deep darc » Honeymoon is over » Comments http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/ deep and darc stuff 2007-06-26T02:54:49Z Copyright 2005 darcness <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Brian http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-723 2007-06-26T02:54:49Z 2007-06-26T02:54:49Z Interesting post you have here. I've got my wife using Google Talk through iChat on our PPC Mac. I sent here a voicemail (through my Windows GTalk client) just to show her how it works. Now, every time she "wakes" from "sleeping" and is logged in to iChat, we hear the lovely GTalk lady voice start to say "You have . . ." like she has a new message. But she does not. I've tried nearly everything to fix this, but I have been unsuccessful. Have you ever heard of this one? Any thoughts?

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Gary http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-676 2007-01-19T14:38:08Z 2007-01-19T14:38:08Z Liked the article it's really interesting. I have found it a bit annoying that Google are taking their time over things like a MUC implementation (though I get that they probably want a service to run with it). They didn't, for example, use XEP-118 for User Tunes when they added that functionality. I suspect that's because people would get confused when contacts users other clients could see the updated status... but then a person on my list did get annoyed when my status messages were filling his screen.

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Fabian http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-624 2006-11-01T13:53:08Z 2006-11-01T13:53:08Z Seems like they read youre posting: Offline messaging works now. See also http://www.customizetalk.com/index.php?page=news&id=964

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> darco http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-623 2006-10-29T04:39:36Z 2006-10-29T04:39:36Z Recently, yes, it has been moved back to XEP-0016 I see. However, this is a recent development, and I still don't see why Google had to roll their own solution back when they Google Talk went public.

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Brian Lee http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-622 2006-10-28T22:59:00Z 2006-10-28T22:59:00Z Privacy lists were dropped from rfc3921bis. See: http://www.xmpp.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-rfc3921bis-00.txt

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> darco http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-621 2006-10-28T19:00:26Z 2006-10-28T19:00:26Z Brain Lee said:

What is the Jabber Council solution that Google should have used?

Perhaps I was a bit misleading when I said "Jabber Council", as RFC 3921 has the backing of not only the JSF, but also the IETF. I see no reason why Google couldn't have implemented Section 10 ("Blocking Communications") instead of rolling their own solution—even if they intended to replace it with something better later.

There is also XEP-0016, but that XEP has been largely superseded by the official implementation definition in RFC 3921.

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Brian Lee http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-620 2006-10-28T18:28:51Z 2006-10-28T18:28:51Z darco said:

I was simply expressing my frustration that google would “roll their own” solution when the Jabber council already had a solution in place.

What is the Jabber Council solution that Google should have used?

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> darco http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-619 2006-10-28T17:07:27Z 2006-10-28T17:07:27Z Tom said:

I believe all of these problems just point to that your current iChat version is not a robust Jabber client. It makes no sense bashing on Googles Jabber server. It should never make sense that a server has to change its behaviour because one client is not understanding it.

Like I said, my friends and family really don't care. The truth is that the only jabber server iChat doesn't seem to work well with is Google Talk, and this is only one of the reasons I am no longer recommending people use it. Apparently, several people have already expressed the same sentiment.

But I'm sure the next iChat will be more robust

Heres to hoping. :/

Brain Lee said:

Would it have been better for Google to encourage developers to use Google's extension instead of rfc 3921 or xep 191?

I was simply expressing my frustration that google would "roll their own" solution when the Jabber council already had a solution in place. You are right though, I make it sound like they should have allowed client developers to implement their hack. I'll re-word this.

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Tom http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-618 2006-10-28T15:52:35Z 2006-10-28T15:52:35Z @ "the Google Talk is iChat Hostile" part

I believe all of these problems just point to that your current iChat version is not a robust Jabber client. It makes no sense bashing on Googles Jabber server. It should never make sense that a server has to change its behaviour because one client is not understanding it.

But I'm sure the next iChat will be more robust

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Brian Lee http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-617 2006-10-28T14:50:23Z 2006-10-28T14:50:23Z Google Talk is not alone on privacy blocking. Other clients and severs do not support the privacy lists in rfc 3921. Because xep 191 is only a few months old, I doubt that xep 191 is widely deployed.

Would it have been better for Google to encourage developers to use Google's extension instead of rfc 3921 or xep 191?

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Olli http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-616 2006-10-28T14:23:49Z 2006-10-28T14:23:49Z Maybe you know this site - maybe not ... on this site there is a listig of outage times of a lot of jabberservers. This overview is maybe helpful while searching a stable jabberserver. http://public.jabbernet.dk/

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Jean-Louis Seguineau http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-615 2006-10-28T14:01:56Z 2006-10-28T14:01:56Z Agreed on all cases.

You only forgot to mention one point though. I believe many will switch away from Google as soon as third party client implement Jingle.

The problem is that there are no Jingle prototype out there that could entice switching. And this is really a client's developper issue. The so called "compliance with standards" and argument that the Jingle XEPs are not yet complete does not hold. How many other unfinished features have ended up in clients?

But part of a learning process is trying, and it seems VoIP still scares the hell out of XMPP clients developpers...

Tust me, as soon as I can get a decent Jingle support in Psi, I will gladly switch! But it has been lingering for a year now.

]]> <![CDATA[RE: Honeymoon is over]]> Fabian http://www.deepdarc.com/2006/10/27/honeymoon-is-over/#comment-614 2006-10-28T12:53:04Z 2006-10-28T12:53:04Z Hopefully the Problems using Google Talk via iChat disappear with the next iChat Version in OS X 10.5 Leopard. Now that Google CEO Eric Schmidt is member of Apple's Board of Directors you could expect them to work together more closely. Jingle support in iChat would be cool... Here in Germany the Jabber Server Situation recently changed dramatically: The biggest german Freemail Provider "United Internet" integrated a Jabber Server in its Accounts like Google did one year ago. But unlike Google, United Internet uses a Standard conform Server. So literally everybody i know now owns a Jabber Account. I just need to convice them to use it... Maybe you could recomment your friends signing up for a LiveJournal Account, which also features a Jabber Server.

]]>