Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes:

[00:10:37] * Florob left the chat.
[00:29:10] * Treebilou left the chat.
[00:47:35] * jcea joined the chat.
[01:04:21] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[01:22:37] * johnny left the chat.
[01:48:18] * johnny joined the chat.
[02:08:06] * Zash left the chat.
[02:09:25] * Link Mauve left the chat.
[02:41:31] * Link Mauve joined the chat.
[02:51:11] * jcea left the chat.
[03:16:20] * louiz’ left the chat.
[03:16:24] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[05:05:58] * sjr joined the chat.
[05:06:18] <sjr> Is there a reason why getting Vcards would block a connection
[05:06:29] <sjr> i.e. would I expect getting a VCard to be syncrhonous?
[05:42:20] <sjr> Is there a reason why presence information may take a while to trickle in?
[05:42:30] <sjr> I notice with Psi tht users generally appear online instantly
[05:42:42] <sjr> while with something else I'm writing they trickle in alot slower.
[05:42:53] <deryni> The same people?
[05:43:15] <sjr> yeah
[05:43:18] <sjr> same people same server
[05:43:25] <sjr> sorry
[05:43:28] <sjr> same two servers
[05:43:35] <sjr> the clients are on jabber.org
[05:43:40] <sjr> and the rest o the users are on a different server
[05:46:42] <sjr> weird
[05:46:47] <sjr> it seems to actually be on an account basis
[05:46:48] <sjr> perhaps
[06:18:32] * teo1 left the chat.
[06:18:33] * teo1 joined the chat.
[07:22:18] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:22:48] * Ludovic left the chat.
[07:22:52] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[07:23:46] * mlundblad_laptop joined the chat.
[07:29:31] * Ludovic left the chat.
[07:47:10] * Alex joined the chat.
[07:54:47] * ermine joined the chat.
[08:08:45] * jonas joined the chat.
[08:40:12] * waqas joined the chat.
[08:41:46] * teo1 left the chat.
[08:41:48] * teo1 joined the chat.
[09:16:12] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[09:25:12] * petermount joined the chat.
[09:34:22] * waqas left the chat.
[09:36:24] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[09:55:19] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[09:56:40] * nabatt joined the chat.
[10:01:17] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[10:02:36] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[10:14:11] * Kanchil left the chat.
[10:20:30] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[10:26:02] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[10:43:25] * darkrain left the chat.
[10:43:46] * darkrain joined the chat.
[11:07:36] * smoku joined the chat.
[11:25:06] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:31:11] * teo1 left the chat.
[11:31:12] * teo1 joined the chat.
[12:05:09] * scippio_netbook joined the chat.
[12:09:51] * Tobias joined the chat.
[12:44:52] * alfeberlin joined the chat.
[12:45:10] * alfeberlin left the chat.
[14:49:23] * Tobias left the chat.
[14:50:52] * Alex left the chat.
[15:02:15] * MattJ joined the chat.
[15:21:56] * Treebilou joined the chat.
[15:27:19] * bear_ joined the chat.
[15:35:10] * Tobias joined the chat.
[15:41:52] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:41:52] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:41:53] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:41:53] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:44:47] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:44:47] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:44:47] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:44:47] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:46:12] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:46:13] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:50:06] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:50:06] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:50:06] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:50:06] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:50:29] * scippio_netbook left the chat.
[15:51:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:51:13] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:51:44] * Zash joined the chat.
[15:53:10] * paulew joined the chat.
[15:53:29] <paulew> hi
[15:53:29] * bear left the chat.
[15:54:17] * mlundblad_laptop left the chat.
[15:54:30] <jonas> hi
[15:55:59] <MattJ> Hi
[15:56:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[15:56:13] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[15:56:15] <paulew> i have some questings about xmpp...
[15:56:30] * teo1 left the chat.
[15:57:08] <Zash> shoot ;)
[15:57:42] <MattJ> You aim, then you shoot - he's aiming
[15:58:38] <paulew> we want to use xmpp as message oriented middleware, but xmpp has some features we don't need like presence... is there a way to deactivate this entire feature?
