it's not about XMPP, it's about federation
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| mbaehrlxer May 27, 2013 11:16 PM EDT |
http://plus.google.com/106212624917213444564/posts/eaQxmWJsY...
puts it well... greetings, eMBee. |
| notbob May 28, 2013 8:55 AM EDT |
Not so well, IMO. What's this "federated" garbage!? The dman even gives the term a capital letter, like it's some kinda brand name or proper noun. I don't go on the web to become federated. When I go on the web, I expect to remain autonomous, for the most part. I realize that's all but impossible, users required to become unified in common goal at some point, but I try. I will agree with JG about google trying to own the web. So much so, I've started calling it gobble. That's been pretty obvious for at least the last decade. On gobble, I'm the least "federated". I don't use anything Google, except its original search engine, and even then I hobble it with noscript and disable its cookies. Go Go Duck (duck duck go? ducky do da?) is rapidly becoming my search engine of choice and I suspect it's only out of habit or sheer laziness I haven't abandoned gobble altogether. I found my way around the web long before gobble and I can find my way around it, long after. Such is the beauty of choice ....and separation. ;) |
| Bob_Robertson May 28, 2013 10:52 AM EDT |
Might I suggest Startpage.com as another alternative? |
| djohnston May 28, 2013 3:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:Might I suggest Startpage.com as another alternative? Better yet, use ixquick. |
| jdixon May 28, 2013 3:59 PM EDT |
Ixquick is startpage. |
| caitlyn May 28, 2013 10:02 PM EDT |
...and statepage is Ixquick. Duck Duck Go is good. There's also a relatively new one called Privatelee. |
| djohnston May 29, 2013 1:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:Ixquick is startpage. Minor quibble. They are affiliated. Ixquick is the older of the two. Each presents different search results. ABOUT STARTPAGE SEARCH ENGINE Quoting:When you search with Startpage the Web results are generated by Google. This offers you the search results and search features you may have grown accustomed to. ABOUT IXQUICK SEARCH ENGINE Quoting:Ixquick search results are more comprehensive and more accurate than other search engines. Ixquick's unique capabilities include an Advanced Search, a global search and power refinement. |
| thenixedreport May 29, 2013 2:10 AM EDT |
So I'm taking it lxquick outdoes 37.com....? |
| mbaehrlxer May 29, 2013 12:42 PM EDT |
notbob: have you not heard of the concept of federated networks and servers? it is about unrelated entities talking to each other. the internet as a whole is a federation of local networks. email is federated, because unrelated servers can talk to each other. so is jabber/xmpp. but for example irc is not federated (each irc network is it's own, and different irc networks can not talk to each other). facebook, msn, twitter, and most other social networks and instant messaging services are not federated, because you can not use an account on one service to talk to people on another. imagine email were not federated. it would not be possible to email people on other servers. gmail users would not be able to contact people outside of gmail, and vice versa. that is, if you want to talk to gmail users you'd have to get your own gmail account. and this is exactly what will happen if google drops xmpp federation. i have a number of contacts on gtalk, but i do not use a gtalk account myself to talk to them. i communicate via an independent server outside of google that takes advantage of googles xmpp federation. if i loose that access i'll be forced to sign up and get a gtalk account, because i can't afford to loose those contacts. with all your gripe against google, you don't realize that by ignoring the real problem you are not helping people to stay away from google, but instead driving them to it. at least those who don't want to loose their gtalk friends. if you want more people to stay independent from google, you ought to help make it easier for people to move out. that can only be done with federation. because then people can move to alternatives without loosing their contacts. they can then slowly convince their contacts to move away too. but without federation, none of this will happen, google users will stay locked in, and the only way to get out is to drop all contacts or at least reduce them to email. (hmm, maybe i should revisit that instant-messaging-via-smtp idea again) greetings, eMBee. |
| notbob May 29, 2013 6:19 PM EDT |
The sudden proliferation of a buzz-word, in this case "federation", does not automatically make something an actual federation, no matter how often it is repeated. In one narrow definition, pehaps, almost, but the web is more an agreement on a protocol, which does NOT make something a federation. Email is the smtp and it predates the world wide web. There is no federation of email users, only users who agree to use a long established protocol and those who have failed to unsurp it for a proprietary alternative. Lord knows it's been tried. It's like the film community, which has suddently embraced the term, "reboot", to describe bringing back an almost dead film franchise like the Bond or Star Trek films. Puh-leeze! You wanna corrupt the meaning of federation? Have at it. But, I protest. In short, I got yer boot!! ;) |
| mbaehrlxer May 29, 2013 9:28 PM EDT |
so then, what is your definition of federation? seriously, i don't care about the term, i care about the concept.
