Gajim - 2018-02-23

  1. vahe good day all 8-), tell pls gajim stores the account passwords openly as does Pidgin? PlainText
  2. Asterix vahe: depends on your os and if you have a password storage manager
  3. vahe Asterix: thanks) Yes, it's Fedora
  4. vahe Asterix: I noticed that seahorse is automatically used?
  5. vahe thanks for the response
  6. Asterix Seahorse is just a viewer. You maybe have gnome keyyring manager ?
  7. vahe ah yes yes
  8. vahe Yes you are right
  9. vahe and if there's no gnome keyring?
  10. vahe okay I'll try , so you will understand , thanks again! :)
  11. Asterix vahe: kwallet can be used too
  12. Asterix Windows vault under windows
  13. Asterix Else it's in plain in config file
  14. Vahe Grigoryan Asterix, sorry for the petty questions, I just installed the included omemo but it is not enabled
  15. Vahe Grigoryan
  16. Vahe Grigoryan fedora 27
  17. Vahe Grigoryan + Gajim 0.16.9
  18. Vahe Grigoryan problem python-axolotl?
  19. Vahe Grigoryan ah ok done pip install python-axolotl
  20. Vahe Grigoryan thanks :P
  21. Asterix Yes it seems. Whych Gajim version?
  22. Asterix Ok
  23. Vahe Grigoryan :)
  24. zuglufttier I'm on master and gajim is giving me a lot of "Any occupant is allowed to see your full JID" messages in one muc. From what I've read it's the muc component on the server having a problem.
  25. zuglufttier But what exactly might be the problem? The server with the muc is
  26. ivucica Send file peer-to-peer
  27. ivucica Oops, I had the log scrolled back, nevermind that last message
  28. Link Mauve During the release of beta2, you forgot to tag a commit, fyi.
  29. Link Mauve The last tag is still beta1.
  30. zuglufttier Gajim is printing every 30s these messages:
  31. Link Mauve zuglufttier, open the XML console (Accounts > Advanced > XML Console) and paste what’s going on between two of these.
  32. Asterix Link Mauve:
  33. Asterix Link Mauve: you maybe looked in master only?
  34. Link Mauve Oh ok, it’s not on master.
  35. Link Mauve Gotcha.
  36. zuglufttier Link Mauve, I think I found it... It's <status code='100'/> coming from one client about every 30s.
  37. Link Mauve The MUC service should disallow clients from sending their own status codes, do you have more information about that?
  38. Link Mauve I remember having a lot of fun many years ago, appearing as the owner of a MUC just by crafting a presence. :3
  39. zuglufttier
  40. zuglufttier It's one user with dino as client.
  41. zuglufttier And Conversations propably.
  42. Link Mauve zuglufttier, status 100 means this participant just entered the room, it shouldn’t trigger any other message than “<someone> joined the room”.
  43. zuglufttier Then he's entering every 30s.
  44. zuglufttier And the message appears at the same time.
  45. Link Mauve zuglufttier, there is nothing wrong with that presence anyway, you don’t have anything else?
  46. Link Mauve If so, please open an issue at
  47. zuglufttier Link Mauve, I'll do if I have more info!
  48. Holger Link Mauve: Hm? 100 means "the room is non-anonymous" and you should only receive it with your initial presence, no?
  49. Link Mauve Holger, oh right.
  50. Link Mauve zuglufttier, which server is that?
  51. Link Mauve Ok, Prosody.
  52. zuglufttier Yes, it should be up to date as well.
  53. ivucica So uh... possible bug with buffering of the XML stream during stream setup.
  54. ivucica When I'm sending <stream:stream ...><stream:features><starttls...> chunked up (pretty much on the tag boundary, but possibly even finegrained) on a plaintext connection, from Go, using connection.Write([]byte("blah")), things are fine.
  55. ivucica After STARTTLSing the connection, if I do the same, the connection falls apart badly.
  56. ivucica For instance, I had to send <?xml version="1.0"?><stream:stream...> at once.
  57. ivucica Then I had to send <stream:features>...</stream:features> all at once.
  58. ivucica If I don't, I get approximately "no stream:features" when starting with ./ -v.
  59. ivucica Smells of connection not being buffered properly on Gajim's end?
