Neowin.net

i have nothing to say neither. just wanted to be below the first post.

uuumm.. ok...

quit staring.

*runs away*

people like u should not be allowed here

Your contacts won't need a Gmail address te communicate with them through GTalk. It's enough if they use the XMPP protocol (with some other Jabber client).

Last edited by Blaxje on 17 Jan 2006 - 18:29

And we can do this now, or later. Like can I add some @hotmail.com or @yahoo.com address to my google talk now, and speak to someone on yahoo through google talk?

It works just like email.

You email bob@someplace.com, your mail server contacts someplace.com to send the message.
You IM bob@someplace.com, your Jabber server contacts someplace.com to send the message.

In both cases, the domain has to be running the appropriate server. So, you can't add hotmail.com or yahoo.com people, since neither hotmail nor yahoo are running Jabber servers.

It's basically email but instantaneous

Hail trillian baby!

No they're not, because the jabber protocol is a a bloated piece of c, that is slow and will clog network fast with the amount of users those services would use.

They would also have to write a new jabber server that can handle any good amount of users.

How exactly is it bloated?

by using too much xml.

xml by defintion is a fat protocol, it doesn't matter so much on a local computer when it just means data uses more space. but for communications it's not a very effective protocol.

besides xmpp is inconsequental, what would be an iprovement to GTalk is implementation of gateways. I doubt it'll get any wide adoption by peopel outside of the anti MS/MSN geek world without a better featureset anyway though. And many of those even won't be too eager to switch without the gateway fucntionality.

Well, we have been using HTML for over 10 years, and i bet an average HTML document is larger than an average IM conversation, and even if XMPP does somehow clog these huge pipes on the net, wont be hard to add GZIP compression or something similar to the scheme.

Which is along the lines of what many clients and servers do.

but that only adds cpu strain, not a lot, but still.


if they used a clean and efficient protocol there woudl be no need for it.

either way there's absolutely no reason why say MEssenger shoudl switch from the far more pwoerful protocl they use, and wich has been upgraded for WLM8.

Even the fact that it there's hardly any Jabber servers capable of handling any large user amount is evidence that the protocol is too boated. the GTalk server is probably the only server capable of handling any large amount of users, wich I suspect is more to do with them using very large hardware arrays, but then I dont' know how many peopel actually "actively" use GTalk either so.

I don't care either way, I'll probably never use jabber again, I used it before, but without being abel to trust your server will allways exist, or havign to choose to use Gtalk servers, without the good features of Jabber like gateways and such. I see no point, and that's besides loosing any of the advanced functionality of instead being directly connected to the other IM networks.

Last edited by HawkMan on 17 Jan 2006 - 23:13

on-the-fly GZIP compression barely has any cpu strain for 4 lines of text (average XMPP "message" or so any any system, a old 486 might take 1 second or to, but that's nothing in the age of 3Ghz + systems

and IMO, i would consider Jabber more powerful than MSNP, since if i want to, i could write a client that supports crap like winks and nudges, include them in the XMPP protocol, and i would know that it wont break the protocol, since it's extensible and open.

Also, i don't get how you say they cant handle users, the only way you would be able to say that with any authority is if you looked at the source for all the different servers (since Jabber is open and anybody can implement it, unlike MS's or AOL's closed server), or stress tested each and every server (it's like saying e-mail cant scale, doesn't make much sense)

And ok, you don't want to use Jabber, that's fine, it's a free world, you can stay locked into MSN or AOL if you want to, but again, i don't understand what you say about trusting your server, it's like E-Mail, you choose what server you use and who you talk to (and i can run my own server and have my own JID (and SSL or other forms of encryption), i would trust that more than AOL's server for example, which terms of use say they can record your conversation and use it in any way they see fit)

if it doesn't make sense, sorry, been up for 14 hours, after 3 hours sleep.

Well outside of GTalk's servers, there are pretty much NO Jabber server that you can guarantee will be there tomorrow. same thing as getting free mail. there's only the big ones you can trust.

And I can claim instability of the servers, because I've tried pretty much all the good jabber server back when I bothered using it, and they would have down time all the time, caused by too many users online, and their server not being abel to handle the load. and no it wasn't because the hardware was bad.

Jabber won't ever be popular untill it has all the fancy features that all the user care about(users don't care for Open source, heck I don't care for open source, I want to use my apps, not change them, I'll write my own programs if I want to code some stuff). unfortunately Google Talk doesn't nearly cut it for this, it's only use is that it can conect through some company firewalls and allow basics IM, wich would probably be fine, but not what the users want. I also hate the GUI but that's a different matter

@Hawkman: How large the XML files are, doesn't matter much. It won't put strain on the network. It's the complexity of the algorithms used on the servers that matters. I'm guessing that complexity will be quite okay ;-)

And about server stability: can't really comment much on that, don't know ;-)