Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Now Supports Jabber/XMPP

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the cross-pollination-nation dept.

Social Networks 174

supersloshy writes "Facebook Chat has so far only been meant to be used in a web browser, and instant messaging applications have had a hard time implementing its undocumented protocol. Today, Facebook is making this job much easier by enabling support for XMPP to access its chat service. AOL's AIM and the Empathy Instant Messenger are also including pre-set Facebook options, due to already supporting XMPP." Here are instructions for setting up XMPP Facebook chat with popular instant messaging clients, including Pidgin and Adium.

cancel ×

174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

changes (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31109784)

first :), finally, facebook does something right besides the creation of the site itself

Re:changes (1, Troll)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109824)

I don't think the creation of the site itself was that good either. To this day I don't have a FB account - yes, I'm quite proud of that. =)

Re:changes (5, Insightful)

Ultra64 (318705) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109894)

Re:changes (4, Funny)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110060)

I'm not, thats about television.........

Re:changes (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110112)

You've got to admit though he has a point about it being a big time sink. On the other hand, it's hard to explain to explain to someone why you don't get their pop culture TV reference and not come across as "that guy". I had to ask a friend the other day who Jack Bauer was, and the bad one-liner joke followed by the guy putting on his sunglasses "internet meme" actually came from one of those CSI shows :(

Re:changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110142)

But does he have a computer? He could be "reading" his news right off a computer monitor.

Re:changes (2, Funny)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110336)

He's too busy writing a GUI interface in visual basic to see if he can track the killer's IP address.

Re:changes (1)

malkir (1031750) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110558)

Quick! Take a screenshot before he logs out of IRC!

Re:changes (-1, Offtopic)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110488)

Because the Onion is a credible news source.

Re:changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110630)

As if we need a reminder that we'll be mocked if we opt out of the all-seeing-eye brainwashing box by snow cone heads.

Re:changes (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111200)

What's a television? I have a monitor hooked up to a media centre, but I've not had a TV for ages.

PVR cards ftw.

Re:changes (1)

kregg (1619907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109932)

does that mean you have no friends too? ;)

Re:changes (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110044)

I'm married - does that count?

Re:changes (3, Insightful)

turbotroll (1378271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110252)

does that mean you have no friends too? ;)

I don't, for instance. I only have people I hate slightly less then the others, but that isn't same as the widely accepted definition of "friends".

Re:changes (5, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110086)

dude, dissing FaceBook on ./ AND getting modded Troll for it is an awesome feat!

Re:changes (2, Insightful)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110806)

The site is just a tool, like all tools it can be used & abused. I use FB, but i'm very selective to what i put on there

Steam Chat (5, Insightful)

bucky0 (229117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109788)

Man, if steam chat would support jabber, I would be a step closer to combining all my communication to the same program. Valve probably wouldn't do it though :/

Re:Steam Chat (1)

BigDXLT (1218924) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109964)

Oh gods yes, yes and more yes. One program to rule them all!

Re:Steam Chat (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110092)

with a big blue button to start it.

Re:Steam Chat (2, Funny)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110654)

Do not press this button.

Re:Steam Chat (3, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110070)

Came here to post this, found out I was beaten by the FP. Are you listening Valve???
 
Somebody mod this up. Between gchat and steam, that covers 90% of my non-buisness e-socialization. Also it'd be nice to message the server admin on his phone to rcon in and reboot the server when he's not at his computer (never, it seems like).

Re:Steam Chat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110900)

Why should the server admin follow server administration advice from a (presumingly) developer? I would just ignore you.

Re:Steam Chat (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111232)

Because he's not at his computer monitoring his server, and the (presumingly) developer is attempting to utilise a down resource? Seems like a great system to me.

By the way, do you Admin anywhere? If so, where? I'm sure I'd have notived by now, as when I call my upstream provider with an issue, they're right on it. People who ignore me lose my business.

Re:Steam Chat (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111344)

An admin looking down on a developer? hah!

No Kopete? (1)

kai_hiwatari (1642285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109812)

They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete. :/

Re:No Kopete? (2, Insightful)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109846)

They've included generic Jabber account details. You should be able to add Facebook to Kopete with this information. Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

Re:No Kopete? (4, Funny)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109882)

There is for Kopete, because it will make us KDEers feel important.

