[jdev] Re: Re: The State of Our Code-bases

[Jacek Konieczny]

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 12:48:39AM -0500, Nolan Eakins wrote:
> So why aren't ISPs giving out Jabber accounts yet? That's gotta do with the
> state of our code-bases. An ISP isn't going to setup a buggy, incomplete,
> and hard to manage server. They need the equivalent of an Apache, something
> they do setup and use.

I have just switched from jabberd 1.4.x to ejabberd. And it works,
nearly out of the box (much better than jabberd 2). It is much more
complete than both jabberd 1.4.x and jabberd 2. It is much more stable
than jabberd2 (that I could tell after an hour of usage). It is easy to
manage (Web and Jabber (probably tkabber only) administrator interface).
It is maintained. The only real problem was SSL bug in Erlang (how to
patch it is described in ejabberd bug tracker) and bugs in some clients
(most of them were written to work with buggy, not XMPP-compliant
jabberd).

The only thing that makes it not the most popular server is the language
it is written in -- Erlang. If no one has managed to make a good server
in C yet, then it may mean that C is not that good for that purpose and
Erlang is a good tool. And some of people still insist on making another
("the right one") C implementation of Jabber server... 

Writting from scratch server "reference implementation" in Python is not
a solution either. It would take months to make anything usable. And
first we need someone who wants to do that, who is able to do that and
who has enough time to do that.

And the one of most important reasons why XMPP is not being widely used
is that "jabber.org" doesn't talk XMPP. jabber.org is often treated as
the "reference" server and is the first Jabber experience for many
users -- including geeks who develop Jabber software later.

I guess most clients would get basic XMPP compatibility if jabber.org
was talking XMPP.

Greets,
	Jacek