Logs for jdev

Show join/part/nick changes:

[00:35:23] <ralphm> I guess the FSF can start typing again
[01:12:33] * ralphm left the chat.
[01:15:02] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[01:19:09] * Lance left the chat.
[01:56:03] * Tobias left the chat.
[01:56:05] * Tobias joined the chat.
[02:02:53] * Tobias_ joined the chat.
[02:07:32] * Tobias left the chat.
[02:12:00] * Lance joined the chat.
[02:28:26] * Tobias_ left the chat.
[03:35:26] * Tobias joined the chat.
[04:22:47] * Lance left the chat.
[04:33:33] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[05:04:34] * vorner joined the chat.
[05:09:09] * Asterix joined the chat.
[05:09:41] * Asterix left the chat.
[05:10:37] * Asterix joined the chat.
[05:19:05] * Lance joined the chat.
[05:30:07] * Asterix left the chat.
[05:38:31] * vorner left the chat.
[05:45:56] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[05:49:03] * fippo joined the chat.
[06:01:15] * ermine joined the chat.
[06:08:12] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[06:10:43] * fippo left the chat.
[06:10:48] * fippo joined the chat.
[06:23:11] * vorner joined the chat.
[06:24:46] * deryni left the chat.
[06:32:43] * Alex joined the chat.
[06:35:55] * fippo left the chat.
[06:41:23] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[06:57:36] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[07:08:31] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[07:13:12] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[07:18:04] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[07:21:13] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[07:21:24] * fippo joined the chat.
[07:23:00] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[07:26:16] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[07:27:07] * 0xAFFE joined the chat.
[07:28:04] * Tobias left the chat.
[07:29:42] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[07:32:27] * Guus joined the chat.
[07:34:10] * bear left the chat.
[07:38:49] * 0xAFFE left the chat.
[07:39:43] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[07:39:43] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[07:42:28] * akuckartz joined the chat.
[07:43:15] * 0xAFFE joined the chat.
[07:53:01] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[07:53:06] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[07:53:06] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[07:53:10] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[07:54:12] * Tobias joined the chat.
[07:55:26] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[07:55:34] * Tobias_ joined the chat.
[07:55:38] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[07:55:57] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[07:57:37] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[07:59:22] * Tobias left the chat.
[08:00:32] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[08:00:52] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[08:04:30] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[08:15:34] * fippo left the chat.
[08:38:25] * Lloyd joined the chat.
[08:44:49] * muyan joined the chat.
[08:46:30] * muyan left the chat.
[09:00:49] * Tobias_ left the chat.
[09:00:49] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[09:05:51] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[09:12:46] * MattJ joined the chat.
[09:17:43] * Beanow_ joined the chat.
[09:28:30] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[09:35:13] <dwd> Jonas Lindberg replied to me on G+ - "Hangouts will replace Google Talk and does not support XMPP".
[09:35:28] * Schnouki joined the chat.
[09:37:02] <Alex> :(
[09:37:41] <Lloyd> They'd hinted at this already so it wasn't a big surprise… unfortunately.
[09:38:49] <dwd> They'd certainly rambled in that direction.
[09:39:03] <dwd> Still, we lost Vodafone and Nokia without it killing us.
[09:40:39] <Beanow_> Still. Ouch.
[09:43:16] * Beanow_ left the chat.
[09:45:42] * Beanow_ joined the chat.
[09:51:03] * Tobias joined the chat.
[09:56:19] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[09:57:28] * Lance left the chat.
[10:01:14] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[10:01:42] <dwd> https://plus.google.com/u/0/113758476234924638125/posts/45rPGEZvsS2
[10:01:51] <dwd> "No s2s support. Limited c2s support (1:1 messaging, but not video hangouts, group conv, photos, etc)."
[10:06:24] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[10:10:24] <Guus> Ouch indeed.
[10:11:21] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[10:16:24] <vorner> That much for standardization. I wouldn't say a word if they dropped it on c2s. But s2s, that's almost like dropping SMTP for email.
