Ian Paterson wrote: > Yes, maybe we're all going to gain from seeing how Google approach this? > [Although we'd all hate to see them require a legal agreement before > allowing interconnects - imagine if all servers required that!] >
Hope this is not their solution. A network of trust could work (actually CAcert is a network of trust, if I got it) since no server admin would be Aunt Tillie ;) > The only problem I have with Google's approach today is that they are > claiming openness without providing any. [Today their service is no more > open than AIM, Yahoo or MSN - we can use Gaim on any of those networks > too.] > Tecnically they are open in the sense that they adopted an open standard, though not all its philosophy. Thay also write that other clients are welcome and they explain how to use them. And, finally they state that they want to talk about federation. This is far more than what we've seen until now. >From the google blog: "There's a reason for that openness. We believe Internet communication networks should openly interoperate, and that they should include IM and voice. The openness of the Google Talk service to XMPP clients is just a start. We like SIP too, and we want to also federate between servers. We've already started working with our friends at EarthLink and Sipphone to federate our respective real-time communications services so all our users can talk to each other for free. If you're interested in federating with us or would like to interoperate in a way that we have not yet implemented, let us know." > What other benefit can Google offer? Skype and the other services offer > more mature feature sets. They all have massive user bases with sticky > buddy lists. Google has none yet. So, if the IM market is opened up to a > 'level' playing field, Google has relatively little to loose, and > everything to gain by being the 'first'. Indeed they already have a (potential) large userbase: all gmail users ;) Of course this is not enough. Their client is far less attractive than other clients (VoIp a part, i haven't tried yet) and so they need something more. Imho S2S is just one of the aspects: an open protocol would allow to implement 3rd party services (pubsub, notifications, chats, any kind of bots, ...) without the need to re-engineer the protocol or pay expensive licenses. -- Fabio Forno, PhD Istituto Superiore Mario Boella Jabber ID: xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Try Jabber http://www.jabber.org _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
