Slashdot Mirror


Facebook Now Supports Jabber/XMPP

supersloshy writes "Facebook Chat has so far only been meant to be used in a web browser, and instant messaging applications have had a hard time implementing its undocumented protocol. Today, Facebook is making this job much easier by enabling support for XMPP to access its chat service. AOL's AIM and the Empathy Instant Messenger are also including pre-set Facebook options, due to already supporting XMPP." Here are instructions for setting up XMPP Facebook chat with popular instant messaging clients, including Pidgin and Adium.

174 comments

  1. changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    first :), finally, facebook does something right besides the creation of the site itself

    1. Re:changes by socceroos · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't think the creation of the site itself was that good either. To this day I don't have a FB account - yes, I'm quite proud of that. =)

    2. Re:changes by Ultra64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    3. Re:changes by kregg · · Score: 1

      does that mean you have no friends too? ;)

    4. Re:changes by socceroos · · Score: 1

      I'm married - does that count?

    5. Re:changes by socceroos · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not, thats about television.........

    6. Re:changes by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      dude, dissing FaceBook on ./ AND getting modded Troll for it is an awesome feat!

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    7. Re:changes by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      You've got to admit though he has a point about it being a big time sink. On the other hand, it's hard to explain to explain to someone why you don't get their pop culture TV reference and not come across as "that guy". I had to ask a friend the other day who Jack Bauer was, and the bad one-liner joke followed by the guy putting on his sunglasses "internet meme" actually came from one of those CSI shows :(

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    8. Re:changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But does he have a computer? He could be "reading" his news right off a computer monitor.

    9. Re:changes by turbotroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      does that mean you have no friends too? ;)

      I don't, for instance. I only have people I hate slightly less then the others, but that isn't same as the widely accepted definition of "friends".

    10. Re:changes by mysidia · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's too busy writing a GUI interface in visual basic to see if he can track the killer's IP address.

    11. Re:changes by malkir · · Score: 1

      Quick! Take a screenshot before he logs out of IRC!

    12. Re:changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if we need a reminder that we'll be mocked if we opt out of the all-seeing-eye brainwashing box by snow cone heads.

    13. Re:changes by AmonTheMetalhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The site is just a tool, like all tools it can be used & abused. I use FB, but i'm very selective to what i put on there

    14. Re:changes by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      What's a television? I have a monitor hooked up to a media centre, but I've not had a TV for ages.

      PVR cards ftw.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    15. Re:changes by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You are incredibly stupid. Does your mother still need to feed and dress you each morning?

    16. Re:changes by bytethese · · Score: 1

      No, it just means no sex or blowjobs for j00.

    17. Re:changes by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    18. Re:changes by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It meets (and exceeds) the basic functional requirements for a "television".

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    19. Re:changes by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points for that. Ridiculous magically pre-existing GUI's for completely unexpected queries. Funny thing about movies, really.

    20. Re:changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That must be the sound of the joke flying over your head, Captain Splendid.

    21. Re:changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been chatting on fb through digsby for a long time. Why is it news that you can suddenly start using an all-in-one IM client on it?

    22. Re:changes by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As if we need a reminder that we'll be mocked if we opt out of the all-seeing-eye brainwashing box by snow cone heads.

      "all-seeing-eye brainwashing box" isn't by snow cone heads, it's by Magnavox...

      Anyway, the mockery isn't directed at people who don't watch TV, it's directed at people who act superior because they don't watch TV...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    23. Re:changes by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that's a verbatim reference to a CSI: NY episode..

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU

    24. Re:changes by dominious · · Score: 1

      The word is derived from mixed Latin and Greek roots, meaning "far sight": Greek tele (), far, and Latin visio, sight (from video, vis- to see, or to view in the first person).

    25. Re:changes by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      The site is /.! The imposter site ./ was /.ed out of existence aeons ago.

    26. Re:changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No your mumma does that

    27. Re:changes by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      I love how this got modded insightful. Only on slashdot. But rock on dude.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    28. Re:changes by turbotroll · · Score: 1

      I love how this got modded insightful. Only on slashdot.

      I was shocked myself, believe me.

      But rock on dude.

      Thanks. Do you want to be my friend?

    29. Re:changes by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Sure. I've just friended you. Feel free ti reply to any of my comments at anytime. I always check. BTW, are you from the US, or somewhere else?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  2. Steam Chat by bucky0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program. Valve probably wouldn't do it though :/

    --

    -Bucky
    1. Re:Steam Chat by BigDXLT · · Score: 1

      Oh gods yes, yes and more yes. One program to rule them all!

    2. Re:Steam Chat by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Came here to post this, found out I was beaten by the FP. Are you listening Valve???
       
      Somebody mod this up. Between gchat and steam, that covers 90% of my non-buisness e-socialization. Also it'd be nice to message the server admin on his phone to rcon in and reboot the server when he's not at his computer (never, it seems like).

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    3. Re:Steam Chat by JustOK · · Score: 1

      with a big blue button to start it.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Steam Chat by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not press this button.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    5. Re:Steam Chat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should the server admin follow server administration advice from a (presumingly) developer? I would just ignore you.

    6. Re:Steam Chat by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Because he's not at his computer monitoring his server, and the (presumingly) developer is attempting to utilise a down resource? Seems like a great system to me.

      By the way, do you Admin anywhere? If so, where? I'm sure I'd have notived by now, as when I call my upstream provider with an issue, they're right on it. People who ignore me lose my business.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Steam Chat by dintech · · Score: 1

      An admin looking down on a developer? hah!

    8. Re:Steam Chat by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Its a privately administered group of servers on someones colo box. When the game server goes down, or Valve releases a major TF2 update during quakecon (yes that happened this last year) shit gets broken and people's clients are updated but the server is not. I guess most game servers are rented out of a cloud but our situation is slightly different.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    9. Re:Steam Chat by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Hm. I'm down to Live Messenger, Steam, Xbox Live and Skype... I ditched AIM since gmail's web interface does that now, and I only had a couple friends on it anyway. I hardly ever use Steam, although my friends know to use it to get my attention if I'm playing a game. Xbox Live has a web interface, and I don't check it often enough to really care for a 24/7 app.

      So that leaves Live Messenger, Steam and Skype running at any given time. Pain in the ass, but not unmanageable I guess.

    10. Re:Steam Chat by fedos · · Score: 1

      Please do not press this button again.

    11. Re:Steam Chat by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I'd use Google webchat if it didn't have that damn "off the record" feature.

      So I stick to pidgin. With AIM/gchat (predominantly) with a smattering of Yahoo, MSN, Facebook, Skype and Myspace chat thrown in.

      It's WAY past time everyone implemented a jabber gateway and federated the IM landscape.

    12. Re:Steam Chat by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Jabber isn't a superset of the features of all those IM clients. You can't consolidate them without losing features-- I like the stuff that Live Messenger does above-and-beyond the basic chat, for example, and I'm not willing to give it up.

    13. Re:Steam Chat by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Hear hear!

  3. No Kopete? by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 1

    They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete. :/

    1. Re:No Kopete? by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They've included generic Jabber account details. You should be able to add Facebook to Kopete with this information. Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

    2. Re:No Kopete? by socceroos · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is for Kopete, because it will make us KDEers feel important.

    3. Re:No Kopete? by kai_hiwatari · · Score: 1

      Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

      not really. In fact i've already added facebook chat it in kopete yestarday but there are many people who require it :p

    4. Re:No Kopete? by aphid_attraction · · Score: 1

      They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete. :/

      Relax bro. Get hold of ur emotional volcano and take a look at this : http://digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/

    5. Re:No Kopete? by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 1

      To accommodate these users, Kopete/Pidgin/Adium/etc should all remove their now-legacy Facebook plugins and just have a Facebook option that prompts for the username and password and sets the particulars up automatically. Much like most of them handle Google Talk currently.

    6. Re:No Kopete? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      They've included generic Jabber account details. You should be able to add Facebook to Kopete with this information. Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

      Of course it is necessary for step-by-step instructions.
      Haven't you ever helped anyone with a computer problem?
      When you're catering to the lowest common denominator, step by step instructions are the bare minimum...
      Screen shots are the norm and a video is the gold standard.

      I consider myself knowledgeable and even I end up googling for step by step instructions when I'm stuck.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:No Kopete? by makomk · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work. Kopete fails to connect, instead getting some error from the server about an unsupported XMPP version.

    8. Re:No Kopete? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Pidgin can't do it, since it was never a "mainline" plugin in the standard distribution - can't remove that which was never there to begin with.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    9. Re:No Kopete? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work. Kopete fails to connect, instead getting some error from the server about an unsupported XMPP version.

      I get that error, too, and there was at least one other person on the mailing list that also got it. I don't think anyone has figured out why it happens (it isn't a KDE/Kopete version issue, apparently). The best guess so far is that it's a Facebook server problem.

    10. Re:No Kopete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've included generic Jabber account details.

      True.

      You should be able to add Facebook to Kopete with this information.

      Also true. You should. Unfortunately, "should" doesn't mean "will". And in this specific case, Facebook's XMPP server won't work with Kopete (which is probably why they left it out.)

    11. Re:No Kopete? by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete. :/

      Maybe you and the seven other guys using KDE as your WM, and the two of you which still use Kopete, can get together and contrib that.

    12. Re:No Kopete? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      And has proven to be far more stable than the myspace plugin (which I stopped using).

      Just goes to show the attitude to polish both sites seem to have. Myspace not so much...

    13. Re:No Kopete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doing this would mean that anyone that hasn't chosen a username gets the shaft.

  4. plausible deniability at work by mwilliamson · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been using the pidgin plugin for a while now, but it seems a little flaky. This will be rather nice to have a standards-based protocol. This also means I have plausible deniability now as to whether or not I'm logged into facebook all day. ;-)

    1. Re:plausible deniability at work by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Pidgin plugin occasionally screws up which icons/names go with which entries, even switching it around on mouseover/mouseaway (whatever the proper term for the second one is). I'm keeping it around but disabled for a while, in case the new XMPP hotness turns out to have problems of its own over time.

    2. Re:plausible deniability at work by TBone · · Score: 1

      The Pidgin plugin also had a tendency to knock your browser session offline while your Pidgin session was online - couldn't consistently run both of them. This is much better.

      --

      This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

    3. Re:plausible deniability at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naturally of course, after spending 5 hours getting the stupid plugin to install they allow all XMPP acess

  5. Federation? by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now if only they'd setup federation so people can talk to those on Facebook from their own XMPP domain. This combined with Google Talk can bring XMPP near the critical mass of users necessary to finally abandon the proprietary protocols I've despised for so long. Good riddance Windows/MSN/Live Messenger! I look forward to the not-so-distant future where everyone can communicate on IM without having accounts with several non-interoperable IM networks. Wishful thinking?

    1. Re:Federation? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Yes, wishful thinking.

    2. Re:Federation? by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      I hope so too. Google didn't have federation at first, but eventually it got sorted and now it just works. I'll dance the day Yahoo adds a Jabber federation gateway to their IM.

    3. Re:Federation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      There have been various stories to say they are testing it.

    4. Re:Federation? by Cozminsky · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given that the interserver federation in xmpp doesn't scale well ( see http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber#Scalability ), I'm guessing the thought of federation is too scary an option for facebook. 60% of the packets in an xmpp network are presence packets and xmpp uses an extremely naive way of distributing these (i.e. it sends an xmpp presence message for each user in the buddy list, even if many of the users are on the same xmpp server and the presence packet could be only sent once for all of them and exploded by the server at the other end). This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular. I'm guessing they'd also be reticent to do this because it would decrease their lockin of users, if you don't need a facebook account to talk to facebook users why would you bother using facebook.

    5. Re:Federation? by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      Well, MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.

      It's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM. A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.

      Google's "chat" applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client. But what the hell is their deal, they support AIM, but not 3rd party XMPP servers?!
      Not that it would matter much, their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google won't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    6. Re:Federation? by paul248 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the XMPP protocol sucks, can't it be fixed? Surely the servers should be able to negotiate the latest supported version to enable new features.

    7. Re:Federation? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      What you don't like about Google chat clients is irrelevant in the scope of XMPP interserver communication. It's about clients and server talking XMPP; also with 3rd party servers.

      And you can use any Jabber client to connect to Google server...yes, Google clients present contact list in particular way. But it's just a standard XMPP, serverside roster; heck, groups of contacts are supported since the beginning even though Google clients work only in flat view.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Federation? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular

      No, that's not the issue. It's a problem if lots of people have multiple buddies on the same remote server. XMPP was designed to follow the email model, where you have lots of small servers (for a few people, maybe a company, possibly for users of an ISP who don't have another server they can use). In this case, it is entirely reasonable to send a copy of the presence stanza to each remote server. It's only if most of your contacts are on the same server, but it is not the server that you are using, where this is a problem. In that case, there will be some redundant server-to-server data.

      Saying that this means that it 'doesn't scale well' is hyperbole to put it mildly. Even the article you link to doesn't say that, it simply says that it's possible to improve the scalability. I run a Jabber server with just a few users and, although my numbers for stanzas reflect theirs, they are misleading. Most presence stanzas that I receive are quite small compared to message and info-query stanzas, so the numbers are very different when you look at the total bandwidth used by each one. The shortest message stanza that I could find in my log was 20% longer than the longest presence stanza. A typical message stanza is 200-300% the size of a typical presence stanza.

      Note that, if both servers support XEP-33, then this problem doesn't exist at all; they can use the extended addressing to send a single copy of the stanza to the remote server, without any modification to the client or the core protocol.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Federation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP's link is to the website for PSYC, which, among other things, is a replacement server-to-server protocol for XMPP, which fixes many of the problems they list. Also a sibling points out that XMPP apparently has its own fix in XEP-33 (XEP=XMPP-specific RFC, basically).

  6. No security by scott_karana · · Score: 5, Informative

    I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients.
    I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.

