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

[Trejkaz Xaoza]

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:12, you wrote:
> By contrast, Jabber is not 'the only game in town' when it comes to
> instant messaging.  In fact, if it's trying to become a popular
> end-user IM solution, instead of just a corporate solution (where, yes,
> it is in a much smaller playing field), then it is actually struggling
> against several very-entrenched players.  Each of the Sendmail
> alternatives offered something to the target audience (system
> administrators): better performance, less security holes, modular
> design, etc.

A second ago we were talking about one implementation of a protocol, but now 
we're talking about a protocol in a sea of closed protocols.  I'm sure there 
were plenty of closed electronic mail implementations when Sendmail reared 
its head too, and their existence is largely irrelevant here.

Why?  Well, if you think it's so hard to set up Jabberd, try setting up an MSN 
server.  What's that, you can't?  Why not?  Too hard?  Maybe the best selling 
point of Jabber is "that you can."

The competitors in the space I was really talking about are Ejabberd and 
Jabberd.  Ejabberd is probably far better on the usability side... I wouldn't 
know, as it still can't do virtual hosting, which would be the top priority 
feature if it were to take the place of Jabberd on a server which uses this 
feature.

Jabberd is less than ideal, but only because whatever distributions are 
shipping it, must be shipping it with a configuration which simply doesn't 
work.  If it worked, there wouldn't be so much criticism around here.

Is Apache so easy to set up?  Hell no.
    Start with a blank configuration, and now you tell me what needs to be 
added to make it work.  You might know, but if you know, then you're probably 
an expert.
    Start with the sample config which came in the distribution and it might 
work, but it won't necessarily help.
    But install it from a distro's packages, and the configuration _there_ 
will work out of the box.  There is your ease of use for Apache.

Now Jabberd.
    Starting with a blank configuration, hard as always.
    Starting with the sample config, you have to replace a few strings, 
basically the same as Apache... the server name, admin names, and a couple of 
other things.
    But again, install it from a competent distro's packages, and the 
configuration is supposed to work out of the box.

That there is still so much criticism directed at Jabberd for its difficulty 
to get working, reflects not only on Jabberd itself, but on the people who 
created packages for their distros, which were supposed to work out of the 
box.

So why don't we direct the attention _there_?  If all Jabber packages on all 
distros worked out of the box, would there still be a good excuse not to run 
it?

TX

-- 
'Every sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' - 
Arthur C Clarke
'Every sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology' - Tom 
Graves

             Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz at xaoza.net>
          Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
         Jabber ID: trejkaz at jabber.xaoza.net
   GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F  A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.jabber.org/jdev/attachments/20040902/64af5fdd/attachment-0002.pgp>