fine, call it "open protocols", or propose another term, i am happy to call it anything you want.
again, you are missing the real issue with your complaints about terminology. it does not matter what it is called, what matters is that if google stops talking to other servers then a lot of people will be forced to join google to keep their contacts. i think i have made that clear. do you want to help fighting that? or do you want to derail other peoples effort by interrupting them with arguments about terminology? it's like linux vs gnu/linux or free software vs open source. i don't care how it's called as long as we get that software out there to people. greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon May 29, 2013 10:19 PM EDT |
> ...you are missing the real issue with your complaints about terminology.,,, Well, you see that's what happens when people don't agree about their definitions. They end up arguing in circles. Seriously, notbob is correct. That is a non-standard definition of federation, and using it that way complicates the discussion you're trying to have. > ...or do you want to derail other peoples effort by interrupting them with arguments about terminology... He's not derailing your effort. He's pointing out a problem with it. If you want to convince other people; you have to use language they will understand. |
| caitlyn May 29, 2013 10:47 PM EDT |
The evil federation... I remember it well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVstesjCqEg |
| mbaehrlxer May 30, 2013 1:05 AM EDT |
i get what you are saying.
i am not intending to dispute the definition of federation, i just wasn't aware of another definition, sorry. it is not the definition of the term federation that we should argue about. if the term doesn't fit, let's use another term please and move forward with the issue at hand, which is google is locking out people on the outside, or forcing them to join if they want to keep the connections. do you agree that this is a problem? greetings, eMBee. |
| jdixon May 30, 2013 6:17 AM EDT |
> google is locking out people on the outside, or forcing them to join if they want to keep the connections. ...do you agree that this is a problem? I'm pretty sure we all agree that it's a problem, yes. |
| Fettoosh May 30, 2013 10:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:do you agree that this is a problem? It is a problem of the same type of the problem MS created when it took SMB protocol and did its own EEE version and locked everyone out. Also the same type like it did with the kerberos protocol, and its own support of Open XML format for office apps. and, and, and. That is not like good old Google who opened up part of Android and chrome, who purchased and opened up VP8 etc. The question that remains so far is, is Google going to open up the new protocols it creates to replace existing ones or at least to FOSS only? I could be wrong, but I believe they eventually will and under pressure. That is something I actually like to see happen to give MS a taste of its own medicine. If it doesn't, I guess FOSS has to start fighting another war. It is the saga or good vs. evil. |
| jdixon May 30, 2013 11:38 AM EDT |
> ...is Google going to open up the new protocols it creates to replace existing ones or at least to FOSS only? Looking at it as an outside observer and trying to read between the lines of the information available: Google's primary goal at this point seems to be consolidating all of their services into a coherent and interlinked system that can meet or exceed the ones that Apple and Microsoft offer. While doing so, Interoperability seems to be taking a back seat. Once that primary goal has been reached, I expect them to take another look at interoperability. So, in the short term, probably not; but in the long term, probably yes. |
| notbob May 30, 2013 12:46 PM EDT |
> "do you agree that this is a problem?" No. I don't. Why I gotta join google OR be locked out? Quite frankly, before this discussion, I never gave xmpp any thought. I don't believe I've even used it. I certainly don't use google for communication with others. Why should I? I'm communicating with you, aren't I? Are we using xmpp? I didn't think so. I use, irc, nntp, smtp, POTS.... oh, and I even scribble a note on paper, now and again. I don't txt! Oh, I suppose I played with ICQ (is that xmpp?) fer a bit, but not long. A few weeks. If I need instant communication, there's that AG Bell thing, again. Hard to beat live conversation. Besides, how many ways do I need to communicate? I can only use one at a time. ;) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!