  60. lovetox so what does gajim say, you can debug the xmpp lib with -l .nbxmpp=DEBUG
  61. lovetox also question is, is there any reason to not send this at once
  62. lovetox because this works since forever with every server out there
  63. lovetox so if this is a pure theoreticall problem ..
  64. Link Mauve lovetox, ivucica is writing a server.
  65. lovetox i know
  66. Link Mauve But hmm, if the buffers are too small on Gajim’s side and a “normal” server’s answer is too big, it may trigger this issue.
  67. Link Mauve So it would be worth fixing.
  68. lovetox thats not the problem here
  69. lovetox he says he sends <?xml version='1.0'?> over tls
  70. lovetox and gajim does not wait from <stream> and just says this is invalid
  71. lovetox basically gajim expecting to get a full stream init in one go
  72. lovetox and he says this behaves differently on a TLS con and a PLAIN
  73. lovetox which sounds weird to me
  74. lovetox im not sure this has something to do with buffers, im no expert on such think as socket stuff
  75. lovetox but if a server writes stuff to my incoming buffer
  76. lovetox and it stops before my buffer is full
  77. lovetox then i can assume he is finished
  78. lovetox and process the stanza
  79. lovetox and if my buffer is full, i cannot assume he is finished, so i read whatever is in there cache it and look if i get more
  80. debacle ivucica, what server are you writing? just curious
  81. lovetox a xmpp server in go
  82. debacle thx
  83. debacle I want one in Python :~)
  84. ivucica lovetox, TCP does not guarantee that one send() on one side = one recv() on the other side
  85. ivucica nor does it guarantee that two send()s won't be merged into one
  86. Holger depate: But why!
  87. Holger debacle: But why! ;-)
  88. debacle Holger, because!
  89. Holger debacle: Okay :-)
  90. ivucica it's not purely theoretical either, this is one of the first super confusing things i experienced back in ~2001 when writing an IRC client in VB6 for a student competition
  91. Holger ivucica: Yet 80% of networking software assume they can just call read() once per response and get away with it ...
  92. lovetox ivucica so how do i ever know then if you are finished or not?
  93. ivucica Holger, and therefore they are wrong
  94. ivucica lovetox, in irc, newline
  95. Holger ivucica: Sure.
  96. ivucica in xmpp, streaming xml parsers know how to deal with that
  97. lovetox has nothing to do with the xml parser,
  98. lovetox he can only tell me this is invalid xml or not
  99. lovetox but not if there is more to come or not
  100. ivucica uh, no
  101. ivucica well
  102. lovetox so how long should i wait?
  103. ivucica until either timeout, or until the parser says 'this is fine'
  104. ivucica or 'this is absolutely invalid, not just truncated'
  105. lovetox but would that then not block my stream
  106. ivucica that's why you add timeouts
  107. lovetox it still blocks
  108. ivucica uh, blocks what?
  109. ivucica there are many ways to work around that. threading, or select() + "how much data do you have available". maybe more.
  110. Holger lovetox: During normal operation, you don't wait until a timeout, you just wait until you have a vaild chunk of XML you can operate on.
  111. ivucica Holger++
  112. lovetox yeah i dont think nbxmpp does that
  113. ivucica it quite probably should
  114. ivucica i mean, i'm pretty sure it's really good at a higher level, but if it doesn't behave as noted above, then it's a bug
  115. ivucica maybe there are subtle bugs that arise from this.
  116. Holger I totally agree with ivucica on how it should be done, doing it otherwise is very wrong. But I can easily imagine it being a non-trivial amount effort to change things that way.
  117. lovetox it probably is, but as i said a rather theoretical one
  118. ivucica again, not theoretical
  119. lovetox as this cause 0% problems
  120. ivucica and you don't know that it causes 0% problems.
  121. ivucica most stanzas are rather small and probably fit into a packet. maybe nbxmpp also behaves correctly after the initial stream opening. i don't know that.
  122. lovetox it does we would have mass errors about invalid stanzas
  123. ivucica i'd be interested in how it behaves at stanzas over MTU.
  124. ivucica i don't think there's even a limit on size of ID in the standard, for instance.
