| 1 |
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> > > > > XMPP clients are a dime a dozen, take you pick: pidgin, kopete, |
| 3 |
>> > > > > telepathy and a hots of others. |
| 4 |
>> > > > > |
| 5 |
>> > > > > Servers are another story. All of them that you can lay your |
| 6 |
>> > > > > hands on seem to suck big eggs big time. ejabberd is the only one |
| 7 |
>> > > > > I found stable enough to actually stay up for sane amounts of |
| 8 |
>> > > > > time, and not DEPEND on java. |
| 9 |
>> > > > > |
| 10 |
>> > > > > But that info might be well out of date, I haven't looked at our |
| 11 |
>> > > > > jabber server for ages. There's no need to - the techies all |
| 12 |
>> > > > > gravitated by themselves over to GTalk and Skype, claiming that |
| 13 |
>> > > > > the cloud services did everything they needed and more, and it |
| 14 |
>> > > > > was there, and it worked. Our in-house jabber server - not so |
| 15 |
>> > > > > much. |
| 16 |
>> > > > > |
| 17 |
>> > > > > Can't say I blame them. It's true. |
| 18 |
>> > > > |
| 19 |
>> > > > Thanks Alan, this is just the kind of info I need. It sounds like |
| 20 |
>> > > > I would be better off with a cloud solution for collaborative chat. |
| 21 |
>> > > |
| 22 |
>> > > Just out of curiosity: why couldn't you use a Jabber client with |
| 23 |
>> > > Bonjour/Zeroconf support (all or most of them?) within the company |
| 24 |
>> > > (which is what this is for IIUC)? With Zeroconf, the Jabber clients |
| 25 |
>> > > "find each other", then you wouldn't need to bother with setting up a |
| 26 |
>> > > server. |
| 27 |
>> > > |
| 28 |
>> > > Or is Zeroconf problematic? I know Pidgin can do Zeroconf on Windows, |
| 29 |
>> > > even if you need to manually install a separate package for it to |
| 30 |
>> > > work. |
| 31 |
>> > > |
| 32 |
>> > |
| 33 |
>> > That doesn't really work when one fellow is at his desk in the office, |
| 34 |
>> > another at home on an ADSL connection and the third is a 3rd party dev |
| 35 |
>> > based in Los Angeles. That's quite common for me. |
| 36 |
>> > |
| 37 |
>> > Zeroconf has it's uses, but it does have a rather narrow scope as to |
| 38 |
>> > where it can work. |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> I understand that, I just thought that Grant was talking about a purely |
| 41 |
>> internal chat solution (like my workplace has) - he did say "within a |
| 42 |
>> company" (though admittedly in retrospect I realize that that doesn't |
| 43 |
>> necessarily mean *physically* within the company). |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> Regardless, it isn't clear to me that Grant is talking about something |
| 46 |
>> that has |
| 47 |
>> to be available from anywhere. While he is apparently gravitating towards |
| 48 |
>> a |
| 49 |
>> "cloud solution" for chat, my understanding is that that is because then |
| 50 |
>> he |
| 51 |
>> doesn't have to manage his own server. All of the other solutions |
| 52 |
>> mentioned |
| 53 |
>> could be for internal *and* external use. |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> Anyway, I was just curious and thought that if this is purely for internal |
| 56 |
>> use |
| 57 |
>> than Zeroconf might be a good server-less option for chat. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> I should have specified that the people in the organization are spread out |
| 60 |
> in different locations. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> It sounds like it is difficult/dangerous to run an internet-facing IRC |
| 63 |
> server and ejabberd is unstable? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
This is what VPNs are for. I haven't really heard anything seriously |
| 66 |
problematic about ejabberd outside of some folks dislike of adding |
| 67 |
another language runtime. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
Whatever you decide to run internally, you're going to need to become |
| 70 |
knowledgeable in its administration. This is why a fair amount of |
| 71 |
folks are outsourcing communications infrastructure. Few believe they |
| 72 |
have the time to learn to manage the thing properly. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
-- |
| 75 |
:wq |
Archives