Re:No Kopete? (1)

kai_hiwatari (1642285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109896)

Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

not really. In fact i've already added facebook chat it in kopete yestarday but there are many people who require it :p

Re:No Kopete? (1)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109980)

To accommodate these users, Kopete/Pidgin/Adium/etc should all remove their now-legacy Facebook plugins and just have a Facebook option that prompts for the username and password and sets the particulars up automatically. Much like most of them handle Google Talk currently.

Re:No Kopete? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110176)

They've included generic Jabber account details. You should be able to add Facebook to Kopete with this information. Is there really a need for specific step-by-step hand-holding for every client?

Of course it is necessary for step-by-step instructions.
Haven't you ever helped anyone with a computer problem?
When you're catering to the lowest common denominator, step by step instructions are the bare minimum...
Screen shots are the norm and a video is the gold standard.

I consider myself knowledgeable and even I end up googling for step by step instructions when I'm stuck. [xkcd.com]

Re:No Kopete? (1)

aphid_attraction (1645661) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109916)

They havn't included Kopete, which is the default IM ckient in KDE, in the instruction. And I demand they include Kopete. :/

Relax bro. Get hold of ur emotional volcano and take a look at this : http://digitizor.com/2010/02/11/how-to-enable-facebook-chat-in-kopete-without-plugins/ [digitizor.com]

Re:No Kopete? (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111298)

It doesn't work. Kopete fails to connect, instead getting some error from the server about an unsupported XMPP version.

plausible deniability at work (2, Funny)

mwilliamson (672411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109814)

I've been using the pidgin plugin for a while now, but it seems a little flaky. This will be rather nice to have a standards-based protocol. This also means I have plausible deniability now as to whether or not I'm logged into facebook all day. ;-)

Federation? (4, Interesting)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109820)

Now if only they'd setup federation so people can talk to those on Facebook from their own XMPP domain. This combined with Google Talk can bring XMPP near the critical mass of users necessary to finally abandon the proprietary protocols I've despised for so long. Good riddance Windows/MSN/Live Messenger! I look forward to the not-so-distant future where everyone can communicate on IM without having accounts with several non-interoperable IM networks. Wishful thinking?

Re:Federation? (1)

socceroos (1374367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109886)

Yes, wishful thinking.

Re:Federation? (1)

SuperQ (431) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109900)

I hope so too. Google didn't have federation at first, but eventually it got sorted and now it just works. I'll dance the day Yahoo adds a Jabber federation gateway to their IM.

Re:Federation? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31109982)

There have been various stories to say they are testing it.

Re:Federation? (2, Informative)

Cozminsky (452030) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110018)

Given that the interserver federation in xmpp doesn't scale well ( see http://about.psyc.eu/Jabber#Scalability [about.psyc.eu] ), I'm guessing the thought of federation is too scary an option for facebook. 60% of the packets in an xmpp network are presence packets and xmpp uses an extremely naive way of distributing these (i.e. it sends an xmpp presence message for each user in the buddy list, even if many of the users are on the same xmpp server and the presence packet could be only sent once for all of them and exploded by the server at the other end). This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular. I'm guessing they'd also be reticent to do this because it would decrease their lockin of users, if you don't need a facebook account to talk to facebook users why would you bother using facebook.

Re:Federation? (2, Insightful)

paul248 (536459) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110194)

If the XMPP protocol sucks, can't it be fixed? Surely the servers should be able to negotiate the latest supported version to enable new features.

Re:Federation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111932)

The GP's link is to the website for PSYC, which, among other things, is a replacement server-to-server protocol for XMPP, which fixes many of the problems they list. Also a sibling points out that XMPP apparently has its own fix in XEP-33 [xmpp.org] (XEP=XMPP-specific RFC, basically).

What about others? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110968)

So did the Internet2.edu, billion dollar making companies which XMPP became de-facto standard, Google and Facebook giants pick the wrong protocol to begin with?

Re:Federation? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111550)

This probably wouldn't be too much of an issue if not many people have buddies on other xmpp servers, but could be disastrous if it becomes popular

No, that's not the issue. It's a problem if lots of people have multiple buddies on the same remote server. XMPP was designed to follow the email model, where you have lots of small servers (for a few people, maybe a company, possibly for users of an ISP who don't have another server they can use). In this case, it is entirely reasonable to send a copy of the presence stanza to each remote server. It's only if most of your contacts are on the same server, but it is not the server that you are using, where this is a problem. In that case, there will be some redundant server-to-server data.

