flancian
0
9
flancian

@social.coop

Site Reliability Engineer by day; writer, coder, protopian in the evenings.

Alignment: chaotic good rogue :)

I'm an anarchist, if you don't like it tell me why.

[[Flancia]] is an incremental rational utopia I'm writing about. The double square brackets in the previous sentence and a lot of my posts are Agora links; in Flancia there is an Agora. https://anagora.org/flancia is what [[flancia]] means.

This profile is searchable using Tootfinder.ch.

flancian 8 points 3 years ago path: 0 891865 891924, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 6
flancian 4 points 2 years ago

@Dirk @xelar thanks for your view, question: defederating with threads seems reasonable, but why would you defederate "second level" like this? I ask as the instance I'm in decided not to defederate with threads for now and I'm personally OK with that.

path: 0 12051605 12051679, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 13
flancian 4 points 3 years ago

@CrazyDuck Yes, I believe so :) Of course this is just how I remember it, it reflects my opinions and not of my employer's, etc.

From my rough memory, around the time this happened in 2013 the following was true:

  1. Federation was considered to be already languishing due to relatively little usage aside from big instances like AOL (who were going down in any case). Actual people running their own individual/community instances were relatively few, and a significant fraction were spammers :(
path: 0 891865 891924 893803 927863, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 4
flancian 4 points 3 years ago

@CrazyDuck

  1. XMPP was, back then, considered unfit for the transition to mobile as it was a very 'chatty' protocol and that kills battery on mobile devices. I've heard this has been solved/worked around since? But I haven't looked into how this was achieved, if at all, and whether we could have taken that route instead back then.
path: 0 891865 891924 893803 927863 929413 929455, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 2
flancian 4 points 3 years ago

@CrazyDuck

  1. Developers in the chat space in G had decided to implement their own protocol for Hangouts, the "next generation" chat app. The consensus seemed to be that going with an in-house protocol would provide enough extra freedom to allow G to implement and ship features faster (whereas innovation on top of XMPP was deemed relatively hard).
path: 0 891865 891924 893803 927863 929413, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 3
flancian 4 points 2 years ago

@copygirl @Dirk yes, I also get the feeling this would not work in a compliant setup but it seems like a good idea to test this in e.g. a federation test suite.

Maybe @evanprodromou would know how this should work, or would know of someone who might be testing this kind of scenario.

path: 0 12051605 12051679 12051789 12051921 12052040, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
flancian 3 points 3 years ago

@CrazyDuck of course moving to a proprietary protocol doesn't mean that federation must die. Indeed we kept federation alive for users for a while by bridging gTalk (legacy, still supporting federation) and Hangouts (proprietary). It was the dream of at least a few (myself included) to open up the Hangouts API and/or build federation on top of it, but it was not prioritized -- I take part of the responsibility for that, even if I was just an individual contributor: I could have done it as a 20%.

path: 0 891865 891924 893803 927863 929413 929455 930930, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
flancian 1 point a year ago path: 0 16406452, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
flancian 0 points 3 years ago path: 0 2690770 2692372 2692373, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 7

thanks for using Leebra!

go to feed...