[10:16:24] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[10:21:25] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[10:24:53] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:29:57] <Alex> the big players care only about user count, standardization makes it much easier for users to switch. Very sad at all, they also don't care about devices and operating system with a lower marketshare
[10:33:04] <vorner> Yes, and we need to make sure that doesn't work for them. In case of google, it'll be harder for them to close it up, since users there will lose contacts. I'm intending to take as many users from them as I can, with that thread as an argument.
[10:34:59] * Tobias joined the chat.
[10:43:14] <vorner> But it would be cool if xmpp clients worked in a more reliable way, for that ☹
[10:48:58] * Tobias left the chat.
[10:57:30] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[10:57:34] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[10:57:39] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:00:49] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[11:02:30] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[11:03:52] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:10:30] * Schnouki left the chat.
[11:10:40] * Schnouki joined the chat.
[11:10:45] <Beanow_> @vorner, like what?
[11:11:49] * hello.3 joined the chat.
[11:11:49] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[11:11:57] <Beanow_> Clients work decent for me. Pidgin and Xabber being my picks.
[11:12:45] <Beanow_> I find the issues to be file transfers and the "but all my friends are on WhatsApp" argument.
[11:13:10] <vorner> Well, file transfers work like in 10% cases, calls like in 15%. Most of the clients don't support calls. Sometimes, messages get lost.
[11:13:38] <vorner> And, with pidgin, I even manage to freeze some of the versions remotely.
[11:13:53] <Beanow_> The only 'lost' message I had were when they were delivered to 1 specific resource a split second before it disconnects.
[11:13:54] <dwd> vorner, I've not seen messages getting really-lost in a long while.
[11:14:00] <vorner> That's not what I'd call smooth experience.
[11:14:48] <dwd> vorner, I've seen them not delivered, but I know when that happens. Typically it's an edge-case. I see messages which don't get a receipt when the client thinks they ought to much more often.
[11:14:55] <vorner> dwd: Then you don't use weak wireless or connect tethered by a phone from a train. If the connection goes down, there's time before it times out.
[11:15:01] * Tobias joined the chat.
[11:15:19] <vorner> dwd: If more clients supported receipts…
[11:15:33] <vorner> My roster is full of people with pidgins which doesn't support them.
[11:15:49] * hello.3 left the chat.
[11:16:14] <dwd> vorner, I've used both weak wireless and I was conducting meetings over XMPP on the train several years back, when GPRS was in vogue.
[11:16:34] <vorner> Well, in Czech republic, it still is.
[11:16:51] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[11:18:57] <Beanow_> So what are we going to do about this?
[11:19:19] <dwd> Nothing much we can do.
[11:19:24] <Beanow_> Maybe we should elect a reference server and client per platform?
[11:19:34] <vorner> About the experience, or about google? Not that I'd have any useful idea about either.
[11:19:36] <dwd> No, that'd only ever generate arguments.
[11:19:43] <Beanow_> The experience I mean.
[11:20:29] <vorner> Maybe we could create test descriptions for the clients. Like under which circumstances the file transfers should work and how.
[11:20:45] <vorner> Because, my impression is, it's not protocol problem, its mostly buggy implementations.
[11:21:10] <vorner> I've seen file transfer fail on the same LAN actually.
[11:21:12] <dwd> I could be wrong, but my understanding was that if both clients support Jingle and *at least* IBB, then file transfers just work.
[11:21:32] <dwd> And yes, they have to support both properly.
[11:22:05] <vorner> dwd: Unless one of the clients screws it up somehow. And I haven't seen a jingle-filetransfer capable client yet. The socks-whatever is still supported in many, though.
[11:22:05] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[11:22:18] <dwd> Swift, I think.
[11:24:46] <Beanow_> Either way, my impression is that XMPP could use a funded support like Canonical is to Ubuntu and the linux community at large.
[11:25:11] <Beanow_> Google was not as friendly as Canonical by far.