    1. Re:No security by darkpixel2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients. I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.

      Yeah--that's a big "What the fuck, facebook?"....in this day and age, it's tough to find XMPP software that flat-out doesn't support TLS. Even rolling your own in Python supports TLS...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    2. Re:No security by MaximKat · · Score: 1

      What can SSL possibly have with spam?

    3. Re:No security by esmrg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so? Now you can use OTR (off the record encryption) which provides all the privacy you couldn't get before. No need for protocol encryption. All with the comfort of your familiar IM client.

    4. Re:No security by Hadlock · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would imagine adding TLS encryption for 400 MILLION users litterally overnight might be slightly taxing to their already overtaxed servers. They're adding something like 500,000 users a week (I shit you not, look at their statistics) so anything they can do to minimize server load without degrading service is probably a plus for them at this point.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    5. Re:No security by earnest+murderer · · Score: 1

      I'm sure it will be fine. It's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic.

      --
      Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
    6. Re:No security by TBoon · · Score: 1

      I don't exactly think they prepared XMPP support overnight. So they could either have worked on it for a month or two before release, or have some kind of system "click here to enable XMPP support" and run the others through a gateway with the browser-based chat-users (which most likely will include most people for the forseable future), if that is techically possible with TLS and XMPP...

    7. Re:No security by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      Spammers like hijacking Facebook accounts so they can send spam to that person's friends.

    8. Re:No security by MaximKat · · Score: 1

      The authentication is encrypted. This is exactly what "Allow Plaintext Authentication: no" means in the setup instructions. Btw, you know were authentication is not encrypted? POP3. Doesn't help spammers that much, does it?

    9. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You expect every Facebook user to use an external client? If not, why bring the 400 million up? I'm guessing a few percent of people at most would use this. Still a hug number but there's no need to exaggerate.

    10. Re:No security by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Where do you see spam on Facebook? I'm a pretty heavy user of the site, and besides 1-2 odd friend requests every month (usually devoid of info, not selling me something), I don't get anything unsolicited there.

    11. Re:No security by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Facebook's site specifically requests you let them know in advance if you're going to introduce 100,000 users or more so they can free up servers to handle the extra load. So apparently the external client does put a noticeable load on their servers. I wasn't able to log in yesterday when they announced it due to demand. A "few percent" of 400 million still nets you between 1 and 4 million people.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    12. Re:No security by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      LOL. What would be the point in using encryption to connect to a server that is not trustworthy in the first place?
      Besides: Is you e-mail encrypted?

      And it’s far from the worst WTF.
      The worst WTF is, that in order to use it, you have to give them your phone number!!!
      Yeah right. What’s next? A body cavity search?

      Luckily I don’t have to, so I won’t. Facebook can seriously just fuck right off!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    13. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably because every a-tad-more-than-totally-lame service which uses POP3 encrypts it with SSL.

    14. Re:No security by jisatsusha · · Score: 1

      Stop talking about things that you clearly do not understand. The lack of protocol encryption makes MITM attacks possible.

    15. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will notice I didn't claim external clients would be "free" for FB. I also explicitly mentioned that a few percent is a huge number of users.

      My only beef was with the exaggeration: if you had said "I would imagine adding encryption for millions of users..." I wouldn't have said anything, but you decided to say "400 million"... hence my comment.

    16. Re:No security by Sancho · · Score: 1

      The authentication is encrypted. This is exactly what "Allow Plaintext Authentication: no" means in the setup instructions.

      Are you sure?

      Normally, "use plaintext authentication" means that you send your password over the wire (regardless of encryption), compared to authentication mechanisms which do not require that your password ever leave your machine. This is wholly separate from whether or not the authentication is transported over SSL.

    17. Re:No security by MaximKat · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it's transported over SSL. I'm saying that spammers can't just sniff your password.

    18. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From here:

      Does Facebook Chat support SSL?
      No. At this time, Facebook Chat does not support SSL.

      Does Facebook Chat use plaintext authentication?
      No. Facebook Chat uses DIGEST-MD5 during authentication.

      Are my Chat messages encrypted?
      No. However, authentication information is secured using DIGEST-MD5

    19. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yea, they did prepare it overnight. I'm getting 503 errors all the time and the plaintext auth thing is just plain stupid.

    20. Re:No security by esmrg · · Score: 1

      Explain then, how OTR http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/ makes a man in the middle attack possible, assuming I've authenticated the person at the other end.
      Besides, all the other IM protocols (AIM, ICQ, MSN, YAHOO) have been using ssl/tls for years, right?

    21. Re:No security by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      The authentication is encrypted. This is exactly what "Allow Plaintext Authentication: no" means in the setup instructions.

      Btw, you know were authentication is not encrypted? POP3. Doesn't help spammers that much, does it?

      Um, mail isn't sent through POP3.. it's fetched. Thanks for playing.

    22. Re:No security by MaximKat · · Score: 1

      So what? Does it matter if someone steals your credentials when you send e-mail or when you receive e-mail?

    23. Re:No security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

      Seriously - please stop posting here.

  7. XMPP keeps getting more support by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I'm glad to hear it! Everyone seems to be moving towards one open protocol (starting with Google Talk) instead of the sea of protocols out there already.

  8. Yet another IM. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.

    1. Re:Yet another IM. . . by hldn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and if IM worked like email we'd get messages all day long about how to make our penises bigger.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Denis+Lemire · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail. For this to work, Facebook still needs to enable Federation but it's a huge step in the right direction. The world needs more XMPP networks. Once the number of XMPP IM users outnumber the users of legacy "cluster-f**k" proprietary protocols it will become common sense to drop the proprietary garbage in order to gain interoperability with everyone else. What a nice utopia that would be. :)

    3. Re:Yet another IM. . . by keeboo · · Score: 1

      Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.

      Well, XMPP itself is an attempt to standardize that mess.
      If Facebook does not talk with other XMPP servers, it's their own fault. Google Talk does, and many other XMPP account providers aswell.

    4. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely you have had at least 10 email accounts...I don't remember the passwords to all of them (or the user names for that matter) but the same is true for IM accounts.

      If we are talking active accounts, I also have about the same number for each.

    5. Re:Yet another IM. . . by dangitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a nice utopia that would be. :)

      More mindless chit-chat is the exact opposite of utopia.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    6. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail.

      You mean 95+ percent of it would be spam?

    7. Re:Yet another IM. . . by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      You're too old, grandpa. If you're not telling everybody the most minute detail of your day then you're just not hip anymore.

      Go play with your 8bit console, pops!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Ma8thew · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You're totally right, nothing productive has ever been accomplished over IM. And other communication methods are only used for serious and valuable conversations.

    9. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Draek · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. Enough free time that you can reasonably spend most of it in mindless chit-chat is the exact definition of utopia.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    10. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Octorian · · Score: 1

      It does, if you ever bother to sign into your old ICQ account and leave it on for a day or two.

    11. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You say mindless chit-chat, I say social interaction... Do you never just shoot the breeze with a friend? You know, just kick back and relax and chat about nothing in particular?

    12. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.

      My list of e-mail accounts goes to 11.

    13. Re:Yet another IM. . . by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service.

      Facebook already was another IM service. They had their instant messenger built into their website. The only difference is now you can access it via XMPP.

      This is a very welcome change from my perspective. There are people who mostly contacted me via Facebook and Facebook chat. Being able to participate in chats with these people without using the chat system on the Facebook web page is very nice. (I understand there were other solutions to that problem, too - I didn't explore these, and am very glad to see that I don't have to.) I don't even care if they don't enable federation with other XMPP servers - it's nice just to be able to use the XMPP protocol to access their chat system.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    14. Re:Yet another IM. . . by sznupi · · Score: 1

      This problem doesn't seem to exist in XMPP network. Also on gtalk, which is certainly a large part of that network and a valid target for spammers.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  9. Server-to-Server Communication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When are they going to support XMPP server-to-server communication so I can chat with my Facebook friends while logged onto a non-facebook XMPP server (that isn't AOL or another big org)?

    I tried their Pidgin instructions (to connect to the Facebook XMPP server and use my Facebook account to chat), and it failed: 503: Service Unavailable Slashdotted?

    When they (like Google Talk) support full server-to-server, THAT will be a good day.

    1. Re:Server-to-Server Communication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it failed: 503: Service Unavailable Slashdotted

      Wow, what a clever server to know that! Or did they know we were coming in advance?

    2. Re:Server-to-Server Communication? by xer.xes · · Score: 1

      You get the '503: Service Unavailable' when you entered your password wrong.

      --
      xer.xes -- 4181
    3. Re:Server-to-Server Communication? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      You also get a 503 error when you have a facebook web page open with the chat bar set to offline.

      And I've also read that you may get a 503 error if you don't have cyrus-sasl installed on your linux system.

      I think at this point it's probably due to them still trying to get their act together WRT XMPP.

  10. Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! by Jeff321 · · Score: 1, Troll

    I find it even funnier that "its" is used correctly in the second sentence but not the first.

  11. Bitlbee and other gateways by qreeves · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm surprised this hasn't already come up, considering this is geek central I would have hoped more people were using Bitlbee. Facebook has added this annoying caveat to being able to login via jabber: You must be able to login via a web browser on the same host as the one you're trying to setup jabber with; this rules out public Bitlbee and other gateway services, as well as boxes that don't have X installed on them (Facebook requires you use an 'approved' browser, meaning lo (e)l[inks|ynx] for you).

    Logging in: Authenticated, requesting buddy list Logging in: Message from unknown handle chat.facebook.com: > You're signing in from a location we're not familiar with. That's no problem, but we do want to make sure no one is using your Facebook account without permission. Please take a few moments to review your recent Facebook activity. Start by logging in to facebook.com from any computer. (For your security, your Facebook account will be unavailable until you complete these steps.) Couldn't log in: Account and resource used from a different location Logging in: Signing off..

    Guess that means I'll continue on with FB chat disabled, like I need yet another IM that I won't use anyway. Google Buzz looks more interesting anyway, as it is integrated with my email and other cloud data (privacy issues blah blah blah, I know) and their jabber services actually work wherever I want them to. Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step? Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.

    1. Re:Bitlbee and other gateways by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step? Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.

      That tin foil hat really suits you.

    2. Re:Bitlbee and other gateways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting enough, I logged in with bitlbee from a same ip address range as my browsing computer and I didn't see that kind of messages. (An old version of bitlbee didn' t handle the authentication, update solved the problem)

    3. Re:Bitlbee and other gateways by shish · · Score: 1

      I just signed in via bitlbee with no problem, so either they've removed this feature or it only applies to specific people

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    4. Re:Bitlbee and other gateways by Upsilonish · · Score: 1

      It works for me in bitlbee (but then I use my own server). However, all the names come up as u09876543562 etc instead of showing the display name, any non-manual way to get around that?

    5. Re:Bitlbee and other gateways by pankkake · · Score: 1
      --
      Kill all hipsters.
  12. XMPP Gateway, Not Full-Fledged Service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FWIW, Facebook is operating a gateway that allows xmpp users to connect to the Facebook chat service. For the time being, xmpp features like presence, capabilities discovery, file transfers and calling are not available.

  13. Quality of Service by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that facebook chat will be any more reliable than it was before, or will it still be buggy as heck? I got so tired of "oh sorry, we lied, this person isn't actually online at the moment..." that I signed out months ago.

    Also, yay for Pidgin! I upgraded from 2.6.1 to .5, but once I remembered my password it seems to work fine so far.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    1. Re:Quality of Service by dlgeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know about the stability of chat in general (I often notice outages where it's completely unavailable), but it should fix the laggy-state issue you're concerned about. Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates. With XMPP, you can push state-change notifications so they happen almost instantly.

    2. Re:Quality of Service by johny42 · · Score: 1

      Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates.

      No, you don't. I think I actually first heard about this when looking up information about the Facebook chat. I don't have the time to search for the source now, but Google seems to confirm it.

  14. Why would I change? by cmunic8r99 · · Score: 1

    I don't think this is so revolutionary for existing Pidgin users. I've had the Facebook plugin (http://code.google.com/p/pidgin-facebookchat) for Pidgin for a while now. What reasons are there to switch from this to XMPP?

    1. Re:Why would I change? by Haymaker · · Score: 1
      Facebook chat plugin is buggy and possibly breaks when Facebook updates something with their chat network. XMPP is a built-in protocol and will be more stable and supported.

      the first thing I noticed is that XMPP doesn't keep losing connection and trying to login.

      though I don't think it might be an issue to everyone, but on the facebook chat plugin it would query who is online and who isn't at time intervals, resulting in mass signings/signouts at once depending on the time of day + size of friends list. I'm not sure if the xmpp system is any better but I assume it will be more real-time.

    2. Re:Why would I change? by am+2k · · Score: 1

      The old plugin basically sends HTTP requests and parses the HTML results. It only worked sporadically here, and sometimes caused continuous connect/disconnect cycles (causing me to get blocked temporarily by Facebook several times). The XMPP gateway seems to be very solid, and it moved the responsibility for compatibility from the client to the server, where they have a much more direct interface to the system.

    3. Re:Why would I change? by Ma8thew · · Score: 1

      You're right. I use Adium, and the Facebook plugin was never very good for me. For some reason it would intermittently disconnect and then ask for my password, and contacts that were offline would sometimes persist as online for ages. Using XMPP to connects has been fantastic so far. If I can convince my friends on Windows to install Pidgin I can finally dump MSN.

  15. Little something for the old farts too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I demand irc.facebook.com !

  16. two years later... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they said they had this working forever ago didn't they? well, at least they finally put out.

  17. FUCKING BASTARDS! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, they offer Jabber support. But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.
    But to have that, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

    Yeah, right. Not in a thousand years!!!

    WTF? Fuck you, Failbook!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:FUCKING BASTARDS! by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Hmm, either you have no clue, or Facebook changed account creation policy recently. I never had to provide my phone number at registration (although I did add it to my profile later with privacy restrictions on it.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:FUCKING BASTARDS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

      No you don't.

      (why does the filter count excessive caps in a quote!! ffs)

    3. Re:FUCKING BASTARDS! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      +1 Flamebait. Exactly what I meant it to be. :)

      Yes, this was a flame. Against the fuckers at Facebook. And I’m fucking proud of it!

      Oh, and NO. I do not have anything in my Facebook profile, except contacts to write messages to, because I have no choice. I would not have any account there if I could. Thank my idiot friends. I hope they get viruses and go to jail for a botnet client saving child porn on their systems!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:FUCKING BASTARDS! by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they offer Jabber support. But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.
      But to have that, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

      Bah, what's the big deal? I give out my phone number all the time. Here it is:

      (234)567-8910

      Apparently I've got an Ohio number...

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  18. perfect! by molecular · · Score: 1

    what a move! Now finally I can stop evangelism for xmpp. Now I instantly have more friend on xmpp than on skype. Nice!

  19. What about others? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So did the Internet2.edu, billion dollar making companies which XMPP became de-facto standard, Google and Facebook giants pick the wrong protocol to begin with?

  20. Facebook, geez by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Are you insane? Did you even browse Facebook pages? If you have anything regarding privacy in your mind, you don't join such networks to begin with...

    It is a network requiring your REAL NAME, people share their private matters on their publicly available pages no matter how hard Facebook tries to educate them or force them to set their options.

    It is not for your taste if you have concerns about sharing your private information. Not mine either but I don't swear at them, I just pity the 2010's sense of privacy.

    Jabber/XMPP is designed in a way that no "central big company" server would be required, just like e-mail. You sound like people not choosing from thousands of free/paid IMAP/POP3/WWW mail servers and whine about gmail's horrible privacy issues. Don't like it? Use something else.

    1. Re:Facebook, geez by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Yeah. “Real Name”.

      As real as whatever I choose to enter.
      Also, I only joined, to be able to chat with a ton of idiot friends who use Failbook as their IM tool, instead of ICQ/Jabber/etc.
      And I have NOTHING on the page. I literally have disabled every single feature, left everything empty, and blocked everyone from seeing anything. The only exception: Friends can send me messages.

      I will delete the profile, as soon as Failbook allows cross-server IM (like email). Because I have my own Jabber server, and can then chat with them without registering anywhere.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:Facebook, geez by MosX · · Score: 1

      Wow. You sound a little like a crazy paranoid person.

    3. Re:Facebook, geez by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      people share their private matters on their publicly available pages no matter how hard Facebook tries to educate them or force them to set their options

      Excuse me? Is this the same Facebook that has removed some of the more restrictive privacy options, and defaulted to allowing Google to index people's pages in real time?

    4. Re:Facebook, geez by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Yeah. “Real Name”.

      As real as whatever I choose to enter.
      Also, I only joined, to be able to chat with a ton of idiot friends who use Failbook as their IM tool, instead of ICQ/Jabber/etc.
      And I have NOTHING on the page. I literally have disabled every single feature, left everything empty, and blocked everyone from seeing anything. The only exception: Friends can send me messages.

      I will delete the profile, as soon as Failbook allows cross-server IM (like email). Because I have my own Jabber server, and can then chat with them without registering anywhere.

      I refuse to believe you have friends.

  21. So? by RDeichsel · · Score: 1

    Give them digits: (000) 000-0000

  22. Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! by Menkhaf · · Score: 1

    That's only because timothy corrected the latter: http://tech.slashdot.org/submission/1171176/Facebook-Now-Supports-JabberXMPP

    --
    A proud member of the Onion-in-Hand alliance
  23. Please don't stop by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    XMPP is the future, but it will only be the future so long as the pressure is kept up to get service providers to adopt open standards. The moment they see an advantage in lock-in they will adopt proprietary "extensions".

    XMPP is the best thing to happen in the messaging protocol world for many years, we need to make sure that it continues to develop (especially server to server) and be as widely deployed as possible.

    Disclaimer: Our company produces a system management product that uses XMPP as its first line fault notification. I would prefer even the most backward MS shop to have heard of it, and not to confuse it with the horror that is MSN.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Please don't stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For Service Providers, at least the ones coming from the telephony world, XMPP isn't an answer for IM because it isn't an answer for telephony. Despite the existence of Jingle, the other relationships they have to maintain for integration with the PSTN and maintain regulatory compliance make SIP-based systems and IMS a more attractive option. Unfortunately, there doesn't yet appear to be an easy way to interact across the two signaling domains. It isn't simply about open standards (which SIP is), but more about maintaining current obligations(which XMPP can't). Push on getting interoperability issues worked out, and you'll see this happen faster.