Saying that this means that it 'doesn't scale well' is hyperbole to put it mildly. Even the article you link to doesn't say that, it simply says that it's possible to improve the scalability. I run a Jabber server with just a few users and, although my numbers for stanzas reflect theirs, they are misleading. Most presence stanzas that I receive are quite small compared to message and info-query stanzas, so the numbers are very different when you look at the total bandwidth used by each one. The shortest message stanza that I could find in my log was 20% longer than the longest presence stanza. A typical message stanza is 200-300% the size of a typical presence stanza.

Note that, if both servers support XEP-33, then this problem doesn't exist at all; they can use the extended addressing to send a single copy of the stanza to the remote server, without any modification to the client or the core protocol.

Re:Federation? (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110088)

Well, MS and AOL committed to the gub'mint back in the 90's to cooperate and make their networks play nice with each others.

It's basically taken being made irrelevant to get XMPP support in AIM. A decade later neither AOL or Microsoft talk to each other but their users have found ways to talk around them.

Google's "chat" applications are a complete mess but at least you can talk to them with a non-google client. But what the hell is their deal, they support AIM, but not 3rd party XMPP servers?!
Not that it would matter much, their contact management system leaves much to be desired and Google won't be going anywhere on this front until they fix it.

Re:Federation? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111380)

What you don't like about Google chat clients is irrelevant in the scope of XMPP interserver communication. It's about clients and server talking XMPP; also with 3rd party servers.

And you can use any Jabber client to connect to Google server...yes, Google clients present contact list in particular way. But it's just a standard XMPP, serverside roster; heck, groups of contacts are supported since the beginning even though Google clients work only in flat view.

No security (5, Informative)

scott_karana (841914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109878)

I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients.
I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.

Re:No security (2, Informative)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109994)

I couldn't help but notice the conspicuous instructions to "Uncheck TLS/SSL security" in each of the clients. I really hope that doesn't come back to bite anyone in the ass, there's enough spam on other parts of Facebook already.

Yeah--that's a big "What the fuck, facebook?"....in this day and age, it's tough to find XMPP software that flat-out doesn't support TLS. Even rolling your own in Python supports TLS...

Re:No security (1, Insightful)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110082)

I would imagine adding TLS encryption for 400 MILLION users litterally overnight might be slightly taxing to their already overtaxed servers. They're adding something like 500,000 users a week (I shit you not, look at their statistics) so anything they can do to minimize server load without degrading service is probably a plus for them at this point.

Re:No security (1)

TBoon (1381891) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110152)

I don't exactly think they prepared XMPP support overnight. So they could either have worked on it for a month or two before release, or have some kind of system "click here to enable XMPP support" and run the others through a gateway with the browser-based chat-users (which most likely will include most people for the forseable future), if that is techically possible with TLS and XMPP...

Re:No security (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110302)

You expect every Facebook user to use an external client? If not, why bring the 400 million up? I'm guessing a few percent of people at most would use this. Still a hug number but there's no need to exaggerate.

Re:No security (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110578)

Facebook's site specifically requests you let them know in advance if you're going to introduce 100,000 users or more so they can free up servers to handle the extra load [facebook.com] . So apparently the external client does put a noticeable load on their servers. I wasn't able to log in yesterday when they announced it due to demand. A "few percent" of 400 million still nets you between 1 and 4 million people.

Re:No security (1)

MaximKat (1692650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109998)

What can SSL possibly have with spam?

Re:No security (1)

assassinator42 (844848) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110172)

Spammers like hijacking Facebook accounts so they can send spam to that person's friends.

Re:No security (1)

MaximKat (1692650) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110238)

The authentication is encrypted. This is exactly what "Allow Plaintext Authentication: no" means in the setup instructions. Btw, you know were authentication is not encrypted? POP3. Doesn't help spammers that much, does it?

Re:No security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111130)

That's probably because every a-tad-more-than-totally-lame service which uses POP3 encrypts it with SSL.

Re:No security (1)

esmrg (869061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110030)

Yeah, so? Now you can use OTR (off the record encryption) which provides all the privacy you couldn't get before. No need for protocol encryption. All with the comfort of your familiar IM client.

Re:No security (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111350)

Stop talking about things that you clearly do not understand. The lack of protocol encryption makes MITM attacks possible.