[11:25:21] <vorner> Well, Canonical is probably hurting linux comunity more than helping it.
[11:25:24] <dwd> Possibly... but funded to do *what*, exactly?
[11:25:40] <dwd> vorner, That too. Canonical is helping Ubuntu at the cost of interop between distros, at this point.
[11:26:08] <vorner> Like the things with Mir vs. Wayland. IMO even Wayland was a bad idea to start with.
[11:26:15] <Beanow_> At this point yes. But it's the biggest leap in desktop usability I've seen.
[11:26:20] <dwd> Beanow_, Bear in mind that the XSF exists, and is even funded (partly, ironically, by Google).
[11:26:55] <Beanow_> Does the XSF make clients and servers?
[11:26:56] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[11:26:57] <dwd> Beanow_, Right now, all it works on is specification management, and some outreach. Outreach is difficult to fund and organize, though.
[11:27:06] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[11:28:30] <dwd> Beanow_, The problem with the XSF "making" software is that it would likely lead to problems with open-source versus closed versus half-open. So, for example, Isode would get no help, Tiogase might get some, but Tigase gets money currently from large deployments. Same with Process 1.
[11:29:12] <dwd> Beanow_, And I'm not sure Prosody needs money to operate. Hard to see what more it could do.
[11:29:31] <dwd> Beanow_, The XSF could give recognition, though - but that's harder to arrange and more contentious.
[11:30:14] * Tobias left the chat.
[11:30:57] <Beanow_> Then what are your thoughts on raising the bar quality wise?
[11:31:25] <Beanow_> As in, how would you approach it?
[11:31:34] <dwd> I'm genuinely not sure.
[11:31:58] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[11:32:03] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[11:32:16] <Beanow_> I'm just throwing thoughts out there myself.
[11:33:08] <vorner> Some kind of test suite. List clients & servers by how many percent tests they passed?
[11:33:16] <vorner> Like there was the acid CSS test, or something?
[11:33:21] <Beanow_> Hmm,
[11:33:27] <dwd> vorner, Yeah, test suites have been tried before.
[11:33:28] <Beanow_> That's an interesting one.
[11:34:07] <vorner> If it doesn't get publicity, it could at least find bugs and report them.
[11:34:33] <dwd> vorner, The problem there is an economical one - there doesn't seem to be any reason for people to work on a generalized testing suite. So the only way I can see to get one started would be for the XSF to actually hire someone, or some company, to write the basics.
[11:35:58] <Beanow_> I would donate to croudfund that.
[11:35:59] <dwd> I think the closest thing the XSF has to a test suite in all practicality is the jabber.org service - and that's not what it's for at all.
[11:36:08] <vorner> I don't know if it would be possible to create one generalized and automated. At least not for the clients. But some document (in more human-readable form than a XEP, possibly) with something like: • Set up two clients with different accounts on the same LAN, no firewall. Try transfer file from one to another. Etc.
[11:36:31] <vorner> It could be automated for servers, though.
[11:36:39] <dwd> vorner, Could run a service mark, mind, like "WiFi".
[11:37:09] <vorner> dwd: I didn't parse that.
[11:37:26] <Beanow_> Ubuntu has a go at this with the laptop testing groups.
[11:37:29] <dwd> vorner, So IEEE 802.11 is wireless ethernet.
[11:38:03] <dwd> vorner, "WiFi" is a service mark which is granted for use by devices which have passed testing by an independent group.
[11:38:31] <vorner> Ah, I see. Yes, a badge „This passed the test“.
[11:38:33] <dwd> vorner, So in the case of XMPP, the XSF could establish a similar mark, and do the testing.
[11:39:00] <dwd> I think that device manufacturers need to pay money to the WiFi people for the testing, which seems reasonable.
[11:40:27] <Beanow_> Why would device manufacturers do that? Do they rely on the interop?
[11:41:10] <dwd> Beanow_, If you want a IEE 802.11 card, I'm guessing you look for "WiFi", right?
