Error: No such file found! Please make sure http://markos.gaivo.net/blog/code/framestack1.txt exists.

So, Google has an IM now. Nice that they are using Jabber, but it would be even nicer if their server talked to others too. Otherwise this is just another walled garden.

True, there’s an offer to federate with others, but this makes as much sense as having connection agreements between email servers. If they want a really open IM, then they should let their server work as Jabber was designed. Everyone can play and set up their own server.

On a different note, does anyone know of a good open source Jabber server that can actually handle 10k simultaneous connections and doesn’t go crazy every now and then?

Update: According to Joe Beda there are 3 reasons for staying close:

• Missing code needed for interoperability.
• They want to develop abuse/spam countermeasures.
• They want to ensure everybody really talks to everybody.

I can certainly sympathize with first reason, if true (and I have no reason to doubt it). But it’s harder to agree with other two.

You already have a contact authorization to limit such behavior. If this is not enough, the correct way would be to be as open as a lot of Jabber servers are and switch on protective measures after you’ve developed them together with Jabber community.

It also shouldn’t be up to Google to dictate how open other providers should be. That decision should be left with administrators of Jabber servers and they shouldn’t be coerced into Google’s policy. Basically they should keep the same freedom email server administrators enjoy right now.

We’ve been working on our project for a very long time and it’s been clear all along, that our site, when it’s finally revealed, will look and act very similar to what is already out there, although in a different language and with many, sometimes subtle, differences.

So, should I feel offended or be afraid, as has been suggested by some, of being accused of plagiarism? Or more importantly, should I make a special effort to be different?

I don’t think so. When revealed, site will indeed be very similar to its inspiration. I don’t expect this will last long and I think in few months it will be clear that we took a different approach, but at least at first, it will look like a little brother of some other well known website. I already talked about this and there’s little sense in doing it again.

Real question therefore is, how valuable and important is originality or when is it important to be original?

I think it’s important to try to build something better than what is already out there. This may not be always completely true. E.g. it might be sensible to build a localized copy of established global service to bring it to people who would otherwise be kept away because of a language barrier.

However, I find this kind of development doesn’t contribute much to my personal happiness and is hence not really something I’d like to pursue in the future. But I also don’t value difference just for the difference sake. I think if something works well and I’m not able to significantly improve on it, there’s no good reason to build something else just to be original.

I believe almost every web retailer’s website looks more or less like a copy of Amazon, because their design works well. It also means less of learning curve for new visitors, which is a nice thing as well.

So what do I do?

If something works well, I’ll use it. If it doesn’t, look at how I could improve it. But before I actually do anything, is the difference big enough to bother actually creating it?