[15:59:12] <MattJ> Up to the server, but I know you can in Prosody at least (the server I develop)
[15:59:30] <paulew> ah, so this is a server-side problem?
[15:59:33] <Kev> Well, not really.
[15:59:38] <Kev> If you don't want presence, don't send presence :)
[15:59:49] <MattJ> It's no longer XMPP if you remove certain features, but that's not to say a server can't do it
[16:00:26] <MattJ> Presence is largely in 3921 anyway, so it's certainly not necessarily for the core protocol
[16:00:33] <MattJ> *necessary
[16:00:57] <paulew> (we want to use an existing xmpp-server btw)
[16:01:04] <MattJ> Good :)
[16:01:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:01:40] <jonas> you can in ejabberd filter stanzas to only allow certain types (using mod_filter)
[16:01:43] <Kev> I don't see any problem with simply not using presence.
[16:01:49] <jonas> is that how it's done in prosody?
[16:01:57] <Kev> s/using/sending/
[16:02:05] <Zash> jonas: No, you simply make it not load mod_presence
[16:02:11] <MattJ> jonas, no, we have a plugin for presence, mod_presence - you can simply unload it
[16:02:18] <MattJ> !slap Zash
[16:02:22] <MattJ> .
[16:02:35] <jonas> i see
[16:02:38] <Kev> If this is middleware, that the server would route presence if you asked it to is largely irrelevant if you don't ask it to.
[16:03:01] <paulew> erm... i thought the libraries (like smack for java) always send a presence stanza after logging in?!
[16:03:02] <Zash> MattJ: :P
[16:03:09] * smoku left the chat.
[16:03:24] <MattJ> paulew, that's more a library problem
[16:03:47] <MattJ> My client library doesn't do that at least - there are certainly many cases you don't want to send presence
[16:03:49] <paulew> i thought it is absolutely necessary to send a presence stanze ;-(
[16:03:51] <Kev> Some libraries are only suitable for writing IM clients, rather than generic XMPP.
[16:03:53] <MattJ> It's not
[16:04:01] <Kev> Some libraries are barely suitable for that :)
[16:04:06] <paulew> ok, that is the answer i wanted to hear :-)
[16:04:13] <MattJ> :)
[16:05:04] <Kev> paulew: In fact, the XMPP spec is split in two - Core and IM.
[16:05:27] <paulew> and presence is speficied in IM?
[16:05:39] <Kev> Use of it is.
[16:06:00] <Kev> The three stanza types are defined in Core, but the use of presence is IM.
[16:09:32] <paulew> i still have another question :-)
[16:09:38] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:11:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:13:14] * Kanchil joined the chat.
[16:17:21] <paulew> is there an xmpp-server that is embeddable?
[16:17:36] <MattJ> Embeddable where?
[16:18:07] <paulew> like tomcat?
[16:18:10] <paulew> or glassfish
[16:18:30] <Kev> Why would you want to do something like that? :o
[16:18:42] <MattJ> That was going to be my next question :)
[16:19:30] <paulew> we want to distribute a "all-in-one"-package
[16:20:06] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:20:23] <MattJ> and all-one-packages exclude multiple processes?
[16:20:52] <jonas> embeddable doesn't imply single processness does it
[16:21:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:21:14] <paulew> multiple processes are acceptable
[16:21:14] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:21:19] <MattJ> jonas, doesn't it?
[16:21:42] <MattJ> I guess I don't know what "embeddable" means in this context then
[16:22:28] <MattJ> If it doesn't have to be in the same process then doesn't that make anything "embeddable"?
[16:22:49] <jonas> for example embeddable yaws (the web server) means you can start it from within your application
[16:22:50] <paulew> "embedded" means it is configured and run by a java program
[16:23:14] <paulew> at least seamingly running "inside" the java program
[16:23:22] <Kev> If all it means is that configuration and spawning can happen from Java, most things would be embeddable, no?
