Two clearly unbiased and factual analyses there :)
It would take quite some time to sit down and address all the points gathered on the PSYC page. That page has been around a long time, and used to be a lot more aggressive than it reads now. At one point it even contained a quote from a mailing list post of mine, snipped to remove just the right amount of context. I'm glad to see they've cleaned it up a bit, to at least make it appear somewhat more objective, even if they still think it's objective to make technical statements like "XMPP isn't proper XML".
One of its main points is of performance and scalability. Well I'm afraid that horse bolted - for nearly a decade Google have been successfully running (one of?) the world's largest IM services using XMPP.
Regarding your second link, well, that seems to be set on comparing XMPP to IRC:
> A protocol that, despite an immense range of features, can easily be typed by a human on a telnet prompt, in real time.
Making a protocol that could be typed over telnet obviously wasn't the goal of XMPP. For what it did set out to do - create an open standard IM protocol to give normal people a path to freedom from the old IM silos that were around 10 years ago - I'd say it has been pretty successful. Maybe not as successful as one might have hoped, those silos are still around, but for political and commercial reasons rather than technical ones.
It would take quite some time to sit down and address all the points gathered on the PSYC page. That page has been around a long time, and used to be a lot more aggressive than it reads now. At one point it even contained a quote from a mailing list post of mine, snipped to remove just the right amount of context. I'm glad to see they've cleaned it up a bit, to at least make it appear somewhat more objective, even if they still think it's objective to make technical statements like "XMPP isn't proper XML".
One of its main points is of performance and scalability. Well I'm afraid that horse bolted - for nearly a decade Google have been successfully running (one of?) the world's largest IM services using XMPP.
Regarding your second link, well, that seems to be set on comparing XMPP to IRC:
> A protocol that, despite an immense range of features, can easily be typed by a human on a telnet prompt, in real time.
Making a protocol that could be typed over telnet obviously wasn't the goal of XMPP. For what it did set out to do - create an open standard IM protocol to give normal people a path to freedom from the old IM silos that were around 10 years ago - I'd say it has been pretty successful. Maybe not as successful as one might have hoped, those silos are still around, but for political and commercial reasons rather than technical ones.