  125. Holger ID?
  126. ivucica but tbh, the fact that it can't handle <stream:features> sent by itself, separately from its children nodes, makes me scared.
  127. ivucica yeah, i'm pulling a random xml attribute out of my ***
  128. Holger Ah.
  129. ivucica e.g. <stream:stream from="" version="1.0" id="aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" xml:lang="en">
  130. ivucica although, TLS layer might compose that back into one packet, i never checked how TLS works.
  131. ivucica TLS wrapping individual reads and writes (if it does that!) might be the reason why this cropped up with TLS, actually, and not with TCP streams.
  132. ivucica nagle algorithm probably merged all writes into one, and gajim didn't know better.
  133. lovetox gajim definitly depends on receiving stream features in one go
  134. ivucica s/better/things are any different/
  135. debacle XML is pretty bad for streaming. Some ASN.1 codings are OK, e.g. BER (basic encoding rules) are TLV (= tag, length, value), first you know what to expect, then how much, finally the value itself. Timeouts are needed anyway, but you don't have to look into the value, before you have it completely. Can we change XMPP to BER, please? :~)
  136. ivucica yeah, it shouldn't, as they can be very large.
  137. ivucica debacle, no
  138. ivucica i mean, it's not very good for streaming, but let's stick with something at least partially readable.
  139. ivucica otherwise we can just adopt protobufs and call it a day. just make the protocol less extensible and more centralized with a central registry of extensions for every single use. but that's not the point.
  140. debacle How many centuries would it take me to reach an XSF agreement to use ASN.1? :~)
  141. ivucica lim -> inf
  142. debacle exactly!
  143. ivucica if you want to use ASN.1 just write your own thing
  144. debacle No, I worked many years with ASN.1 (long time ago) and I hate it.
  145. ivucica :)
  146. debacle It has many disadvantages. Mainly: XML is very easy compared to it.
  147. Holger debacle: Would be a cool reaction to how the world is ranting to death about us using XML.
  148. Holger "We finally moved away from it! It's ASN.1 now!!"
  149. debacle Hahaha, XSF should have a 2018-04-01 XEP for it!
  150. Holger ivucica: BTW, I hear client developers like XMPP via WebSockets precisely for the reason that it basically returns datagrams (frames) with standalone XML elements rather than a stream.
  151. lovetox hm
  152. Maranda Hmm well then only a XMPP server in Perl would be missing 🤣
  153. Maranda Or is there one already?
  154. Maranda 🤔
  155. Holger Maranda: To implement the ASN.1 thing?
  156. Holger There's djabberd!
  157. Maranda !
  158. Maranda 🤣
  159. Holger
  160. Maranda Holger, well look it's got so many pull requests/contribs even if it's a 🧟‍♂️ compared to mine lol. I suppose I need to take some PR lessons 🙄
  161. Holger Except for one from 2015, the most recent one is from 2013 though.
  162. Holger So that's mostly just XMPP's declining popularity I guess.
  163. Maranda Hmrm well...
  164. Maranda Holger, even when it wasn't declining
  165. Maranda I mean *shrugs* 😂
  166. Holger Well what should I say ... it was your decision to fork :-P
  167. Maranda Right
  168. Maranda doesn't regret it though :P
  169. Maranda But I suppose I'm just unskilled at Promotion too.
  170. Holger Well your main selling point compared to Prosody is persistent PubSub, no? I guess that might just not be enough to convince many non-Jappix/Movim users.
  171. Holger But I'm clueless of course, and might be slightly off-topic in here :-)
  172. Maranda Well there's a *bit more then just that* (expecially now) but I guess yes that could be it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  173. bot Philipp Hörist pushed 1 commit to branch _refs/heads/master_ of _gajim_ < >: *91aac652* < > remove unused function
  174. bot Philipp Hörist merged a merge request for _gajim/master_ < >: remove unused function
  175. bot Daniel created an issue in _gajim-plugins_ < >: #269: < [preview] Clicking on preview opens folder and image (tegether) >
  176. bot Daniel modified an issue in _gajim-plugins_ < >: #269: < [preview] Clicking on preview opens folder and image (together) >
  177. jjrh I don't get this notion that XMPP popularity is declining. From what I have seen if anything it's growing.
