That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference. Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
No, actually, there isn't a difference. You can pretend that somehow the IETF magically turns RFCs into "standards", but a standard is merely something publicly defined that people can follow.
It's not a standard because the IETF published it. It's a standard because there are dozens of client and server implementations, and thousands of running servers out there. If google opens up their spec, it'll still be just one server. And there'd be no point to a second server out there, because they don't federate.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
WLM uses MSNP2, not XMPP.
None of those do video chat, either. And just because they use it doesn't mean it's a good decision or not outdated. XMPP is not mobile-friendly
WLM supports XMPP for some time now, though with a custom auth mechanism. Do you googleing before arguing. As for non mobile-friendly: {{citation needed}}. Also, whatsapp uses XMPP, and their service is the most popular on mobile platforms.
Because the simple fact is that people want the extra features way, waaaay more than they want XMPP.
The X in XMPP stands for eXtensible. If they want more, use extensions, document them, and submit them.
The standard is outdated, it isn't competitive.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
It doesn't matter if you run on top of a standard if nobody wants to use the product.
Of course the standard matters. About 30% of my contacts list use non-google xmpp servers. My dropping xmpp, they would loose the ability to communicate with google users. They loose a huge variety of xmpp clients they can use. If xmpp is dropped, all those clients, bots, servers, etc everybody is using would get lost. All so we can use google's new propietary protocol and propietary clients on their own centralized servers.
Dropping XMPP doesn't automatically mean lock in, either. Google could come out with a new standard. Doubtful, perhaps, but with Google you never know.
That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference. Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
Great! Now we just have to make it healthy (or at least healthier than other food), and there'll be an actual reason to eat that hugely overpriced food!
This isn't really true, since Hangouts are built on open web protocols with support in Firefox and Chrome (and presumably Safari and IE once they catch up). There's no need for any IM-specific protocol "lockin" when you have general-purpose communication protocols available on the open web.
Plenty of clients doesn't mean it's open. XMPP is open because anyone can set up a server and there's no central authority. Even if you have a thousand hangouts clients, there's still one single central authority which has the final word on anything regarding your communications.
Goolge announced that Hangouts will replace gtalk. They've also announced they'll be dropping XMPP support. Why is such a huge lockin received with thunderous applause? Non-google users will no longer be able to communicate with google-users. That's just google saying "use our services, or loose contact with 80% of your contacts".
Ever heard of XMPP? It's an IEEE standard, and Google Talk is just another federated XMPP server. It descentalized just like email. Set up your own xmpp server, tell your friends to use it, add you gtalk friends so you don't loose contact, and contribute to making propietary IM dissapear now!;)
Google Talk also lets me make free international long distance phone calls, while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it.
Google Talk is a federated XMPP server. I chat with dozens of friends who use it, without having my own google account; I just use my own XMPP server. XMPP has end-to-end encryption, both for chat and video (pidgin-gpg, jitsi, etc).
Where's the protocol's formal specifiction? Where's the source for the reference client implemention? And the server one? Without any of those, there's no way to prove that what you're saying is true.
[...]They're seeing 1.5M activations per day. [...]
How about deactivations? How many of those new devices replace discarted/broken old ones? I don't think 1.5M activations means 1.5M new users, the latter is probably way less.
I've been able to chat with people with BBs for years now. We all use something called XMPP. SMSs work fine as well. Honestly, only BB users loves BBM so much. Users of other OS's don't care much for it.
The the source it totally open, then it's not DRM. If I can rebuild it (because it's properly open sources), I can modify it and remove DRM-specific features.
I see this as a victory for content providers (since they have one more distribution channel, and more profit), not for users (who'll slowly get DRM shoved down their throats even more). I currently use NOTHING with any form of DRM. Will I have to blacklist firefox in future as well? How's that a victory for me?
The entire dependency tree is way more than 10MB for plenty of applications, and several gigs sure are expensive on the devices Ubuntu is targeting for this packaging system.