[11:41:14] <vorner> Beanow_: It sells better if there's the mark „WiFi“ on it. If you go to your favorite computer store, you'll be searching for a wifi card, not IEEE 802.11.
[11:41:31] * Schnouki left the chat.
[11:41:49] <vorner> If you don't pass these tests on a tablet, then you can't really say „WiFi: Yes“, because you could get sued.
[11:41:55] <Beanow_> Oh wait I missed that you meant it not in XMPP context.
[11:42:15] <Beanow_> I thought you were talking about a wifi reliability test for XMPP clients/servers.
[11:44:30] <Beanow_> Ok but, most clients are not selling. So to get some leverage I think there should be some way of getting 'most of the mark' free and automated.
[11:44:46] <Beanow_> To get the name of it out there.
[11:45:37] <dwd> We can crowd-fund those, to some degree.
[11:45:59] <dwd> For that matter, a lot of the more popular clients have some serious backers.
[11:46:12] <dwd> You'd be amazed at where pidgin gets used, for instance.
[11:46:27] <Beanow_> Hmm,
[11:46:46] <Beanow_> So there is money. It's just not going towards an epic experience yet.
[11:47:26] <Beanow_> Still if none of the users care about a mark backers wouldn't either.
[11:47:33] <dwd> Right.
[11:49:10] <Beanow_> It would definitely need to be a resource for users from the start. "I'm picking client X because it has the highest rating on the XSF test"
[11:50:55] <Beanow_> The same should have a good effect on servers. Telling your manager: we're implementing server X because it's the best in the tests.
[11:51:16] <vorner> Wish it worked that way. Most of it is „I use pidgin. That's what was installed in the system by default“
[11:52:04] <Beanow_> Then it needs a website, like browsehappy.
[11:53:05] <Beanow_> I'm sure the XMPP community has a lot more people aware of reasons to have good software compared to WhatsApp or GTalk.
[11:55:53] <Beanow_> I mean if it's possible for IE to lose market share because of this in spite of heavy lock-ins and massively being pre-installed, it should be possible here too :P
[11:56:56] * jcea joined the chat.
[11:56:57] <dwd> But WhatsApp and GTalk users are the market we need to be addressing.
[11:58:15] <Beanow_> If the aim is to raise quality standards amongst clients that do support interoperability, I don't suppose it is.
[11:58:41] <Beanow_> Many of the people I got to use XMPP went back to WhatsApp or Gtalk because it works more smoothly.
[12:00:18] <Beanow_> Still, it is important to get the message through that centralization stinks :P
[12:02:26] * fippo joined the chat.
[12:08:43] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[12:10:06] * Schnouki joined the chat.
[12:17:44] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[12:28:25] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[12:36:32] * Tobias joined the chat.
[12:41:35] * naw joined the chat.
[12:44:49] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[12:44:50] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[12:47:50] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[13:02:12] * whatever joined the chat.
[13:13:36] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[13:15:33] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[13:15:41] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[13:18:39] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[13:26:12] * jabberjocke left the chat.
[13:36:43] * naw left the chat.
[13:39:03] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[13:43:56] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[13:51:55] * fippo left the chat.
[13:57:31] * Tobias left the chat.
[14:25:34] * Neustradamus left the chat.
[14:27:31] * Neustradamus joined the chat.
[14:45:04] * darkrain_ joined the chat.
[14:51:34] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[14:54:55] * Alex left the chat.
[14:55:20] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[14:55:21] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[14:58:09] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[15:07:26] * vorner left the chat.
[15:10:46] * psa joined the chat.
[15:11:37] * stpeter joined the chat.
[15:15:19] * jcea left the chat.
[15:17:57] * jcea joined the chat.
[15:28:38] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[15:33:34] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[15:39:48] * jcea left the chat.
[15:50:20] * ralphm joined the chat.
[16:05:57] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:06:46] * jcea joined the chat.
[16:11:04] * Guus left the chat.
[16:14:11] * vorner left the chat.
[16:14:59] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:16:46] * StackOverflow joined the chat.