[16:23:40] <jonas> paulew, if you want an embeddable java server maybe you should take a look if its possible with the various java implementations
[16:24:04] <jonas> well, when i read embedded, i read that it can will be "a part" of the parent application
[16:24:31] <jonas> but i assume with various layers most things can be embedded
[16:25:41] <paulew> A Java implementation would be best. But configuring and spawning from inside the Java process would be okay, too.
[16:25:45] <jonas> however to embed something in a java application it's probably most convienent to embed a java server
[16:26:07] <paulew> Such as openfire?
[16:26:14] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:26:40] <jonas> for example
[16:27:53] <paulew> okay - we'll try to embed openfire and hope it has a small footprint
[16:28:14] <paulew> thanks for your help!
[16:28:17] <Kev> Hmm.
[16:28:27] <Kev> What investigation has led you to select Openfire?
[16:28:32] <paulew> wikipedia
[16:28:40] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:28:44] <paulew> we are open to other suggestions ;-)
[16:28:57] <paulew> We just need basic federated messaging
[16:29:09] <jonas> paulew, pretty much any server implementation can be "embedded" if you simply mean spawn an external process
[16:29:10] <Kev> Unless you absolutely must embed Java, I'd strongly consider looking at something else.
[16:29:53] <paulew> alright, do you have a suggestion what to look into?
[16:30:13] <Zash> /me guesses MattJ want's to scream "Prosody" ;)
[16:30:36] <Zash> And I'd agree
[16:30:46] <Kev> If you want commercial support, I think M-Link is the best bet (I work for these guys, so it's somewhat unbiased, but I was running M-Link long before I started work there), and if you don't then I think Prosody is probably your best bet.
[16:31:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:31:42] <paulew> alright, perhaps we will find some way to conveniently "embed" lua into java
[16:31:55] <paulew> i hope you know how it is meant ;-)
[16:32:13] <Zash> Can you write C extensions to Java?
[16:32:23] <Kev> Zash: Yes, but don't go there :)
[16:32:24] <jonas> yes
[16:32:27] <paulew> There is Java Native Interface (JNI)
[16:32:28] <jonas> JNI
[16:32:49] <paulew> Maybe Luaj can do the trick: http://sourceforge.net/projects/luaj/
[16:33:10] <Kev> JNI is a last resort for when your best and brightest devs just can't find a way to make native Java unpleasant enough :)
[16:33:59] <jonas> /me develops stuff using JNI stuff at the moment
[16:34:14] <jonas> ask me if you want some rant about how painful it can be
[16:34:19] <jonas> ;)
[16:34:53] <MattJ> paulew, consider http://www.keplerproject.org/luajava/index.html
[16:35:09] <paulew> I think luajava is a jni approach
[16:35:14] <paulew> (but maybe i wont notice)
[16:35:16] <MattJ> Not that I pretend to know anything about Java development (I'd be ashamed to ;) )
[16:35:33] <paulew> Back one question: Why do you recommend prosody?
[16:36:17] <Kev> The guys writing it are competent, it's an active project, and it's not got a history of being horribly broken.
[16:36:17] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:36:19] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:36:19] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:36:19] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:36:20] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:36:24] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:36:24] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:36:24] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:36:24] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:36:39] * teo1 joined the chat.
[16:36:59] * deryni left the chat.
[16:37:15] <paulew> i get the idea.
[16:37:18] <Kev> And it tries to do XMPP, rather than approximations of it.
[16:37:36] <Kev> (Not saying that all of these are counterpoints to Openfire)
[16:37:37] * deryni joined the chat.
[16:38:04] <paulew> okay
[16:38:11] <paulew> We'll look into openfire and prosody
[16:38:17] <Kev> (Some of them are)
[16:38:23] <paulew> try to integrate/embed/... them somehow
[16:38:24] <Zash> How's tigase btw?
[16:38:29] <sjr> Does anyone know if I can get multiple vcards at the same time, is it smack that's the botle neck or the protocol?