Also, duplicating libraries means you need to duplicate them in memory as well. This isn't noticable when running ONE application, but is noticable when running 10 applications.
I'd love to see java-based apps too (upward 100MB each package). Or python-based ones (~30MB?)
You can obliterate the used market. You can force obsolescence. You can force time limits. You can force re-purchases for multiple devices.
Don't forget unskippable DVD ads (i.e. you can also force customers to watch other things first if they want to actually see their legitimately purchased content).
I only recently learned about these. Thanks the gods I don't live in the US!
In most GNU/Linux distributions, "linux" is just another package, that gets updated via the package manager. In BSDs, the kernel (and the rest of the base system) is NOT updated via de package manager, but must be upgraded separately.
Ports are generally small scripts that retreive source and build a binary package that is then installed.
OpenBSD uses special Makefiles that do exactly this. The few binary packages provided are just those generated by these makefiles (only some are provided in binary form). Archlinux uses PKGBUILDs which are quite similar (in nature, not in syntax) to BSD's ports. While arch uses binary repositories, building a package is just a matter of running makepkg with the correct PKGBUILD file.
Compared to rpm and deb? Most of the everyday features are there. I'm sure some of the less-common rpm/deb features are missing. Dependency management has existed for ages, of course.
It's not just the linux kernel upgrade that matters here, but also the end-of-support for "low memory devices". IMHO, though, 16MB is a pretty large amount of memory for a home router.
Slashdot Mirror
That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference.
Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
No, actually, there isn't a difference. You can pretend that somehow the IETF magically turns RFCs into "standards", but a standard is merely something publicly defined that people can follow.
It's not a standard because the IETF published it. It's a standard because there are dozens of client and server implementations, and thousands of running servers out there. If google opens up their spec, it'll still be just one server. And there'd be no point to a second server out there, because they don't federate.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
WLM uses MSNP2, not XMPP.
None of those do video chat, either. And just because they use it doesn't mean it's a good decision or not outdated. XMPP is not mobile-friendly
WLM supports XMPP for some time now, though with a custom auth mechanism. Do you googleing before arguing.
As for non mobile-friendly: {{citation needed}}. Also, whatsapp uses XMPP, and their service is the most popular on mobile platforms.
I'd mod you insightful if I hadn't commented :(
Ah, this doesn't include bloat. It requires I install it [windows] myself!
Because the simple fact is that people want the extra features way, waaaay more than they want XMPP.
The X in XMPP stands for eXtensible. If they want more, use extensions, document them, and submit them.
The standard is outdated, it isn't competitive.
If it's so outdated, why do facebook, wlm and whatsapp use it internally? Granted, they don't federate, but they still use the protocol.
It doesn't matter if you run on top of a standard if nobody wants to use the product.
Of course the standard matters. About 30% of my contacts list use non-google xmpp servers. My dropping xmpp, they would loose the ability to communicate with google users. They loose a huge variety of xmpp clients they can use. If xmpp is dropped, all those clients, bots, servers, etc everybody is using would get lost. All so we can use google's new propietary protocol and propietary clients on their own centralized servers.
Dropping XMPP doesn't automatically mean lock in, either. Google could come out with a new standard. Doubtful, perhaps, but with Google you never know.
That would not be a new standard. That would merely be a new protocol, which they publicly documented. There's a big difference.
Documenting it isn't enough either. Do all those other xmpp users out there need to migrate their servers and clients too? Just because google wanted to use a new protocol? I don't think so.
Great! Now we just have to make it healthy (or at least healthier than other food), and there'll be an actual reason to eat that hugely overpriced food!
This isn't really true, since Hangouts are built on open web protocols with support in Firefox and Chrome (and presumably Safari and IE once they catch up). There's no need for any IM-specific protocol "lockin" when you have general-purpose communication protocols available on the open web.
Plenty of clients doesn't mean it's open. XMPP is open because anyone can set up a server and there's no central authority. Even if you have a thousand hangouts clients, there's still one single central authority which has the final word on anything regarding your communications.
XMPP is old.
