[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tails-dev
Subject:    Re: [Tails-dev] Requirements for a Pidgin replacement
From:       ghostlands () autistici ! org
Date:       2016-02-09 0:05:38
Message-ID: a109b6b87985dd1aa264d5a957c4043f () autistici ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

I think I lost track of the original message that started referencing 
the options according to letters :)

I'd like to suggest an end alltogether of all-in-one communication 
clients. It may fit a Windows-style mode for use, but it contradicts one 
of the more elegant and sensible parts of the Unix philosophy, that 
being one application per task.

Anyway what I'm getting at is in order to facilitate simplicity I think 
it might be helpful to talk about these things in terms of protocols or 
types of delivery that Tails wants to prioritize (rather than using 
client examples as the article of dialogue), and then choose a discrete 
and simple client for each, which will probably change of course as time 
goes by; ideally the protocols Tails supports in one way or another will 
not.

Using this perspective, it looks to me as if there are really only a 
grand total of four clients needed here: SMTP, XMPP, IRC, and some form 
of serverless system.

Is this thought disruptive in a good way or bad? It just doesn't seem 
like the hunt for an all-in-one client is going to be a good design 
choice in the long run, especially when individual clients can come 
relatively cheap size and code-wise.

gl



On 2016-01-27 10:01, intrigeri wrote:
> sycamoreone wrote (26 Jan 2016 22:03:00 GMT) :
>> sajolida:
>>> intrigeri:
>> I am also for keeping D separately. But the blueprint should document
>> the use-cases A, B, C, and E that Pidgin and its potential replacement
>> should address. And also the use-case D that it need not.
> 
> Yes. I see that it's been done already (with a new
> nomenclature), cool!
> 
>>>> > I don't know of any tool that provides D _and_ another one among A,
>>>> > B and C. So for the moment, I think that D should be solved separately.
>>> 
>>> Exactly.
> 
>> Yes.
> 
> I'm glad we agree on dealing with D separatedly.
> 
> Cheers!
_______________________________________________
Tails-dev mailing list
Tails-dev@boum.org
https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to Tails-dev-unsubscribe@boum.org.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]