should be "sister/brother/sibling"
vanitasvitaeOr given how dusty XMPP as a protocol is, simply its Ancestor
Ge0rGXMPP: Supporting Zalgo since 1999 and Emoji since 2010.
Steve Killehas left
Steve Killehas joined
jonas’/nick :robotface:
lorddavidiiihas left
papatutuwawahas left
ti_gj06has joined
matkorhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
x51has joined
raghavgururajanhas left
alameyohas left
marchas left
marchas joined
sonnyhas left
Andrzejhas left
murabitohas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
lskdjfhas joined
murabitohas joined
marchas left
marchas joined
mukt2has joined
andyhas left
emusHello fellows, it would be great to have a second reviewer for the French translation: https://github.com/xsf/xmpp.org/pull/875 For all of the other translation I have enough
papatutuwawahas joined
peetahemus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soone in the XSF github repo
peetahemus: the translation is currently under review on linuxfr, and I hope it will be synced quite soon with the XSF github repo
werdanhas joined
emusAh okay, thats good to know
emusThanks
mukt2has left
LNJhas left
andyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
LNJhas joined
alacerhas joined
alacerhas left
marchas left
matkorhas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
Paganinihas left
nycohas left
edhelashas left
Neustradamushas left
marchas joined
mathijshas left
mathijshas joined
mukt2has joined
lskdjfhas left
Yagizahas left
edhelashas joined
Neustradamushas joined
raghavgururajanhas left
raghavgururajanhas joined
nycohas joined
Paganinihas joined
mukt2has left
lskdjfhas joined
mukt2has joined
LNJhas left
mukt2has left
LNJhas joined
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
LNJhas left
lorddavidiiihas joined
LNJhas joined
Dele Olajidehas joined
j.rhas left
eevvoorhas left
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
j.rhas joined
fuanahas joined
Dele Olajidehas left
chronosx88has left
fuanahas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
waqashas joined
waqashas left
fuanahas joined
LNJhas left
chronosx88has joined
fuanahas left
LNJhas joined
fuanahas joined
fuanahas left
Andrzejhas left
Andrzejhas joined
pasdesushihas joined
fuanahas joined
LNJhas left
LNJhas joined
fuanahas left
sonnyhas joined
lorddavidiiihas left
pasdesushihas left
Andrzejhas left
Wojtekhas left
emusHello, I would like to arrange an official mail for the CommTeam. What would be the steps?
jonas’emus, like in email address?
jonas’I think that topic came up in the past
pasdesushihas joined
emusYes, but we stopped talking about it
jonas’I’m trying to find the discussion
jonas’I think we came to the conclusion that for the use case back then, it wasn’t necessary or useful
jonas’what has changed on your side?
adiaholichas left
emusseveral social network accounts with several private or non related mails
emusAn I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.
emusAnd I would like to have a direct an clear address for the organisation etc.
j.rhas left
adiaholichas joined
flowsome orgs use private mailing lists for this
pasdesushihas left
pasdesushihas joined
Andrzejhas joined
chronosx88has left
chronosx88has joined
ti_gj06has left
pasdesushihas left
emusI don't need a have private mail list. I (we) need an email address which is related to XSF and not hosted on any private servers somewhere
MattJI don't know if we even have that capability currently
MattJWe host mailing lists, I'm not sure if we host any actual mailboxes. I don't think we run an IMAP server, for example.
MattJBut I could be wrong, I haven't looked
jonas’no IMAP
jonas’port 143 timeouts
emusmembers@xmpp.org so those are all only mail list adresses
MattJYes
jonas’yes, the contact addresses are all mailing lists
jonas’which, if you think about it, has some advantages (you can easily add/remove people with access for example)
emusOk, then that confused me. So there is no official email for xsf etc?
jonas’but you obviously cannot send messages from that address(*)
jonas’emus, there is. I think there’s info@ and board@ and trademark@…
emusYes, and I cannot register with that
jonas’though the latter may actually just be an alias for a single person
emusOkay, but apart from capacities, I think it should be dealt with the account registrations and the XSF "sovereignty" on this
jonas’running a mail server is not easy™
adiaholichas left
emusOk, I thought there is one running already
jonas’I’m doing that for myself and I’ve got it automated to large parts. I could replicate that setup for the XSF, but then I’d be the SPOF
emusSPOF?
jonas’emus, partially. it only does inbound (SMTP) and mailing lists
jonas’single point of failure
jonas’it doesn’t do outbound (Submission) or mailboxes (IMAP)
emusYes - I see
andyhas left
jonas’so while it is technically a mail server, it is not a full mail setup
moparisthebestisn't that really all you need for registering/maintaining accounts though? (a mailing list, recieve-only) ?
jonas’moparisthebest, in general, yes.
jonas’but emus seems to have special requirements?
emusOkay, but I think the maintenance topic is severe already in general when I hear MattJ (also before). I think this is something that need kinda action. We cannot let basic infrastructure down (at least it sounds like this to me)
moparisthebestI thought emus just wanted an email to use for, say, the twitter account? if so he's asking for a private email list for commteam ?
emusNo, receiving is minimum - sending would be "good", but for the moment I could work. But it does not make sense to create it on any non-XSF mail servers
MattJAs has already been suggested, a private mailing list will suffice for that
MattJThat's how the info@xmpp.org contact address for the XSF works
moparisthebest*hopefully* no website exists where you have to *send* an email to verify identity, because email doesn't work that way
emusPoint is, when I register with an email to a service, they will only accept this mail in case there are any inquiries to the service
emusyes, what mopar says
jonas’emus, do you have a concrete example of a service where that is the case and there is no contact form on the website or similar?
moparisthebestemus, it's ok because you can fake the sender from any email account :)
emusI dont know jonas' but, I prefer not to register such a one-way email realizing one day that there is a case where I "need" to sent an email.
emusNo, thanks moparistthebest
Andrzejhas left
emusBut in general, I think it is kind of weird and I am also a bit amazed, that we (the teams, responsible etc) don't have this possibility
jonas’emus, ftr, I’ve been registering on ~all services with one-way addreses for a few years now
emusIn terms of Single Points of Failures: I think that is an important topic if the infrastructure capabilities are low.
jonas’after I built a thing which allows me to get a throwaway, one-way email address via an XMPP ad-hoc command ;)
emusjonas' okay, then I do so
jonas’emus, exactly, hence I propose we try to make do with what we have :)
emusat least a way to have it collected
moparisthebestemus, if a service EVER requires you SEND them an email, drop them, they are totally insecure and vulnerable to impersonation
emusjonas', I see but I think even this is not good
moparisthebestthere is no way to validate an email you just recieved came from who you think sent it
matkorhas left
moparisthebestemail is not xmpp
moparisthebestso, recieve-only is fine 100% of the time
SnowCodehas joined
emusmoparisthebest, I think maybe one day I (we) want to reach out to someone else via such an email.
SnowCodehas left
moparisthebest1. anyone can fake such an email right now 2. don't, just use it for twitter password resets
adiaholichas joined
emusI hope so. I think as a commteam... one wants to be able to send an email or provide this contact 🤷♂️️
emusOkay, wait, I cannot use it as account email?
mukt2has joined
moparisthebesta mailing list will just take whatever email was sent to it and forward it to your personal email (and everyone else's on the list)
emusNo, Im on what jonas' suggested
emusno maillist (at least for now)
moparisthebestyou can send an email as bigboss@xmpp.org right now though and it's fairly likely to get through, maybe in spam, but probably will get through
moparisthebestI thought jonas’ suggested a mailing list ?
emusHe suggested a receiving email only
emus(I think)
jonas’emus, in case of the XSF infrastructure using a mailing list
emusBut I thought I cannot use this for account reference?
jonas’why not?
emusBecause any response to this is public I thought?
jonas’response?
jonas’you can also have mailing lists which are not (publicly) archived
jonas’and which are essentially just forwarders to one or more other email addresses
moparisthebestemus, twitter emails a password reset link to commteam@xmpp.org, it gets forwarded to your email, and 2 other members of the commteam, that's it
emusIf I place this email to the XSF Fosstodon account, any they send any password or private stuff, then its public
jonas’no
jonas’just don’t enable (public) archives for the list, done.
j.rhas joined
emusOkay, but there is still a non public archive for XSF responsibles?
emuslike, if you want to review a year later
jonas’depends on the configuration
jonas’you can have a public archive, a members only archive, or no archive at all
deuillhas left
emusWould member only be legit for that purpose
emus?
moparisthebestseems perfect for it
jonas’yep, I agree
deuillhas joined
emusThen I would like to request such a list
emusShould be better commteam_internal@xmpp.org
jonas’I’ll see what I can do
emusOkay, take your time of course
mukt2has left
pasdesushihas joined
deuillhas left
deuillhas joined
emusBut generally asking do we have real known Single Point of Failure?
pasdesushihas left
moparisthebestplenty
moparisthebestalso depends what you mean by "we"
LNJhas left
emusXSF
LNJhas joined
moparisthebestbut, xmpp.org infrastructure-wise, or organization-wise, or this-muc-wise, or?
mukt2has joined
emusXSF-wise, all critical points
adiaholichas left
lskdjfhas left
govanifyhas left
govanifyhas joined
moparisthebestofftopic PSA https://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2021/01/26/3 looks like any user can get root using sudo since 2011, fun
mukt2has left
jonas’damn, couldn’t you have told me 10 minutes ago?
jonas’also, holy fuck
moparisthebestI always knew locales were a mistake :)
jonas’brb updating all boxes
jonas’brb updating all my boxes
HolgerQuite a few people knew sudo is a mistake but nobody ever listened ...
goffihas left
Mikaelahas left
Zashhas left
Zashhas joined
Andrzejhas joined
x51has left
werdanhas left
SamWhitedI always knew C was a mistake
moparisthebestrust-sudo when
lovetoxseriously, everytime someone says to me, why dont you write that in C
lovetoxi think of these reports
lovetoxand then i think, nahh dont really want to get into this mess
Zashmoparisthebest, looks like that is a thing that exists, but all it does is make a program run itself with sudo....