Email is older by decades. What's your point?
Goolge announced that Hangouts will replace gtalk. They've also announced they'll be dropping XMPP support.
Why is such a huge lockin received with thunderous applause? Non-google users will no longer be able to communicate with google-users. That's just google saying "use our services, or loose contact with 80% of your contacts".
Ever heard of XMPP? It's an IEEE standard, and Google Talk is just another federated XMPP server. ;)
It descentalized just like email.
Set up your own xmpp server, tell your friends to use it, add you gtalk friends so you don't loose contact, and contribute to making propietary IM dissapear now!
People like whatspp because your ID is your phone number. You don't have to know a handle or email.
Is this a good thing because people tend to remember their phone numbers more than their emails, or because most people don't have emails?
I never understood the appeal of Whatsapp.
It's just instant messaging, and restricted to mobile devices.
On top of that, Whatsapp is actually slightly modified XMPP. Just the same as GTalk or WLM!
At least they're shorter that ICQ! ;)
Google Talk also lets me make free international long distance phone calls, while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it.
Google Talk is a federated XMPP server. I chat with dozens of friends who use it, without having my own google account; I just use my own XMPP server.
XMPP has end-to-end encryption, both for chat and video (pidgin-gpg, jitsi, etc).
Where's the protocol's formal specifiction? Where's the source for the reference client implemention? And the server one?
Without any of those, there's no way to prove that what you're saying is true.
[...]They're seeing 1.5M activations per day. [...]
How about deactivations? How many of those new devices replace discarted/broken old ones? I don't think 1.5M activations means 1.5M new users, the latter is probably way less.
I've been able to chat with people with BBs for years now. We all use something called XMPP. SMSs work fine as well.
Honestly, only BB users loves BBM so much. Users of other OS's don't care much for it.
For the same reason that there's no flash for powerpc linux, amd64 openbsd, arm plan9, etc...
The the source it totally open, then it's not DRM. If I can rebuild it (because it's properly open sources), I can modify it and remove DRM-specific features.
I see this as a victory for content providers (since they have one more distribution channel, and more profit), not for users (who'll slowly get DRM shoved down their throats even more).
I currently use NOTHING with any form of DRM. Will I have to blacklist firefox in future as well? How's that a victory for me?
Some of us prefer fast (and low-power) ultrabooks (SSD), instead of ridiculous amounts of storage that we'll never fill up (HDD).
The entire dependency tree is way more than 10MB for plenty of applications, and several gigs sure are expensive on the devices Ubuntu is targeting for this packaging system.
Also, duplicating libraries means you need to duplicate them in memory as well. This isn't noticable when running ONE application, but is noticable when running 10 applications.
I'd love to see java-based apps too (upward 100MB each package). Or python-based ones (~30MB?)
You can obliterate the used market. You can force obsolescence. You can force time limits. You can force re-purchases for multiple devices.
Don't forget unskippable DVD ads (i.e. you can also force customers to watch other things first if they want to actually see their legitimately purchased content).
I only recently learned about these. Thanks the gods I don't live in the US!
So the artist's hard work is the reason we should give EA so much money?
In most GNU/Linux distributions, "linux" is just another package, that gets updated via the package manager.
In BSDs, the kernel (and the rest of the base system) is NOT updated via de package manager, but must be upgraded separately.
Ports are generally small scripts that retreive source and build a binary package that is then installed.
OpenBSD uses special Makefiles that do exactly this. The few binary packages provided are just those generated by these makefiles (only some are provided in binary form).
Archlinux uses PKGBUILDs which are quite similar (in nature, not in syntax) to BSD's ports. While arch uses binary repositories, building a package is just a matter of running makepkg with the correct PKGBUILD file.
Compared to rpm and deb? Most of the everyday features are there. I'm sure some of the less-common rpm/deb features are missing. Dependency management has existed for ages, of course.
It's not just the linux kernel upgrade that matters here, but also the end-of-support for "low memory devices". IMHO, though, 16MB is a pretty large amount of memory for a home router.