[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Jabber network vs. multi-protocol IM clients



On Tuesday 25 July 2006 20:55, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> > I'm just saying the client-side approach to multi-protocol
> > support is ass-backwards in general and usually results in a client that
> > whose support of half a dozen clients is the world's least funny joke,
>
>     Personally I see it the other way around.  My experience with Jabber is
> that it is the world's poster child of the crappiest IM experience ever.
> Every time I touch it I get pissed off enough to want to throw very
> expensive hardware across the room.  At that point I uninstall it, fire up
> GAIM (or Kopete, or Trillian) and, hey... it works.  Not only does it work,
> it works well enough for my needs which is to keep in touch with my friends
> who have decided to spread across 4 different networks.  Jabber has never..
>  *NEVER*... worked.

Expand.  What client and server (sometimes things turn out to exist only to 
serve as a warning to others as to what not to do, no matter what their 
intentions)?

> > whereas if you let the server handle the connections to the obsolete
> > networks (AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, IRC) you get a client that does one
> > protocol really really well, and transports that work increasingly well
> > over time.
>
>     That work increasingly well?  I'd settle for "at all".  No, this is the
> backwards part in the same way that the whole email paradigm is backwards.
> Every other client connects to multiple servers.  But here you think it is
> sensible to have a client to connect to a server which is... uh... a client
> to other servers!  *YEAH!!!* That works!  That's doing one thing well! 
> YEAH!  Not.

That's how SMTP does it.  Works well there, works well with XMPP.

> > Multi-protocol clients violate the "do one thing and do it well" design
> > principal.  There's no way to fix this critical bug in all multiple
> > protocol clients without just discontinuing them entirely.
>
>     No, they embrace it.  They do one thing well, IM.  The lameness of
> Jabber breaks that notion by trying to do two things at once.
>
> A: be an IM server.
> B: be a multiplexing IM client for multiple downstream clients.
>
>     That's a recipe for suckage.  Jabber's horrible track record bears it
> out.

Jabber has a good enough track record to have about 4 million more users than 
Yahoo and growing.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber

Attachment: pgp4CdRWsrdya.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: