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.
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
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?
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.
Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television
Don't be that guy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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."
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
It meets (and exceeds) the basic functional requirements for a "television".
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That must be the sound of the joke flying over your head, Captain Splendid.
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.