On Jul 9, 2014 7:44 AM, Łukasz \"Cyber Killer\" Korpalski
   <[1]cyberkiller8@gmail.com> wrote:
   > It's really nice that so many of you got into the spirit and start
   > thinking about how to change xmpp to make it something new, but what
   are
   > you achieving here?

   We're being more fundamental and will achieve better and more modular
   results because of it.

   The protocol has a different aim than XMPP.

   > another 10+ years until any meaningful applications start using it
   (if
   > at all)... So yeah, except being "coder porn" it does nothing to help
   > the problem here and now.

   Concentrated pessimism? Why not both? Just make an XMPP bridge.
   Facebook does that, Google might be doing that (or proprietary
   extensions), who doesn't?

   > I agree that xmpp is not perfect, it has some problems of its own,
   but
   > it is an already established and widely used and standard protocol,
   with
   > lots of implementations. From a practical point of view the best
   course
   > of action to get something fast is to use it, and put whatever new
   stuff
   > there is needed inside xmpp, keeping it compatible with the existing
   spec.

   Why didn't XMPP do that? What do you mean widely used? IRC is widely
   used. XMPP is not normally used with the user knowing it is XMPP. It's
   under the hood technology.

   > A technically pretty proto won't help, today’s world has a huge
   problem
   > with taking anything new.

   Which is because of a lack of "polymorphic protocols".

   > fast machines (you can use compression on the fly, yes really :-P ),
   loads of
   > storage, broadband connections (even the 3G data caps are getting
   larger
   > and larger each year), etc. People are sending gigabytes of binary
   files
   > in base64 each day in email messages, so why even care? ;-)

   Nobody ever said it will be efficient. But aside from that, there's
   scale to worry about. You're also missing how people usually send data
   in binary to hotmail or gmail, then they perform whatever voodoo they
   perform. So, actually, most people send their e-mail attachments in
   binary.

   The rest would probably really want to, but nobody is making the
   standard any better. Why would they? They can do whatever they want
   without worrying about compatibility because they own so much market
   share. A new standard may have been used inside and between the mayor
   e-mail providers, would you know?

   > In my opinion the bottom line is - a small addition to existing xmpp
   has
   > a far larger chance of being widely adopted (by applications and by
   the
   > users) than a completely new protocol. And despite how awesome coder
   one
   > might be - you won't be able to write all those implementations
   yourself
   > or convince the masses to switch (again!).

   There is no masses using XMPP. Masses of coders, maybe, and they will
   use the best tool for the job.

   All the extensions have succeeded in making any XMPP app lacking in
   usability. I sure haven't found any nice XMPP clients, nice enough to
   compare with native clients.

   In fact I'm willing to bet everyone in the western world uses FB,
   Google chat and MSN (slackers and slowpokes). They all have limited
   XMPP implementations, they native clients do more. And there's no good
   app for interacting with XMPP.

   Pidgin really isn't good, it's just the only one out there. And it is
   still in the MSN era. I've switched to Office 2013 from
   Libre/OpenOffice and it really is in a different league all together.
   And it sucks that it is. But what can we do?

References

   1. mailto:cyberkiller8@gmail.com