Talk:Jabber/Archive 1

message: and is used by over a million people worldwide
According http://www.jabber.org/tmp/faq.html are there at least 10 million users. But it is not clear how old that information is and what the mean by "users". Accounts? Used accounts? accounts used in the last 30 days ... Without more information this information is not usefull Walter 13:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems I have looked at an old FAQ, http://www.jabber.org/about/generalfaq.php#id2780706 this says 1 million, version of 2004-02-02 Walter 14:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I've updated the page according to http://www.jabber.org/press/2003-09-22.php BartVB 19:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: Hmm ths whole article needs updating -- also i think it should be explained that "Jabber is a distributed system like e-mail"
: Edit away if you know something about the topic at hand; always be bold!  --Ardonik(talk) 03:15, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
:: Ok then -- im going to move all the protocol stuff to XMPP the client list to Jabber Clients
and make this page much less technical --Davelane 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be careful with your article names! XMPP should be in capitals (and actually redirects to the full name Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol); any Jabber clients page should follow the relevant conventions on capitalisation, although it might be worth considering calling it List of XMPP client software if that is in fact what it will be. - IMSoP 00:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates needed 

message: Shouldn't there be at least a warning about potentially violating the TOS of the closed IM networks like aim,yahooim and msn? It seems to be rather misleading to state that you *can* do it without mentioning that it is illegal to do so (at least within the US). See a blog post I just did about this, http://blogs.openaether.org/?p=146  --returnthis
: Using any client other than the official one violates the TOS of the obsolete IM networks, which is why the IETF obsoleted them by making XMPP the official IM standard to begin with.  BalooUrsidae 23:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think in most countries such TOSes are illegal :-) Maybe the existance of TOSes can be added in the articles about the closed networks in a critics section? Ejabberd 19:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ToS violation 

message: Man, there seems to be so much from one visit to the next finding information about jabber stuff on wikipedia.  That's possibly good, that all that information is here, but it's a let down because I still cannot find the ircd that supports irc and jabber.  I saw it on a link here somewhere, but I don't recall the article name, nor do I recall what machine I accessed it from.
: They are even not all listed in the Wikipedia article: there are at least three times more servers. You probably mean psycMUVE. Ejabberd 21:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jabber Servers 

message: "in effect simply creating another proprietary, closed IM network" ... I don't know much about Jabber or how it works, but I'm interested in knowing what aspect of Google Talk is proprietary and closed. Could someone please enlighten me about this?
Doesn't it violate the spirit of Jabber, the protocol? To bridge together and deproprietarize the IM world, though Google probably will do this eventually. And now Yahoo AIM etc... can connect to Google Talk by supporting Jabber!!!!! 4.230.240.65 03:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Various Google Talk FAQ items indicate that Google are working on vetting other Jabber networks to open up to. Ubernostrum 11:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Talk 

message: Would people mind if I move all items from sections 6, 7 and 8 to a new category that contains links to Jabber/XMPP related articles? The reason behind this is that it is not real content for this article; it is just stuffing... Ejabberd 20:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category for Jabber/XMPP related articles? 

message: Is this section really useful? Maybe it can be removed?
NaturalBornKiller 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep.  Network latency is somewhat proportional to geographic distance to servers, language barriers are also largely geographically isolated.  Regionalism isn't a non-issue:  People prefer to talk to others with low latency in their native language.  --BalooUrsidae 23:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Delete. A long list with little encyclopaedic value. I also don't see geographic distance to servers as a major issue: With instant messaging lag is a non-issue. Some people might prefer to talk with people in their native language, but others might not. --Teemuk 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional Jabber communities 

message: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure that accusation is complete tripe. The difference between email and Jabber is that you have a server-side roster with Jabber... and that effectively serves as a white-list. We should maybe change that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.187.83 (talk • contribs) 14:46 9 April 2006 (UTC)
: Server side rosters are not the same as whitelists.  Just because Google Talk implements their whitelists based on server-side roster listings doesn't mean it is at all commonplace (it's unique to Google Talk, AFAICT) and isn't confusing (because no other XMPP server works that way).  Ditto for not being able to send offline messages to Google Talk users:  GT's XMPP implementation is unusual and counterintuitive.  --BalooUrsidae 23:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Spam" in criticisms... 

message: Does anyone have more info on the jabber.txt reference at the beginning of this article? Following the link doesn't provide much illumination. Greenman 21:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that link since there is no information at Jabberwocky about jabber.txt Strait 22:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jabber.txt