[16:19:29] * jmedev joined the chat.
[16:20:54] * vorner left the chat.
[16:22:09] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:22:46] * vorner left the chat.
[16:23:42] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:24:34] * jmedev left the chat.
[16:29:34] * vorner left the chat.
[16:30:58] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:30:58] * vorner left the chat.
[16:30:58] * vorner joined the chat.
[16:32:36] * Alex joined the chat.
[16:32:41] * 0xAFFE left the chat.
[16:35:08] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[16:36:26] * Lloyd left the chat.
[16:53:43] * Lance joined the chat.
[16:54:14] <ralphm> https://plus.google.com/u/0/116276248303121270590/posts/V7LzUzj8R4D
[16:59:12] * vorner left the chat.
[17:04:53] * StackOverflow left the chat.
[17:12:10] * StackOverflow joined the chat.
[17:27:40] * Tobias joined the chat.
[17:29:25] * Tobias left the chat.
[17:33:17] * Lance left the chat.
[17:38:53] * ralphm left the chat.
[17:49:37] * Asterix joined the chat.
[17:57:21] * lehrblogger joined the chat.
[18:01:00] * psa left the chat.
[18:05:41] * Lance joined the chat.
[18:07:56] * Beanow_ left the chat.
[18:08:21] * lehrblogger left the chat.
[18:14:54] * naw joined the chat.
[18:16:37] * Tobias joined the chat.
[18:19:28] * stpeter left the chat.
[18:34:29] * lehrblogger joined the chat.
[18:36:58] * Schnouki left the chat.
[18:44:06] * ralphm joined the chat.
[18:58:46] * jabberjocke joined the chat.
[19:01:14] <Asterix> Hi, I have a SSL cert question: let's say a server is on jabber.host.com server, it servs @example.com domain. the SSL certificat must be valid for example.com, right? not for javver.host.com?
[19:01:30] <Link Mauve> Yes.
[19:02:03] <Link Mauve> Or else if you can get the control of the DNS server, you’d be able to serve a valid certificate to the unsuspecting users.
[19:02:10] <Asterix> so all google apps domain don't have a correct certificate? or can it be configured when configuring the gaps?
[19:02:10] <Link Mauve> Which would miss the point, right? :)
[19:02:24] <Asterix> yep right
[19:02:33] <Link Mauve> I don’t know anything about google’s implementation, sorry.
[19:02:48] <Link Mauve> Except it’s soon finished. :(
[19:03:11] <Asterix> nor I do, but a user is complaining (but he understands the problem though ...): http://trac.gajim.org/ticket/7253
[19:03:25] <Asterix> yep ... so I'll be soon able to close the ticket :)
[19:03:43] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:03:44] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:04:49] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:09:33] <Lance> Asterix: yeah, if you actually verify certs, that's a problem. Pretty much the only way to make it user friendly *and* compliant is to detect that it's a google server, and change the dialog to a "This looks like a Google Apps server. Is that correct?" type wording.
[19:10:29] <Lance> and then pin the cert fingerprint to the domain and just check that it hasn't changed the next time you connect
[19:10:46] <Asterix> ok, thanks for information. I won't do that for a dying service ...
[19:10:56] <Lance> yeah :/
[19:12:02] <Asterix> just for information, how would you check if it's a gapps server?
[19:12:02] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:13:49] <Lance> if it's *.google.com, or whatever domain google is using for apps
[19:15:59] <Lance> yeah, checking an apps domain, they look like *.l.google.com
[19:16:55] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:17:11] <Asterix> yep indeed
[19:17:11] <Asterix> ok thanks
[19:17:15] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:17:33] <Asterix> it seems to be talk*.l.google.com
[19:18:11] <Lance> yeah, although i have seen an xmpp-server.l.google.com before
[19:18:23] <Asterix> ok
[19:21:59] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:22:40] * psa joined the chat.
[19:23:01] * stpeter joined the chat.
[19:23:22] * Lance_ joined the chat.
