2008/4/10, Richard Dobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Who said targeting tech people is a good idea? Did tech people were > > the ones that choose which closed IM system they use? Compare > > targeting tech people with Mozilla or Linux distributions before > > Ubuntu appeared and targeting Aunt Tillies with Firefox, Ubuntu-like > > distributions or Eee PC with Linux on it. Which strategy is the most > > successful in all these examples: targeting tech people or targeting > > Aunt Tillies? Conclusion: tech people (WE!) do NOT matter when network > > effects are involved, Aunt Tillies are numerous and thus do matter. > > > > > > Why put up artificial barriers? What's wrong with things like filetransfer > working both ways? If you have already implemented sending files to msn > users then its trivial to implement receiving of files too. Doing half of a > job only serves to make XMPP look bad in peoples eyes.
I was talking about webdav file transfers which will not need reverse engineering of the closed network file transfer protocol as the transport can simply send the webdav uri as a plain text message to the contact on the closed IM system. This file transfer method will be safe for protocol changes on the closed network and thus will *always* work once it is stable. This file transfer method also will need less resources from the XMPP server on which the transport is hosted (when the webdav server is not on the same server). So, this file transfer method will be more scalable than other file transfer methods that will need to go through the transport, be converted, etc. -- Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
