Re: Federation protocols

Dnia wtorek, 11 czerwca 2013 o 17:42:36 Nick Jennings napisał(a):
> > Google and Facebook are doing this as a separate service. As an add-on on
> > their social networking platforms. If you're going to include chat, why
> > not e-
> > mail? Google is doing it, after all!
> 
> Sorry, but Facebook chat and Google Hangouts are integral parts of each of
> their social platforms.
>
> And yes, we should be including email. Of course. These are all methods of
> communication, and used by many different social platforms in many
> different ways.

Let's include IRC, then.

> (...)
> What's wrong with playing favorites or "making choices for them" (ie.
> suggesting something you've deemed suitable).
> Afterall, that's what you are doing by suggesting XMPP.

I am not aware of any other IM and presence protocol widely implemented in 
free software and used by myriads of users. SIP/SIMPLE is kind-of, sort-of in 
the ballpark, but still far, far away behind XMPP. There's no playing 
favourites here, really.

> Or, are you saying you want "one protocol to rule them all" (and you know
> the best ways to go about that) so that you don't have to play favorites
> when someone asks you where to go as an alternative a social network? So
> you want to pick favorites so you don't have to pick favorites?

I want interoperability between different libre social networks. I don't 
really care how it would be achieved, although getting a common protocol to be 
adopted seems one possible.

> > > but hell, on twitter you can't even send messages to someone who isn't
> > > following you.
> > 
> > I call bull.
> > "Dear @user_not_following_me, how's the weather?"
> 
> The solution to sending private messages is sending them publicly. Problem
> solved.
> Write up the draft.

Could I suggest, instead, to use the phrase "private mesages" whenever you're 
talking about, you know, *private* messages? That would save us this round-
trip. For example.

> > > That's what I mean about what do we mean about federation :)
> > 
> > And I stand by my "we need to find ways to interoperate, or we will die
> > in the
> > wilderness between walled gardens".
> > 
> > Look at the whole PRISM debate right now! People are waking up, and are
> > enraged, and are looking for alternatives. And there is no alternative
> > there.
> > The more a user looks at libre social networking, the more they get the
> > feeling that all there is is infighting and bickering about which of the
> > several incompatible social networks to use.
> > 
> > This is absurd. This is something we *have* to do something about.
> > Instead of
> > looking for a myriad of reasons not to.
> 
> I don't want to continue to hash out protocol semantics. There are many
> different people with many different perspectives and ideas. Not everyone
> agrees with your ideas but I'm sure a lot of people do as well. In the end,
> though, you can talk about it until you're blue in the face and we'll still
> be right where we are.

Yeah, I am starting to see that. That's a bit sad, but hey -- at least I 
tried.

I still believe it would be possible to hash out a protocol that would at 
least provide interoperability. What I take from this whole thread is that 
surprisingly many of us here prefer looking for reasons not to do that or 
problems that arise, instead of finding ways to do proceed.

That's a very sad observation and a very sad statement on libre social 
networking. For me personally it strongly suggests libre social networking is 
not going to gain any serious traction in foreseeable future.

-- 
Pozdrawiam
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania