Slashdot Mirror


Google, Jabber, and Jingle

An anonymous reader writes "Jabber has published the experimental draft Jingle specs, which extend XMPP for use in voice over IP (VoIP), video, and other peer-to-peer multimedia sessions. Google released an open-source library called 'Libjingle' on SourceForge. Libjingle is a set of components provided by Google that let your programs interoperate with Google Talk's peer-to-peer and voice calling capabilities. The package includes source code for Google's implementation of Jingle and Jingle-Audio."

5 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Spam by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's why Google hasn't opted to add Server-to-Server communication yet; if you're on their server, they can kick your ass off and ban you, but coming from other servers it's a lot more difficult to regulate (and I'm sure they've got someone working on it with their 20% free time).

    As for the person who said it sounds like BS being named "Jingle"; A lot of people say "I'll give you a ring" as a way of saying they'll call you later. Thus, Jingle (a ringing sound).

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  2. Re:I'm not interested... by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good for you! Meanwhile, for the rest of us who aren't paranoid/Google-bashers, this is a boon, including Jabber users (you know, this will work for your Jabber server too, right? ;)

    Besides, Google hasn't implemented Server-to-Server communication yet for reasons posted elseware in this very article; they don't want spam. It's harder to validate posts coming from offserver without actually reading them, which would breech your privacy, right? (On server they have the option of reading it [via EULA], post rate limiting, banning accounts, etc)

    So please, next time Google (or $BIG_COMPANY) gives the open source world a donation and a piece of code it's been needing for a while now, take it as a gift, and try not to be so critical about it. Thanks.

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  3. Re:Spam by burns210 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    (and I'm sure they've got someone working on it with their 20% free time).

    The 20% idea is for, like you said, free time. I think you are right, that they will work on some sort of spam control for third-party server's, but it will be an 80% project, something the company assigns, not a free time project.

    Though, having a preference that says a user will only accept (or be bothered with requests from) user's already in their buddy list would seem to solve this for the most part. These settings have been around for years (on AIM, atleast, where you can have only Buddy List members IM you, as a form of spam/parental control).

  4. Re:Spam by ciroknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instant packet network protocol (instant message) vs. Delayed message network protocol (email); apples to oranges comparison.

    Google has a HUGE database of spam emails to compare a suspect email to; doing the same with Instant Messages would instantly through privacy nuts into convolutions (much like gmail did when it started; ZOMG GOOGLES READING MY IMZ), but is entirely possible to do. So it's not far-fetched that they use a similar system, but it's a lot more work to convince people to use this system.

    A better solution would be to find a way to keep spam from coming in without reading the IMs in the first place. But, if I had an answer to that problem, I would be working for Google. You could opt for encryption, but as soon as an encrypted spammer arrived, you'd be up shit's creek even further than you are now (as decrypting someone's IMs would be even worse for Google PR). So for now, Google's opted to keep its doors closed to the public, and that's just fine. Don't like it? Go use another Instant Messaging protocol which means you have to go through someone elses server anyways. But the way I look at it is "I trust Google more than I trust Microsoft, Yahoo, and AOL combined; I'd rather use Google's service".

    PS: (Oh, and if you think running your own Jabber server is a way around it, what do you think happens when you want to message someone off server? That's right, your message goes through someone elses server. That means they could be spying on you! Oh noes! To tell you the honest truth, I'd rather have the security in numbers of a huge company's client, then chancing my message through someone's private server; the huge company's more likely to have a lot more imporant things on its mind than reading people's IMs...)

    --
    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  5. Re:server-to-server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The SRV record you quoted was for Google.com. Google Talk uses JIDs in the form of user@gmail.com (and user@googlemail.com for UK users i guess).

    So the DNS request will be made for gmail.com and googlemail.com.

    _xmpp-server._tcp.gmail.com. 70235 IN SRV 5 0 5269 talk.google.com.
    _xmpp-server._tcp.googlemail.com. 86400 IN SRV 5 0 5269 talk.google.com.

    I'm unsure why Google.com has an xmpp-server SRV record unless, of course, Google employees are on an internal Jabber server.