[16:38:43] <Zash> sjr: concurrently over tcp, no
[16:38:57] <sjr> ?
[16:38:59] <sjr> say again
[16:39:00] <Kev> sjr: Sure, you can request as many as you want, it's asyncronous.
[16:39:02] <Zash> sjr: but you should be able to have multiple outstanding iq requests
[16:39:11] <sjr> Hmmmmm
[16:39:14] <MattJ> Smack is the bottleneck if I remember
[16:39:15] <sjr> oh yeah see that's what I thought
[16:39:17] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[16:39:24] <MattJ> They block on iq results if I recall
[16:39:31] <Zash> :O
[16:39:31] <Kev> Smack has some very interesting properties.
[16:39:32] <sjr> oh that's really stupid
[16:39:42] <sjr> okay well that's fine I have avatar caching
[16:39:45] <MattJ> and if the iq result isn't the one they expected, it gets thrown away - or something like tha
[16:39:46] <MattJ> t
[16:39:57] <sjr> How can I speed up presence loading
[16:40:10] <MattJ> Define "presence loading"?
[16:40:10] <sjr> it seems like some accounts @jabber.org can get a presence update of accounts on @sjrx.net faster than others.
[16:40:19] <Kev> MattJ: Oh, no, it's better than that. At least in one bit they block on response, and parse *any* response, no matter who it's from.
[16:40:25] <paulew> Is there some other Java Client lib you would recommend over smack?
[16:40:27] <MattJ> Kev, yay :)
[16:40:42] <Kev> paulew: When I needed one recently, I had to write my own.
[16:40:50] <Zash> Iq out, get message, epic fail=
[16:40:51] <paulew> Too bad you dont like java.
[16:40:51] <Zash> ?
[16:40:52] <Kev> After trying to use Smack.
[16:41:03] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[16:41:07] <sjr> so when I log in with one account on jabber.org
[16:41:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:41:13] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:41:25] <Kev> paulew: Who doesn't? I don't particularly dislike it.
[16:41:27] <sjr> it knows that about 20/30 people are online @sjrx.net within seconds
[16:41:42] <sjr> on another one it takes like 60 seconds to get that far.
[16:41:50] <paulew> Ah, it was MattJ who didnt like java
[16:41:55] <MattJ> Indeed :)
[16:42:00] <sjr> I love java
[16:42:02] <Zash> Couldn't you in theory have two connections, and do "heavy" iq requests on one, which does not announce presence
[16:42:16] <MattJ> Though the person I work with on Prosody does like it, we have "interesting" discussions :)
[16:42:17] <sjr> yeah in theory that could work Zash
[16:42:21] <sjr> but I would think they should just have callbacks.
[16:42:28] <Kev> Zash: Not with Smack, no.
[16:42:35] <sjr> Why not Kev?
[16:42:45] <Kev> Doesn't Smack automatically do roster and presence on login?
[16:42:50] <sjr> You can turn that off
[16:42:56] <Zash> (like how it's been talked about with stcp)
[16:43:08] <sjr> Smack is very configurable
[16:43:18] <sjr> I understand that VCard loading is runnable
[16:43:20] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:20] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:20] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:20] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:23] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:23] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:23] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:23] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:24] <sjr> errrr is synchronous (in the Smack API)
[16:43:27] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:27] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:27] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:43:27] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:43:34] <sjr> but I wonder why they made IQ synchronous
[16:43:43] <MattJ> No comment
[16:43:53] <sjr> no, please comment, I Want to know
[16:44:36] <MattJ> Get the advice of someone who has used it, not someone who has merely read parts of the code and heard second-hand stories of it :)
[16:45:16] <MattJ> I'll just note I rarely hear good words about it, and in Prosody we've had to work around a couple of Smack bugs
[16:46:10] <paulew> Can't we use JSO?
[16:46:13] * Paul Peard joined the chat.
[16:46:13] * Paul Peard left the chat.
