feature request - with an explanation
levchenko.i at gmail.com
Tue May 29 17:16:15 EDT 2007
I only send password via XMPP because the connection is encrypted via
ssl, and not encrypted via msn.
I agree that most of the comments that are there there are from noisy users.
The idea of aliasing the contacts to use the xmpp accounts in
preference looks like a workaround and thanks for the idea, but it
really is a little uncomfortable. Even when pidgin used to group
different buddies into one contact, i always divided them.
I agree on the though that it didn't come to my mind that it could
have been a requested feature.
On the notion that you choose the software that you use - you are
mostly correct, but in the world of im software (and i mean a
multi-protocol gui app) - there isn't much choice on what to use:
SIM - it is very unstable and has a lot of issues with msn -
http://sim-im.org/wiki/MSN_plugin, doesn't sufficient chat support in
Kopete - not as stable as pidgin, not enough plugins (the ones that i
need), could never get the new mail notification working - ever.. the
kde dependencies just kill you when you are working in a gtk env.
Thats why I think that there is no other option (at least for me)
other than pidgin and thats why I wrote this email - to see if it was
possible to get back the functionality that made it easier for me. Is
there an option to add a voting for the feature?
IMHO, there isn't anything else for linux and amoung them, Pidgin
right now is a lightyear ahead of all of the others in stability and
While thinking about this conversation, i got an idea for something
that I think would be a great idea - to implement tabs. Now this is
just an idea, just the result of some brainstorming with some guys
from work - maybe somebody would like it. What if a person could be
able to create tabs in pidgin's buddy list. he could then be able to
group different people to different tabs. i know i would definitely
Anyways, thanks a lot for your replies. I'll try to figure something
out. its really nice to hear your opinions on the matter and good
On 5/29/07, Luke Schierer <lschiere at pidgin.im> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:11:24PM +0300, Ivan Levchenko wrote:
> > Hello Pidgin developers, qa testers, users,
> > I wanted to talk to all about this - http://developer.pidgin.im/ticket/414.
> > Now I use a lot of IM accounts - currently 5 ( 2 msn, 2 jabber and 1
> > icq, soon going to be adding skype to it). Two of them are work
> > accounts and 3 of them, personal. I need to be constantly in touch
> > with a lot of people at all times. Before version 2.0b7, each contact
> > had its protocol icon displayed in the contact list itself and it is
> > very easy to choose the right contact i needed. I will explain why it
> > is important for me: at work i use jabber and msn, it just so happens
> > that we have both, even though we are all trying to migrate to the
> > more secure and stable xmpp protocol, there are still a lot of people
> > that just don't want to use it because they like msn (yuck!), a lot of
> > times, i have to be sending out passwords or other delicate info, that
> > i don't want to be sniffed or something so i HAVE to use the jabber
> > network for the work contacts. earlier, it was a lot easier to choose
> > the right contact for the person - i just had to make a quick look and
> > bang - i have the jabber window open with the guy, and i'm already
> > talking to him. now, its a lot easier for me to make a mistake and to
> > send the guy a message via msn. - this was an opposition to comment
> > number seven in bug 414. It really DOES matter what protocol I am
> > using when i am talking to a person. I don't want to talk about my
> > personal things via a work account. and i don't want to be thinking
> > about what i am saying thinking about if somebody at work can access
> > my im logs.
> I wonder how carefully you read that bug, we addressed this very use
> case, and are discussing how best to modify _the conversation window_ to
> handle it. This is not truly a bug in the buddy list change, it is a
> lack of information in the conversation window.
> > Another point is that a lot of people use different accounts at home
> > and at work, for example at home my friend uses his yahoo account and
> > at work, he uses his msn, but he seldom puts an away message on his
> > home computer when he goes to work. Earlier it was a lot easier to get
> > to the right im account to talk to my friend, now, it isn't.
> If you had set up contacts for this person, 9 times out of 10 it should
> Just Work. His home computer will go idle while he commutes, and the
> lack of idle time on his work account will cause Pidgin to prefer that
> account. Alternately, the same conversation window work I refered to
> above would address this, again if contacts are set up.
> > In the comments, you guys, the developers talk about how much of a
> > good decision it was to make the icon standard for the people, but
> > take a look at it from a different perspective -
> > since the day the bug was opened - one month ago, till the day
> > comments were turned off for the bug - you got 114 comments!!! That
> > means that it really was important for a lot of people.
> Or it could mean that each of 57 comments by 1 person have had exactly
> one reply each. In reality, neither of these two hypothetical
> situations is true. The 114 comments represent many replies from a very
> small (but larger than 1) sample of very noisy users.
> What *each* of those comments fails to even *consider* is that this was
> a *requested* change. Each of those users in that ticket has implicetly
> or explicetly stated that they think that *no user* likes this change.
> > When i first started to use linux and open source software, i was
> > really happy about one thing - you always have choice in everything
> > and you can always make a difference in something. In the world of
> > Microsoft - when you don't like something that has been changed in yet
> > another version of windows - TOO BAD; but in open source software, you
> > always had the choice to change it yourself. unfortunatley, i'm not a
> > developer, so i will have to rely on you guys - the people that are
> > giving the world a choice - a choice other than proprietary software.
> > But since this has happened, its just going away from the open source
> > way as i see it.
> You come so close to understanding open source here, only to fail in the
> last line. Open source philosphy has nothing to do with making options
> available in a *single* program. Rather, this one-size-fits-all
> approach typifies *proprietary* systems, as does a concern with "market
> share." The choice open source enables is the choice to use something
> different, be it your own forked version of an existing project, or to
> start from scratch and write your own from the ground up. You chose the
> software you use.
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
levchenko.i at gmail.com
More information about the Devel