Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

pidgin.im

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 181 posts

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#141

Post by Godel_unicode »

kevincox wrote: post #69
iforgotpassword wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried matrix bridged to IRC (libera) a while ago. It didn't sync back to matrix properly when people on irc left the channel, so you'd try to talk to someone on irc who wasn't there anymore. One time, a person on irc couldn't see any messages by any matrix users until they reconnected to the Network. And IRC is an old, open, well understood protocol. I just cannot imagine that a bridge to eg Whatsapp would result i…

To be fair your first problem sounds like an impedance mismatch more than anything else. Users come and go from IRC all the time because connections are transient by nature. It would probably be annoying to a lot of people if they left the room every time they disconnected. Matrix and WhatsApp are both durable with regards to users so this issue probably isn't relevant. Personally I find the biggest problem with pupp…

This is honestly the problem with a lot of these type of FOSS replacement products. It's not an "impedance mismatch" and the user isn't "holding it wrong", the product has bugs. They need to be acknowledged as the bugs they are and addressed, because the fact is of you want to replace a product you need to not be worse than that product.

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#142

Post by pabs3 »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #134
heavyset_go wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That time period was magical for interoperability of services, P2P and open protocols. The tech landscape today would look much different if the principles of that era were adhered to today. Instead, the "interoperability" we get today is the result of multibillion dollar corporations making partnerships with each other, while independent developers are locked out. As an example, Google gets access to streaming servi…

Does the European DMA law indicate a possible return of this? It sounds like Europe is about to require interoperability between Facebook Messenger-likes and other clients.

I wonder if this will result in RCS becoming the standard, or maybe Matrix or XMPP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#143

Post by pabs3 »

hans1729 wrote: post #25
mdasen wrote: post #7

I really miss Adium ( https://adium.im ) which was based on Pidgin's libpurple. Adium had such a great user experience. It was built with native widgets and also incorporated chat themes that were implemented using WebKit's rendering ( https://www.adiumxtras.com/index.php?a=search&cat_id=5&sort=... ). It was fast and memory friendly given that it was a native app and the themes were just small templates offering a di…

> Instead, I now have FB Messenger, WhatsApp, iMessage, Discord, and Signal all running and taking up space in my dock. Why don’t you use a matrix client with bridges? I use telegram, WhatsApp and signal over Element. The bridges are not as great as the individual clients, but it’s definitely miles ahead of using five messaging apps.

I think of bridges as SaaS and that protocol support needs to be client-side so you don't become dependent on a remote service.

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#144

Post by Kerbonut »

valbaca wrote: post #2

oh pidgin. Throughout my life (as a millennial) chat went this way: 1. IRC 2. IRC, Yahoo messenger, Aol Instant Messenger, MSN Messenger (mostly based on your ISP in the early days) 3. All + Skype (video!! wow!) + Google messenger. *This was when pidgin was invaluable* (there was also some Duck app for macOS?) 4. Skype started charging and since everyone was on Facebook, everyone moved to Facebook messenger. Text mes…

ICQ and teamspeak/ventrilo we’re in the mix for me as well

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#145

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

pabs3 wrote: post #142
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the European DMA law indicate a possible return of this? It sounds like Europe is about to require interoperability between Facebook Messenger-likes and other clients.

I wonder if this will result in RCS becoming the standard, or maybe Matrix or XMPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

I wonder if these companies are still using XMPP: Google and Facebook for a while even would allow XMPP servers to federate

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#146

Post by ganzuul »

millzlane wrote: post #70
ganzuul wrote: post #20

I could never come to terms with the tattered and worn user interface experience for an application that is so prominent on the desktop. Perhaps the widget system is glamorous underneath, but to accomplish its job of getting out of the way of functionality... I can feel the RSI acting up from the time when Pidgin was my only option. Thanks for what you did, no thanks for repeat business.

I grew up using windows running the "classic" interface. It's really no different from any other GTK based app.

Getting used to it doesn't mean it's good. There is much better UI design available to us.

I don't think I said anything untrue; only hurtful.

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#147

Post by ilvez »

spennant wrote: post #18
dijit wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar. 1. IRC 2. ICQ 3. MSN 4. IRC (again) 5. Skype and Facebook 6. WhatsApp 7. Facebook again 8. Still Facebook (very sticky) 9. IRC + Slack (some communities) + Discord (some communities) + Facebook/Whatsapp + Signal + Telegram + Matrix + Zulip Yeah, I think we need a new libpurple.

I started with Talk - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_(software) But I guess that's because I'm Gen-X

Before the IRC were telnet chat rooms/servers for me. Nobody has mentioned them here so I wonder whether it was local thing.

I remember using talk about the same time, but telnet ones had more edge in UX side.

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#148

Post by shashurup »

pabs3 wrote: post #137
shashurup wrote: post #19

I definitely liked it, however, since whatsapp, telegram, slack etc had joined the game with mostly proprietary protocols it looks like it just has no chance to catch up and it is very sad - I find the ability to choose a client quite important. P.S. I have even written a plugin for - quickpurple

Pidgin has plugins for most modern protocols: https://pidgin.im/plugins/

Sure, I know about plugins. By catching up I rather mean features introduced by the new generation of messengers. Not that features such as like link preview are critical but I would miss them should I use pidgin again.

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#149

Post by wjt »

pabs3 wrote: post #140
wjt wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was based on Telepathy https://telepathy.freedesktop.org/ . None of the built-in backends for XMPP, SIP, Skype and cellular calls used libpurple. (A libpurple-based backend could be installed from the community app repo.)

I wish Telepathy got more popularity, it seemed to be a better architecture than Pidgin/libpurple with the protocol support in separate processes etc.

Well, me too, having spent the best part of half a decade working on it! But I broadly agree with Rob McQueen's assessment of how the architecture turned out to be fatally flawed. http://web.archive.org/web/20210427061305/https://mail.gnome...

Re: Pidgin: The Universal Chat Client

#150

Post by pabs3 »

wjt wrote: post #149
pabs3 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Telepathy got more popularity, it seemed to be a better architecture than Pidgin/libpurple with the protocol support in separate processes etc.

Well, me too, having spent the best part of half a decade working on it! But I broadly agree with Rob McQueen's assessment of how the architecture turned out to be fatally flawed. http://web.archive.org/web/20210427061305/https://mail.gnome...

The crashes I still experience in libpurple backends today still lead me to prefer the Telepathy architecture.
Post reply on HN