Re:No security (1)

earnest murderer (888716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110098)

I'm sure it will be fine. It's not like you can setup shop with a sniffer in a busy coffee shop and expect to get any traffic.

Re:No security (1)

The Good Reverend (84440) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110564)

Where do you see spam on Facebook? I'm a pretty heavy user of the site, and besides 1-2 odd friend requests every month (usually devoid of info, not selling me something), I don't get anything unsolicited there.

Re:No security (3, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110874)

LOL. What would be the point in using encryption to connect to a server that is not trustworthy in the first place?
Besides: Is you e-mail encrypted?

And it’s far from the worst WTF.
The worst WTF is, that in order to use it, you have to give them your phone number!!!
Yeah right. What’s next? A body cavity search?

Luckily I don’t have to, so I won’t. Facebook can seriously just fuck right off!

XMPP keeps getting more support (2, Insightful)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109884)

And I'm glad to hear it! Everyone seems to be moving towards one open protocol (starting with Google Talk) instead of the sea of protocols out there already.

Yet another IM. . . (1, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109902)

Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (3, Insightful)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109920)

and if IM worked like email we'd get messages all day long about how to make our penises bigger.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (5, Interesting)

Denis Lemire (27713) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109936)

That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail. For this to work, Facebook still needs to enable Federation but it's a huge step in the right direction. The world needs more XMPP networks. Once the number of XMPP IM users outnumber the users of legacy "cluster-f**k" proprietary protocols it will become common sense to drop the proprietary garbage in order to gain interoperability with everyone else. What a nice utopia that would be. :)

Re:Yet another IM. . . (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111000)

What a nice utopia that would be. :)

More mindless chit-chat is the exact opposite of utopia.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (1, Flamebait)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112040)

You're totally right, nothing productive has ever been accomplished over IM. And other communication methods are only used for serious and valuable conversations.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112218)

Actually, no. Enough free time that you can reasonably spend most of it in mindless chit-chat is the exact definition of utopia.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111036)

That's the whole point of XMPP. If all IM was XMPP then IM WOULD work like e-mail.

You mean 95+ percent of it would be spam?

Re:Yet another IM. . . (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 4 years ago | (#31109944)

Just what the world needs. *Another* IM service. I suppose I can see Facebook's reasoning for doing this. . . they want to be a complete 'social' solution, and don't want to be reliant on MSN, AOL, Google, or anyone else for their IM service. I suppose, all things considered, that at least opening it up with XMPP is fairly 'enlightened' of them, but it really seems like the whole 'genre' of Instant Messaging platforms has been one big cluster-f**k since day one. If email worked like IM, we'd all have to have 10 email accounts.

Well, XMPP itself is an attempt to standardize that mess.
If Facebook does not talk with other XMPP servers, it's their own fault. Google Talk does, and many other XMPP account providers aswell.

Re:Yet another IM. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31109988)

Surely you have had at least 10 email accounts...I don't remember the passwords to all of them (or the user names for that matter) but the same is true for IM accounts.

If we are talking active accounts, I also have about the same number for each.

Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31109924)

have had a hard time implementing it's undocumented protocol.

Obviously not as hard of a time as certain people have using a certain possessive pronoun!
It's "its", not "it's", you itsy bitsy tiny grammar weenie, you!

Timothy might as well change his nickname to icanhazgrammur.

Re:Grammar Nazi says: It's "its", not "it's"! (1, Troll)

Jeff321 (695543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110016)

I find it even funnier that "its" is used correctly in the second sentence but not the first.

Server-to-Server Communication? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31109954)

When are they going to support XMPP server-to-server communication so I can chat with my Facebook friends while logged onto a non-facebook XMPP server (that isn't AOL or another big org)?

I tried their Pidgin instructions (to connect to the Facebook XMPP server and use my Facebook account to chat), and it failed: 503: Service Unavailable Slashdotted?

When they (like Google Talk) support full server-to-server, THAT will be a good day.

Re:Server-to-Server Communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31111222)

it failed: 503: Service Unavailable Slashdotted

Wow, what a clever server to know that! Or did they know we were coming in advance?

Re:Server-to-Server Communication? (1)

xer.xes (4181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111908)

You get the '503: Service Unavailable' when you entered your password wrong.

Re:Server-to-Server Communication? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112144)

You also get a 503 error when you have a facebook web page open with the chat bar set to offline.

And I've also read that you may get a 503 error if you don't have cyrus-sasl installed on your linux system.

I think at this point it's probably due to them still trying to get their act together WRT XMPP.

Bitlbee and other gateways (2, Interesting)

qreeves (1363277) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110066)

I'm surprised this hasn't already come up, considering this is geek central I would have hoped more people were using Bitlbee. Facebook has added this annoying caveat to being able to login via jabber: You must be able to login via a web browser on the same host as the one you're trying to setup jabber with; this rules out public Bitlbee and other gateway services, as well as boxes that don't have X installed on them (Facebook requires you use an 'approved' browser, meaning lo (e)l[inks|ynx] for you).

Logging in: Authenticated, requesting buddy list Logging in: Message from unknown handle chat.facebook.com: > You're signing in from a location we're not familiar with. That's no problem, but we do want to make sure no one is using your Facebook account without permission. Please take a few moments to review your recent Facebook activity. Start by logging in to facebook.com from any computer. (For your security, your Facebook account will be unavailable until you complete these steps.) Couldn't log in: Account and resource used from a different location Logging in: Signing off..

Guess that means I'll continue on with FB chat disabled, like I need yet another IM that I won't use anyway. Google Buzz [google.com] looks more interesting anyway, as it is integrated with my email and other cloud data (privacy issues blah blah blah, I know) and their jabber services actually work wherever I want them to. Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step? Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.

Re:Bitlbee and other gateways (1)

PeterBrett (780946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110426)

Last I checked, my password identified me as me, why the extra unnecessary step? Because they want you to actually read their shovelware app spam to make money.

That tin foil hat really suits you.

Re:Bitlbee and other gateways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110696)

Interesting enough, I logged in with bitlbee from a same ip address range as my browsing computer and I didn't see that kind of messages. (An old version of bitlbee didn' t handle the authentication, update solved the problem)

XMPP Gateway, Not Full-Fledged Service (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110074)

FWIW, Facebook is operating a gateway that allows xmpp users to connect to the Facebook chat service. For the time being, xmpp features like presence, capabilities discovery, file transfers and calling are not available.

Quality of Service (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110338)

Does this mean that facebook chat will be any more reliable than it was before, or will it still be buggy as heck? I got so tired of "oh sorry, we lied, this person isn't actually online at the moment..." that I signed out months ago.

Also, yay for Pidgin! I upgraded from 2.6.1 to .5, but once I remembered my password it seems to work fine so far.

Re:Quality of Service (2, Informative)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110404)

I don't know about the stability of chat in general (I often notice outages where it's completely unavailable), but it should fix the laggy-state issue you're concerned about. Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates. With XMPP, you can push state-change notifications so they happen almost instantly.

Re:Quality of Service (1)

johny42 (1087173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110494)

Your issue is caused by the fact that to create an AJAX client, you basically have to constantly poll the server from the client to get state updates.

No, you don't. [wikipedia.org] I think I actually first heard about this when looking up information about the Facebook chat. I don't have the time to search for the source now, but Google [google.com] seems to confirm it.

Why would I change? (1)

cmunic8r99 (1271724) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110474)

I don't think this is so revolutionary for existing Pidgin users. I've had the Facebook plugin (http://code.google.com/p/pidgin-facebookchat) for Pidgin for a while now. What reasons are there to switch from this to XMPP?

Re:Why would I change? (1)

Haymaker (1664103) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110592)

Facebook chat plugin is buggy and possibly breaks when Facebook updates something with their chat network. XMPP is a built-in protocol and will be more stable and supported.

the first thing I noticed is that XMPP doesn't keep losing connection and trying to login.

though I don't think it might be an issue to everyone, but on the facebook chat plugin it would query who is online and who isn't at time intervals, resulting in mass signings/signouts at once depending on the time of day + size of friends list. I'm not sure if the xmpp system is any better but I assume it will be more real-time.

Re:Why would I change? (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31112082)

You're right. I use Adium, and the Facebook plugin was never very good for me. For some reason it would intermittently disconnect and then ask for my password, and contacts that were offline would sometimes persist as online for ages. Using XMPP to connects has been fantastic so far. If I can convince my friends on Windows to install Pidgin I can finally dump MSN.

