@wolf480pl xmpp is homogenous. No node is different in function and presentation from another node. Fediverse is WILDLY heterogenous. Those are on completely different levels.
Top-level
@wolf480pl xmpp is homogenous. No node is different in function and presentation from another node. Fediverse is WILDLY heterogenous. Those are on completely different levels. 8 comments
@wolf480pl @wolf480pl anyway, that's why Fediverse is different and why it's first of its kind. @drq XMPP isn't all that homogenous - the core protocol may be the same for everyone, but different servers implement different sets of extensions, and then there are components like MUC, gateways to other protocols, HTTP upload, videobridges, etc., each of which does something different, and different implementations of each of those vary noticeably too. There is also some variety across clients. Not as much as in case of Fedi - AFAIK Movim is the only one which tried doing a non-IM UI. @wolf480pl For XMPP, trying to get heterogenous is more of a hinderance, because it's not explicit and just introduces mess without any real benefits. XMPP is better when everyoune is on the same page as to what extensions we support and what we don't, which client we use, which supports the extensions we use, etc. @wolf480pl If we start switching XMPP extensions on and off, the whole becomes less than the sum of its parts. Not so with the Fediverse. @drq @wolf480pl Indeed, I think of federating phone systems...which looks nothing like a mastadon or a friendica. |
@wolf480pl
Samr goes for e-mail. All mail servers are ideally the same.