[16:46:19] <paulew> (Jabber Stream Objects)
[16:50:10] <sjr> Ah
[16:50:12] <sjr> what bugs?
[16:50:25] <sjr> Is Smack not maintained very well?
[16:50:55] <sjr> Or I guess Ignite in general, there was that problem with MUC being out of order, that was allegedly caused by OpenFire
[16:51:12] <paulew> thank you for your help :-)
[16:51:18] <Kev> sjr: Jive stopped all their XMPP work about 2 years ago, I think.
[16:51:35] <sjr> hmmmm what do they do now?
[16:51:38] <Kev> paulew: JSO may be possible, I've never touched it, the license wasn't compatible with what I needed when I was looking for Java XMPP libs.
[16:51:48] <paulew> ah ok
[16:52:23] <sjr> WOW it has been a long time since a release
[16:52:27] <Kev> sjr: I don't know, my interest in them was XMPP :)
[16:52:39] <Tobias> afaik JSO doesn't even do SRV lookup
[16:54:18] * live joined the chat.
[16:54:21] <live> sfsdf
[16:54:25] <sjr> Thanks for the chat
[16:54:38] <live> fdgdfgdfgd
[16:55:01] <Zash> fgsfds!
[16:55:16] * paulew left the chat.
[16:55:45] <MattJ> We have the same problem with the Prosody webchat
[16:56:14] <MattJ> People assume that because it's a textbox on a public website and they're anonymous, it doesn't really matter whether they contribute to the discussion :)
[16:56:15] <Kev> Tobias: That's ok, neither does Smack (correctly)
[16:56:43] <Kev> Smack does the SRV lookup and then chooses a result completely arbitrarily, afaics.
[16:56:45] <Zash> MattJ: Applies to pretty much the entire internet ;)
[16:57:01] <Kev> (It always connects to my fallback cluster node, for example, not the main one that it should)
[16:57:40] <sjr> What server you running Kev?
[16:57:47] <Kev> M-Link
[16:58:12] <jonas> Kev, there is some kind of activity on the server recently
[16:58:41] <sjr> there flash based clients have activity
[16:58:49] <Kev> jonas: What do you mean?
[17:00:17] <jonas> (you said jive stopped their XMPP work 2 years ago)
[17:00:28] <Kev> Ah, right, *that* server :)
[17:01:17] <Zash> Wasn't there a recent update to it?
[17:01:40] <jonas> 3.7.0 beta release 3 months ago according to their website
[17:01:45] <Kev> I think it finaly got the security update to fix the "Any user can trivially root the server" bug.
[17:01:54] <Kev> Although I'm not sure.
[17:02:00] <Kev> *finally
[17:02:10] <jonas> what security update fix? :o
[17:02:26] <Kev> (Of course, it can only root the server if the service was running as root, which no self-respecting admin would be doing, I know)
[17:02:36] <Zash> jonas: Yes. (With my (lack of) sence of time, that is recent)
[17:02:59] <Kev> jonas: That any user can change the admin user's password, and then log in as them, including through the web interface, and then play with plugins for remote code execution etc.
[17:03:09] <Kev> Well, any user's password, not just the admin's
[17:03:18] <Kev> just that the admin's is most interesting.
[17:03:28] <jonas> sounds like a nice bug
[17:03:40] <Kev> Yes, very, but don't worry, you can turn off the password changing feature.
[17:03:50] <sjr> Any user of the local server?
[17:03:53] <Kev> Thereby preventing anyone from realising they can exploit the bug.
[17:03:56] <sjr> Or any user on the entire XMPP Network?
[17:04:14] <Kev> I say 'realising', because I've been told this didn't actually stop the server supporting the password changes, it just stopped it advertising it.
[17:04:15] <jonas> in what software?
[17:04:32] <Kev> sjr: I *think* it had to be a local user. I do not know.
[17:04:35] <Kev> jonas: Openfire.
