Dnia niedziela, 2 listopada 2014 19:10:46 piszesz:
okay, fuck that, I'm going to dive in, because the level of FUD is strong in this one.
Well, thanks :)
Always a pleasure.
The question is not "which protocol is better", because while we bikeshed on this question, people are still sitting on Failbroke and Shitter, instead of moving out of these walled gardens.
The question is: "how can we *cooperate* to get people on the libre, federated side of social networks". 1.5 year ago I submitted to all the fedsocnet devs a simple question, here's the link again: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fedsocweb/2013May/0058.html
The answer was: "impossiburu, we won't, not invented here, my protocol is better than yours". So instead of trying to herd those cats, I am grabbing the opportunity arising from the fact that we already have The Federation. Let's expand it and build upon it, eh?
What is your plan with The Federation ? To build a project to help all theses project to talk each others and find a way to "standardize" the communications between them to be compatible with eachothers ?
No. To have a single name for these few federated social networks that already federate with each other. So that instead of saying "do you have a Diaspora/Friendica/Red/GNU Social account?" one can say "do you have a The Federation account?" Because this will: - make it easier for the normal users to join ("just choose any of these, they're compatible") - make it more interesting for developers of other free federated social networks to get compatible with The Federation ("it's not a single project, a few of them got together already, why not join the happy bunch") And in the end it's all about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect Each of these projects in itself is too small to get users' attention; together they have much more chance of that.
Then you will define some basic schema of authentication/packet format (JSON/HTML/XML…)/global architecture… In the end it will looks like this : https://xkcd.com/927/
Nobody needs nor wants to define nor create any new protocols. The protocols are already there: that's what Diaspora, Friendica, Red and GNU Social use to talk to each other. The ONLY aim of calling it with a collective name is to make it seen as a single, huge, federated-and-federating distributed social network. And to get the ball rolling on more social networks joining-in and federating.
If your aim is to ask theses project to have a public API to share stuffs between their different servers, well good luck.
They already do. They implement each others' protocols. Nobody has to do anything there. I have a Diaspora account and have added friends from Friendica and Red servers. But thanks anyway.
Shouting "XMPP! XMPP!" is not helping.
No, but I prefer to contribute and improve a 15 years old protocol, with millions of users and hundred of implementations, managed by a strong Fundation that works with the IETF than on a 4 yo protocol implented by ~2 project where all the documentation you can find on it is here https://wiki.diasporafoundation.org/Federation_protocol_overview.
"I guess I'll leave that one until you answer Meredith" would be one answer. "I prefer to contribute and improve a ~40 years old protocol with billions of users and thousands of implementations (...)" and direct you to e-mail (which allows you to share photos and info with your friends, after all), would be another, admittedly snarky. "So how is JID/Jingle client and server implementation work going", would be yet another. "You're very welcome to join The Federation, if you'd like; the easiest way to do this would be to either help The Federation projects implement your protocol, or implement one of their protocols in your software; in return you'll get a huge bunch of active users to federate with, and the user- perceived value of your network would rise" is the one I'm going with, however. Also, Diaspora is implementing an XMPP-based chat functionality these days (should be released soon). So, there's also that. -- Pozdr rysiek