  24. Localization problems by Kooothor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, I'm experiencing troubles while trying to connect to the xmpp facebook account with Finch from my shell in Germany. Facebook tells me I connect from an unusual location (usually I connect from France or Sweden), and that it isn't bad but they block the chat anyway.... -_-' Anyone has had the same troubles ? How to resolve it ? Thanks. Screen : http://nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png

  25. bitlbee by jollyhockysticks · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hi,
      I managed to get bitlbee to log in ( i've written some php to log into facebook using curl for me from the server in question, and it spoofs the user agent. It was tricky but do-able )

    but the downside is, all the usernames show up as u987654321 or whatever so you still have no idea who is who anyway. :( boo, so still no real fb chat in bitlbee for now

    1. Re:bitlbee by jollyhockysticks · · Score: 1

      I've since tried /whois u987654321 and it does return some info: 16:01 u987654321 (u987654321@chat.facebook.com) 16:01 ircname : Someones Name 16:01 server : myusername@chat.facebook.com. (jabber network) 16:01 End of WHOIS perhaps with a little irssi perl script i'll be able to make them appear properly in the nicklist too.

  26. bckwrds by hey · · Score: 1

    I logged in with Pidgin.

    Its weird everyone logs in with the username "bckwrds". Really - http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php

    Too bad SSL / TLS isn't supported.

    1. Re:bckwrds by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Hello Dave.

      Did you know that you just gave your facebook username to everyone? (although your privacy settings are pretty clamped down so it doesn't really matter.)

      Remember long ago when you could choose a username (to replace the number in your profile URL with something human-readable)? While on the site you login with your email, apparently with XMPP you log in with that username. This is the first highly visible use of that name other than your profile's URL.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:bckwrds by hey · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm stupid. I forgot that was my userid.

  27. Empathy - OTR = worthless by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

    Does Empathy have OTR encryption yet?

    If not, it is useless.

  28. Dealbreaker: no SSL/TLS by base3 · · Score: 1

    When they support encryption, I'll give it a try.

    --
    One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  29. They want your cellphone number by sigdrifa · · Score: 1

    Just took a look at the instructions mentioned in the summary. Unfortunately you have to verify your account to pick a user name - and in order to do so you have to give them your cellphone number. I'd rather live with the proprietary protocols, thank you very much.

    1. Re:They want your cellphone number by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      If you haven't picked a user name, can you log in using your FB-assigned user name (u987654321 or whatever)?

    2. Re:They want your cellphone number by sigdrifa · · Score: 1

      If you haven't picked a user name, can you log in using your FB-assigned user name (u987654321 or whatever)?

      Yeah, tried that, didn't work. Unfortunately, I recently moved to a new account. On the old one I had a user name - back then no account verification was required to pick a stupid user name.
      This is so ridiculous that I'm thinking about finally pulling out altogether.

  30. Kopete does not work by kbahey · · Score: 1

    This would instantly allow me to use my usual desktop chat client to connect to non-tech people who I am friends with.

    But, Kopete on Kubuntu 9.10 does not work. I get this error message:

    "There was a negotiation error. Unsupported protocol version. XMPP 1.0 is required."

    Is there a solution to this?

    1. Re:Kopete does not work by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Pidgin/Trillian? Kopete isn't exactly "up to date" in some respects, and apparently it doesn't even support XMPP 1.0 yet. I can confirm that Pidgin works wonderfully though :)

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    2. Re:Kopete does not work by kbahey · · Score: 1

      I have used Pidgin in the past, but since I am using KDE, I'd rather have a KDE application that integrates better with the desktop.

    3. Re:Kopete does not work by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Not so far, but empathy and pidgin work. I prefer kopete, but until it is fixed, empathy seems decent.

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    4. Re:Kopete does not work by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Found a partial solution. It is not XMPP based, but rather uses JSON to interface directly to Facebook.

      It is in the Ubuntu repository as kopete-facebook. Install that package and you are good to go.

    5. Re:Kopete does not work by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      Try QutIM. It looks nice to me.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  31. Re:No DATA security by kwerle · · Score: 1

    I was worried about this, too. I sniffed the connection, and it turns out that they use SASL during the authentication process - so your password is safe, though your communications are not.

    At least I presume your data does not get encrypted - didn't test that...

  32. At last! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    I look forward to finally having a standard protocol IM that I can avoid. Until than I'm forced to avoid IM using proprietary protocols.

  33. Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    Couldn't we put the correct usage of "it's" in a FAQ or something and stop talking about it here?

  34. SASL works by Benanov · · Score: 1

    The sign-in is encrypted; the messages are not.

  35. What is facebook actually? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read all about it. It's nasty.

  36. Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0