[17:04:35] <sjr> Okay
[17:04:36] <sjr> hmmmm
[17:04:41] <jonas> aha
[17:04:41] <sjr> maybe I should find the bug report for this
[17:04:47] <jonas> interesting
[17:05:04] <jonas> anyway, of for today, bye people
[17:05:07] <Kev> Bibi.
[17:05:08] * jonas left the chat.
[17:05:43] <Kev> To some extent this is hearsay, as I never verified the vulnerabilities myself, but people I trust believe they were there.
[17:17:00] * louiz’ left the chat.
[17:17:06] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[17:17:13] * louiz’ left the chat.
[17:17:22] * louiz’ joined the chat.
[17:28:01] * Tobias left the chat.
[17:57:06] * tkoski joined the chat.
[18:02:18] * petermount left the chat.
[18:28:38] * nabatt left the chat.
[18:46:08] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[18:57:26] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[19:05:35] * Ludovic left the chat.
[19:05:41] * Ludovic joined the chat.
[19:26:06] * florob42 joined the chat.
[19:27:51] * mlundblad joined the chat.
[19:45:21] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[20:04:51] * tkoski left the chat.
[20:05:39] * live left the chat.
[20:59:41] * Zash left the chat.
[21:08:53] * florob42 left the chat.
[21:20:43] * ermine left the chat.
[21:26:20] * hawke joined the chat.
[21:44:07] * Ludovic left the chat.
[22:07:45] * Florob joined the chat.
[22:36:48] * Zash joined the chat.
[23:01:34] * Florob left the chat.
[23:05:21] * mlundblad left the chat.
[23:06:41] <Zash> What does one tell someone who think's that NAT is the best security measure ever?
[23:07:46] <louiz’> That it's not
[23:08:07] <Zash> and apparently UPnP is the best thing ever too
[23:09:20] <louiz’> routers are the best armors ever
[23:10:19] <Link Mauve> And IPv6 is evil, all devices are publics, so we need NAT for IPv6!
[23:10:21] <MattJ> Zash, are you speaking to louiz’? :)
[23:10:36] <Zash> MattJ: no
[23:10:49] <Zash> Link Mauve: almost, but yes on the last part :(
[23:10:58] <Link Mauve> Zash? oO
[23:11:05] <darkrain> ...no, we don't need NAT on IPv6.
[23:11:20] <Link Mauve> Never NAT on IPv6, it's that that is evil!
[23:19:39] * hawke left the chat.
[23:21:40] * Tobias joined the chat.
[23:28:58] <Zash> We should redesign XMPP to go over SOAP over HTTP over UDP, since that clearly is superiour in every way
[23:29:26] <Zash> And authentication is overrated
[23:29:33] <darkrain> think you forgot a few layers of IP over <foo>
[23:29:42] <darkrain> e.g. IP over ICMP over IP over DNS
[23:30:56] <Zash> "UPnP stack consists of several technologies: SSDP (Simple Service Discovery Protocol), GENA (Generic Event Notification Architecture), SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and XML"
[23:31:13] <Zash> Anything using SOAP must be awesome
[23:31:27] <darkrain> UPnP is pretty awful
[23:31:34] <MattJ> UPnP is a great concept
[23:31:42] <MattJ> An awful awful implementation ^^
[23:31:42] <darkrain> Which part of it?
[23:31:56] <MattJ> The generic "I'm this and you can tell me to do this" part of it
[23:31:58] <Zash> The concept of allowing any host to forward any port anywhere?
[23:32:08] <darkrain> Zash: That's only one small part of what UPnP can do
[23:32:09] <MattJ> Not the gateway stuff
[23:32:16] <Zash> That's IGD,yeah
[23:32:51] <Zash> MattJ: I like ZeroConf more
[23:35:58] <Zash> aka avahi, bonjour
[23:38:01] <louiz’> Bonjour, ça va ?
[23:38:05] <louiz’> (sorry)
[23:38:13] <Zash> ;)
[23:50:44] * Tobias left the chat.
[23:51:28] * Zash left the chat.