[19:23:22] * Lance left the chat.
[19:29:09] <Lance_> stpeter: question about websocket and dns. the xsf/xmpp registrar maintains the alternative dns connection lookup registry, so is it appropriate to request registration of a websocket entry in the i-d, or make a new xep to do that?
[19:29:32] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:29:43] <Lance_> (i'm trying to push and get the i-d done and out today)
[19:30:58] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:30:59] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:30:59] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:30:59] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:31:01] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:31:01] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[19:33:15] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[19:38:06] <stpeter> /me wanders back in
[19:38:35] <stpeter> Lance: good question
[19:38:52] <stpeter> /me ponders
[19:42:38] <stpeter> Lance: it can't hurt to define the "alternative connection method" stuff for WebSocket
[19:42:54] <stpeter> but that can be done directly with the XMPP Registrar -- see Section 7.1.1 of XEP-0156
[19:43:05] <stpeter> or send it to the standards@xmpp.org list
[19:43:44] <Lance_> ok, so that doesn't need to be explicitly in a standards document, like how we do iana stuff
[19:44:07] <stpeter> yeah, the XMPP Registrar is not as formal as our IANA friends ;-)
[19:44:31] <stpeter> but it might be good to say something about it in the spec
[19:44:36] <stpeter> in an informational manner
[19:44:42] <Lance_> right
[19:45:05] <stpeter> just so that people know that's available
[19:45:33] <Lance_> doesn't really help for the browser case, since you can't do arbitrary dns lookups there, but it's good for completeness
[19:45:35] <stpeter> I wonder if people have been registering separate ports for websocket subprotocols
[19:45:37] <stpeter> it seems not
[19:47:02] <stpeter> do you think that people will offer xmpp-over-websocket at the same port as BOSH?
[19:47:13] <Lance_> yep. prosody does that already
[19:47:34] <Lance_> makes perfect sense to do it that way, really
[19:47:49] <stpeter> yes, I think so
[19:48:03] <stpeter> thus we might want to point out the existing registration for port 5280
[19:48:09] <stpeter> /me loves that port number
[19:48:42] <Tobias> wasn't that someones phone #?
[19:48:42] <stpeter> it's a bit of an inside joke
[19:49:02] <Lance_> where was 5280 registered?
[19:49:19] <stpeter> Tobias: no, BOSH was invented (mostly by DizzyD) in Denver, which has an elevation of 5280 feet above sea level
[19:49:32] <Lance_> ah, it was xep-0124
[19:49:43] <stpeter> I registered it with IANA
[19:50:08] <stpeter> well, with my XMPP Registrar hat on
[19:50:17] <Lance_> of course :)
[19:50:20] <Tobias> stpeter, was it the 5269 port then?
[19:50:51] <stpeter> 5222 is "JABB" on (at least American) phones, 5269 is "JBOX"
[19:51:06] <Lance_> haha, nice!
[19:51:34] <stpeter> jbox was envisioned as the s2s component (or something) in the very early jabberd days
[19:51:58] <stpeter> http://www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/ has the registration of port 5280
[19:52:12] <stpeter> brb
[19:55:25] <Tobias> did old jabber inc actually have either of those as phone #?
[19:57:28] <Link Mauve> Wasn’t that components 5347 instead?
[20:01:57] <stpeter> on the phone, bbiab
[20:06:33] * luca tagliaferri joined the chat.
[20:06:53] * luca tagliaferri left the chat.
[20:12:31] * Asterix left the chat.
[20:14:00] * lehrblogger left the chat.
[20:14:43] * lehrblogger joined the chat.
[20:26:13] * Lance_ left the chat.
[20:29:53] * vorner joined the chat.
[20:37:10] * Lance joined the chat.
[20:48:28] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[20:49:38] * whatever left the chat.
[20:50:27] * vorner joined the chat.
[20:50:27] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[20:50:29] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[20:51:27] * vorner left the chat.
[20:52:09] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[20:58:20] * vorner left the chat.
