Jabber is a good instant messenger
By
Light Lan
on May 13, 2007
a german site why to use jabber:
http://www.ulm.ccc.de/~marcel/warum-jabber.htm
Agreed
16
11
59.3% 40.7%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Similar claims
- 48-12 Convincing other people to switch to jabber instead of their current IM is nearly impossible
- 29-1 Jabber clients need to start implementing more of the XMPP standards.
- 18-23 I rather use Jabber transports instead of a multi-protocol client.
- 22-2 Instant messaging is cool.
- 16-1 IM networks like Aol, Skype, MSN and Yahoo should be able to chat with XMPP/Jabber networks
Discussion (12)
Jabber is a an instant messaging protocol, not an instant messenger.
This has been a free service of the Jyte Pedant Alliance.
thanks for the notice; I'd never seen it
Note to self: when making pedantic comments, don't make stupid typos.
You're quite wrong Ryan. This is not pedantry. How could jabber ever be considered an instant messenger?
It's like saying:
"the best browser is HTTP"
I'm wrong how? Are you disagreeing with my use of "pedantic"?
Yes. It's not pedantic for you to be disagreeing with this claim because in no way could jabber be construed as an instant messenger in the same way that http could not possibly be misconstrued as a web browser.
Are you using some strange definition of "pedantic" that I'm not aware of?
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
pedantic
adj : marked by a narrow focus on or display of learning especially its trivial aspects
I would not say there is a trivial distinction between a protocol and it's many implementations. It seems fairly fundamental to me.
Why do you think this is pedantic?
Note. Jabber is a protocol. Implementations can be servers, clients or librarys which do some combination of both.
So what does the claim mean, actually? If you accept that it is referring to some implementation then it is completly ambiguous. I mean totally ambiguous.
Or does it in fact refer to the protocol? I don't know.
Of course you and I think there's a fundamental difference, because you and I understand the difference between a protocol and an implementation.
Joe User has no idea what that difference is, and since he uses ICQ for the ICQ protocol, AIM for the AIM protocol, and MSN for the MSN protocol, it makes perfect sense to him that he would use Jabber for the Jabber protocol.
When I pointed out that Jabber is only a protocol and not an implementation, I was being pedantic because it was obvious what the claimant meant, yet I was pointing out his mistake merely to be a pain in the ass.
By the way, WordNet tends to leave out alternate definitions of words. The word "pedantic" as used on Jyte is generally intended to mean "overly concerned with minute details or formalisms".
I don't. It was the "narrow focus on or display of learning" part that differed from my definition.
And what's all this about being "overly" concerned? The nerve!
D'A