131–140 of 263 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thread says otherwise. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5714681
That thread of unsourced speculation, you mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lync 2013 fully supports XMPP federation. Cisco's IM offerings support XMPP federation. IBM's Sametime supports XMPP federation. Numerous organizations have deployments of these and other, smaller XMPP IM servers. As for cherry picking standards, isn't that exactly what you're doing with your statement on Chromium and web standards?
Lync looks really nice with that edit: XMPP federation feature is not available in Ofice365 Lync options, that's sad
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple implementations are a strength. In fact, you won't see a good replacement for SMTP without multiple independent implementations. (What will it look like? I would guess it will look like a two-part service, with one protocol for servers to talk to each other and another for clients to talk to servers. Servers will send tiny notifications to other servers that mail is available for their subscribers; then the…
I would like to see the replacement of SMTP be designed along with a redesign of e-mails themselves as well. I'd like to see the HTML that is supported in e-mails standardised, so there's no more issues about which clients will render what. I'd like to see the failure notices standardised, so that invalid e-mail addresses produce a standard "404-like" response, and so on. The problem isn't so much that we have multip…
Count me out. It wasn't even two weeks ago that we had the story here about how The Onion was hacked because somebody clicked on an obfuscated HTML URL in email.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GTalk is still as is. As for YouTube it is and always have been available on the web for windows phone. Microsoft in clear violation of Google's TOS used undocumented APIs and stripped ads from YouTube and now they have the audacity to say that they would have complied by the TOS if it suited them better. Please take your anti-Google (probably Microsoft sponsored astroturf) elsewhere: https://news.ycombinator.com/sub…
Except, Microsoft did not strip ads from the videos. They said yesterday that they will be happy to serve ads if Google lets them access. And please, let the legal departments decide if it is a clear violation or not. Do not take a decision on your own. I think you are the one who is astro-turfing here, if i apply the finger pointing criteria to you too. It is better if you reply to the argument leaving your personal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“They open source a browser and an operating system to sell other stuff.” No, those were already open source before Google got involved, so Google didn’t really have a choice.
Uh, no. None of them existed before Google. What did exist were two pieces of infrastructure (Webkit and the Linux kernel), and Google could've used both without open-sourcing the rest of the application, since the licenses allow it: - Webkit is LGPL/BSD, so it can be linked to proprietary code without forcing its redistribution. - The Linux kernel is GPL, but the license has never applied to userspace code, and ever…
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
Microsoft actually did not want to open the .doc format. I believe they were forced to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Pr...
I even checked the references, the MS page adds nothing to wikipedia's info in this matter
http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/o...
Wait, so Google is dropping XMPP support because Outlook.com is supporting it to allow Gtalk users to chat on Outlook.com, so in order to perpetuate the GMail/GTalk lock-in by caging the Gtalk chat users to GMail, they're dropping standards support and killing access to all XMPP clients in existence including non-Microsoft ones? And they announce this right when Microsoft spent all the time and effort to allow Outloo…
So, to be clear, Google is supposed to make video chat with groups of people, recording to YouTube, desktop sharing, and Google Docs live editing work with XMPP? Or else they're evil?
But yes, they are evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People keep banging on about "plain text, plain text" what is wrong with plain text? And what is wrong with SMTP? Also email attachments can be binary encoded, base64 is just one option. People are free to say that SMTP is "bad" or "broken" but they have to say exactly why that is the case. And "there are multiple different implementations" is a pretty poor justification, as a SMTP replacement would likely have the s…
>what is wrong with plain text? Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. That person sitting next to you in the coffee shop? He's running a packet sniffer and is reading everything you send, because it's plain text. -- edit: In information security, plaintext means unencrypted. That's true for SMTP, and that's what I'm referring to. Am I wrong?
You are making the same mistake other posters were making, confusing two different definitions of "plain text". The one we're talking about is ASCII versus some binary obfuscated format (such as MS Word). Both can be encrypted and made equally as secure. Plain text formats are much more amenable to grepping, grokking and manipulation; they make locking out competing implementations harder. See "Keep Knowledge in Plain Text": http://pragmatictips.com/20
In addition, most arguments about "space savings" are rendered moot by compression (which usually works better on plain text), the fact that binary formats in practice almost always take up more space for the same content (even when uncompressed), and most importantly, storage and bandwidth have rendered the size argument totally irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plain text means anyone can read your message while it's going over the wire. Plain text is a style of encoding information (e.g. binary, XML, JSON, plain text, etc). Encryption determines if someone can intercept your message. Something can be both plain text and secure, like HTTPS for one example.
It's my understanding that people often use "plaintext" in contrast to "ciphertext", so it's not unreasonable for someone to read "plaintext" and think "unencrypted".
Can someone confirm Google is killing XMPP and its server-to-server federation? The Verge says Hangouts is not using XMPP but does it mean that XMPP (Google Talk) is definitely going away?