  178. jjrh There are a good number of enterprise messaging services built on XMPP (they just don't brand it as such)
  179. Maranda jjrh, huhu
  180. debacle jjrh, maybe this wrong cliché comes because one huge company used to support XMPP incl. federation while another huge company supported at least the client-side protocol, but both dropped out
  181. jjrh Yeah that's a fair point.
  182. jjrh at the moment though if you're a business wanting to run your own chat system, the choices are pretty slim and XMPP is probably your best bet for maturity, client support and external technical support.
  183. Citizen Zibb I dont think jabber is in a state of decline
  184. Citizen Zibb I do think that these private companies are making unfederated jabber based chat
  185. lovetox we have to be fair
  186. Citizen Zibb in what respect
  187. lovetox its not possible to do a client that 1 billion people use, guarantee a certain stability and service, and at the same time interface with a fucktone of buggy old xmpp servers
  188. lovetox the decision to not federate at that level, is perfectly comprehensible, i think i would come to the same conclusion
  189. Citizen Zibb I think what they did do is pick a stable version of the server and just walled their garden
  190. Citizen Zibb besides not all the servers are as buggy or old
  191. lovetox i think they wrote their own
  192. Citizen Zibb I think ultimately they have the freedom to do as they like, but that hype over their walled garden fucks over xmpp
  193. lovetox its not a hype, they just delivered a MUCH better product, its just much more easy to do something stable and good if you dont federate
  194. lovetox so now everyone will use this as comparison
  195. Citizen Zibb They really didnt do any work though
  196. Citizen Zibb and i dont agree they gave a better product
  197. lovetox in an enviroment where people want to have every 6 months a new cool hip thing that a messenger can do, there is not chance for a federated client to bring this
  198. lovetox just think about how much the email protocol changed in the last 20 years
  199. lovetox i bet a email client 20 years ago could do the same thing as thunderbird today
  200. Citizen Zibb we can debate it
  201. Citizen Zibb but running outdated servers shouldn't be allowed in the first place
  202. lovetox and now look at the current enviroment, there are probably 50 new XEPs a year
  203. lovetox stuff people would like xmpp to do
  204. Citizen Zibb slow ass implementation is the problem
  205. Citizen Zibb and the manner in which it is implemented is half assed at best
  206. lovetox email works because everything is stable for decades
  207. Citizen Zibb right but its not the exact same and has been extended
  208. lovetox with federation you have too much overhead
  209. lovetox how much time devs invest because client X does not behave as it should and does some bad thing, or server Y can do this and server X cant do that
  210. lovetox every input i get from a server i have to validate and validate and prepare that its possible that i get the strangest things
  211. SouL lovetox, thanks for the effort :)
  212. lovetox dont get me wrong, im not saying this because i think federation is bad, federation is still the number 1 PRO for xmpp
  213. lovetox i just want to make clear, some company that decides to not federate has so much headstart in developing a good client
  214. lovetox and you just cant expect of xmpp clients do the same thing
  215. lovetox federation alone is reason enough there will be always people using xmpp
  216. lovetox and we can really slowly try to build better clients
  217. jjrh I think part of the reason proprietary XMPP solutions don't do federation is because the demand isn't there - businesses buying a chat solution don't expect (or know it's possible) the protocol allows for me to connect the same way my phone can connect to your phone and not need a line on your PBX.
  218. jjrh Businesses also don't see the value in it. Why would I want strangers to be able to chat with me? (oh because we coordinate work with contractors, support staff, clients, etc)
  219. lovetox my company uses skype
  220. lovetox this is the saddest fucking chat application there is
  221. lovetox you know why they use it though?
  222. jjrh Is it like skype or whatever ms lync or whatever?