[20:59:50] * vorner joined the chat.
[21:04:29] * whatever joined the chat.
[21:17:20] * ralphm left the chat.
[21:22:37] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[21:25:49] * bear joined the chat.
[21:27:38] * spencer.macdonald joined the chat.
[21:39:35] * spencer.macdonald left the chat.
[21:40:15] * vorner left the chat.
[21:40:28] * vorner joined the chat.
[21:41:07] <Lance> oh man, this is great. google's cloud messaging service now uses xmpp to let apps send data to android devices
[21:41:23] <Lance> and for cross device messaging, and device to app server, etc
[21:41:39] <Tobias> Lance, that's a new announcment from current i/o?
[21:41:42] <Lance> yep
[21:41:49] <Tobias> muahahahaah
[21:41:49] <Lance> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXPAXKb-LQE&feature=youtu.be
[21:41:55] <Lance> starts at 4:50:00
[21:42:15] <vorner> That's real cool. But they are going to drop s2s for normal chat. Makes real sense :-|
[21:42:17] <Lance> it uses a custom gcm element in message stanzas, containing json payloads
[21:42:44] <vorner> Even better :-D
[21:43:08] * naw left the chat.
[21:43:16] <Lance> at least they namespaced it :) my immediate fear was that they were abusing the body element
[21:43:51] <stpeter> /me shakes his head
[21:44:13] <vorner> Then it would be easier to debug, you could look at the messages in your client and possibly answer :-P
[21:45:38] <Lance> so, the fun question now is, what was all of this about running xmpp on mobile being hard/bad?
[21:46:23] <stpeter> :-)
[21:48:07] <Tobias> sadly XMPP isn't up for the job of cloud
[21:49:06] <vorner> Tobias: why not? What is missing?
[21:49:34] <Tobias> oh...wrong day of the week for irony i see
[21:50:26] <Lance> vorner: one of google's devs interviewed about hangouts said xmpp wasn't suitable because it was old, and designed before cloud services
[21:50:30] <vorner> Sorry, it's near midnight here. I may have less sense for that now, especially in the context of google.
[21:51:10] <stpeter> I'm waiting to hear that they're dropping HTTP -- talk about a pre-cloud protocol! and how about TCP and UDP, too?
[21:51:39] <Lance> stpeter: spdy :p
[21:52:12] <stpeter> but SPDY is still over TCP, right?
[21:52:16] <stpeter> so old-fashioned!
[21:52:27] <stpeter> we need a completely new Internet stack
[21:52:37] <stpeter> hey, call it the GoogleNet
[21:52:53] <Lance> gOSI
[21:53:24] <stpeter> heehee
[21:54:45] * Alex left the chat.
[21:56:45] <vorner> Actually, I did ask one of my friends who works at Google about when they are going to drop SMTP. He didn't answer, though. I guess he wasn't allowed to.
[21:58:14] <psa> :)
[22:00:00] * vorner left the chat.
[22:00:42] <stpeter> strange: it's almost as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing at Google
[22:00:58] <stpeter> one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away
[22:01:12] <Lance> i guess they did get the message the xmpp != just chat
[22:01:44] <stpeter> maybe it's the federation that they find annoying
[22:02:26] <Tobias> stpeter, yeah...the spam issue and so
[22:02:36] <stpeter> sure, I understand
[22:02:48] <stpeter> it's not a lot of fun to run a large public chat service
[22:02:56] <stpeter> I feel your pain :-)
[22:14:59] * StackOverflow left the chat.
[22:29:25] * stpeter left the chat.
[22:29:33] * psa left the chat.
[22:31:00] * ralphm joined the chat.
[22:41:46] * MattJ left the chat.
[23:08:10] * darkrain_ left the chat.
[23:10:57] * ⁄⁄♫⁄ joined the chat.
[23:15:06] * ⁄⁄♫⁄ left the chat.
[23:21:59] * jcea left the chat.
[23:30:42] * lehrblogger left the chat.