Re:Why would I change? (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110766)

The old plugin basically sends HTTP requests and parses the HTML results. It only worked sporadically here, and sometimes caused continuous connect/disconnect cycles (causing me to get blocked temporarily by Facebook several times). The XMPP gateway seems to be very solid, and it moved the responsibility for compatibility from the client to the server, where they have a much more direct interface to the system.

Little something for the old farts too (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110724)

I demand irc.facebook.com !

two years later... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31110768)

they said they had this working forever ago didn't they? well, at least they finally put out.

FUCKING BASTARDS! (0, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110840)

Yeah, they offer Jabber support. But if you want to use it, you have to have a user name.
But to have that, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

Yeah, right. Not in a thousand years!!!

WTF? Fuck you, Failbook!

Facebook, geez (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110986)

Are you insane? Did you even browse Facebook pages? If you have anything regarding privacy in your mind, you don't join such networks to begin with...

It is a network requiring your REAL NAME, people share their private matters on their publicly available pages no matter how hard Facebook tries to educate them or force them to set their options.

It is not for your taste if you have concerns about sharing your private information. Not mine either but I don't swear at them, I just pity the 2010's sense of privacy.

Jabber/XMPP is designed in a way that no "central big company" server would be required, just like e-mail. You sound like people not choosing from thousands of free/paid IMAP/POP3/WWW mail servers and whine about gmail's horrible privacy issues. Don't like it? Use something else.

Re:Facebook, geez (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111820)

Yeah. “Real Name”.

As real as whatever I choose to enter.
Also, I only joined, to be able to chat with a ton of idiot friends who use Failbook as their IM tool, instead of ICQ/Jabber/etc.
And I have NOTHING on the page. I literally have disabled every single feature, left everything empty, and blocked everyone from seeing anything. The only exception: Friends can send me messages.

I will delete the profile, as soon as Failbook allows cross-server IM (like email). Because I have my own Jabber server, and can then chat with them without registering anywhere.

So? (1)

RDeichsel (1553501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111028)

Give them digits: (000) 000-0000

perfect! (1)

molecular (311632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31110902)

what a move! Now finally I can stop evangelism for xmpp. Now I instantly have more friend on xmpp than on skype. Nice!

Please don't stop (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111396)

XMPP is the future, but it will only be the future so long as the pressure is kept up to get service providers to adopt open standards. The moment they see an advantage in lock-in they will adopt proprietary "extensions".

XMPP is the best thing to happen in the messaging protocol world for many years, we need to make sure that it continues to develop (especially server to server) and be as widely deployed as possible.

Disclaimer: Our company produces a system management product that uses XMPP as its first line fault notification. I would prefer even the most backward MS shop to have heard of it, and not to confuse it with the horror that is MSN.

Re:Please don't stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31112358)

For Service Providers, at least the ones coming from the telephony world, XMPP isn't an answer for IM because it isn't an answer for telephony. Despite the existence of Jingle, the other relationships they have to maintain for integration with the PSTN and maintain regulatory compliance make SIP-based systems and IMS a more attractive option. Unfortunately, there doesn't yet appear to be an easy way to interact across the two signaling domains. It isn't simply about open standards (which SIP is), but more about maintaining current obligations(which XMPP can't). Push on getting interoperability issues worked out, and you'll see this happen faster.

Localization problems (2, Interesting)

Kooothor (1743982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111754)

Hey, I'm experiencing troubles while trying to connect to the xmpp facebook account with Finch from my shell in Germany. Facebook tells me I connect from an unusual location (usually I connect from France or Sweden), and that it isn't bad but they block the chat anyway.... -_-' Anyone has had the same troubles ? How to resolve it ? Thanks. Screen : http://nsa13.casimages.com/img/2010/02/12/10021201582580101.png [casimages.com]

bitlbee (2, Interesting)

jollyhockysticks (799569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111760)

Hi,
  I managed to get bitlbee to log in ( i've written some php to log into facebook using curl for me from the server in question, and it spoofs the user agent. It was tricky but do-able )

but the downside is, all the usernames show up as u987654321 or whatever so you still have no idea who is who anyway. :( boo, so still no real fb chat in bitlbee for now

bckwrds (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31111912)

I logged in with Pidgin.

Its weird everyone logs in with the username "bckwrds". Really - http://www.facebook.com/sitetour/chat.php [facebook.com]

Too bad SSL / TLS isn't supported.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>