  223. lovetox because they can get rid of all the phones and phone lines and phone costs in the company
  224. lovetox just install skype and give everyone a headset
  225. lovetox they renamed it, it was lync
  226. lovetox also nobody needs chats in companys
  227. lovetox email is way better
  228. lovetox you dont need instant responses with texts
  229. lovetox if you need instant response you call in a company
  230. jjrh I find most people treat email like it's chat - they send you 4 word mail and expect a response in under 5 minutes
  231. jjrh "here let me send you a email with the url"
  232. lovetox then they are idiots
  233. lovetox you will find these whereever you go :)
  234. Maranda lovetox, NOPE! Now it's Skype for Bussness
  235. Maranda get it right, Lync is no more XDDD
  236. Maranda Oh wait
  237. Maranda lol
  238. Maranda baps himself.
  239. lovetox mhm
  240. Maranda I can't read
  241. lovetox baps Maranda even more
  242. lovetox whatever baps means :D
  243. lovetox hope its something bad
  244. jjrh I thought there was something inbetween - there is skype and lync which was sorta tied into exchange/outlook and provides phone calls and stuff
  245. lovetox and you know also for what people xmpp is nice
  246. lovetox for people without smartphones
  247. lovetox thats what got me into xmpp
  248. lovetox i had no smartphone and wanted to chat with my girlfriend from my desktop to her phone
  249. Maranda lovetox, bap is a slang for whacking
  250. Maranda (on da head)
  251. Maranda :P
  252. jjrh why not fb chat?
  253. jjrh I'm not a fan of facebook but everyone uses it :p
  254. lovetox because i dont want to type my whole life into a facebook messenger
  255. lovetox but yes technically a solution
  256. jjrh that's fair. I gave up that battle a long time ago.
  257. jjrh Right now I got whatsapp for a couple people, hangouts for my mom, irc, facebook for the majority of my friends and XMPP for work
  258. jjrh jmp is pretty cool I gotta say
  259. lovetox yeah the amount of time you have to invest to not share all that data with these companys is not worth it
  260. debacle jjrh I use Movim (web based XMPP client) with people living far away. Because we can do audio/video chat and it looks and feels like a "social network".
  261. Maranda :O
  262. lovetox since when has it audio/video support?
  263. lovetox movim is nice i used it from work, until my work banned the site
  264. lovetox :/
  265. lovetox now im back to converse.js
  266. debacle lovetox, no idea. It works with WebRTC in modern web browsers. Internally it uses STUN/TURN to make it happen.
  267. lovetox they dont mention it on there page
  268. lovetox ah no they do
  269. debacle the current gstreamer supports (AFAIK) WebRTC - in theory Gajim could talk to Movim :~)
  270. jjrh It's too much effort to convince people to switch to something different - it's less work for me to just get people to switch. Even if you get someone using something new they won't check it often. That's why I use whatsapp with one friend - he just respond to FB chat very often but is quick with whatsapp
  271. lovetox im more concerned about google with my searches
  272. lovetox the data they can get from that is insange
  273. lovetox the data they can get from that is insane
  274. jjrh Yeah.
  275. jjrh The worst part is you stick out if you don't use google :P
  276. debacle lovetox, I use searx for searxing, äh, ich meine searching
  277. debacle and I do not use always the same searx instance
  278. lovetox thanks will try it
  279. jjrh The really sketchy one is android phones - I stumbled upon location history once - it's pretty creepy to see basically your entire life.
  280. lovetox yeah but i dont have that problem
  281. lovetox no smartphone
  282. lovetox :)
  283. debacle do not use because that's what everybody uses and their server is already slow
  284. jjrh "Oh that was my trip to toronto.... oh that was the day I walked around downtown.... oh why wasn't I at work that day? oh it's because that was a holiday"
  285. lovetox smartphone just would take too much time away from me, all that updating, apps stuff, constantly something to do and click
  286. jjrh eh it's not that bad
  287. lovetox it is, you just not seeing it anymore :D
  288. jjrh I mean I mostly just use it to chat, read the news on the bus, google maps, phone calls, music / podcasts
  289. debacle I used to have a smartphone (CyanogenMod with F-Droid only, so relatively "free"), but like lovetox I was not happy with it. No smartphone for me, thanks.
  290. lovetox "just" then goes and lists 10 things
  291. lovetox at the moment i travel a lot by train
  292. lovetox and often i sit and look out the window for 2 hours and do nothing then thinking about some stuff
  293. lovetox i bett if i had a smartphone, i would play, update apps, donwload apps, chat with my friends, do 10 other things this thing can do
  294. jjrh I don't really do much with apps. I had to wipe my phone yesterday and reinstall all my apps and it was like hangouts, fb messenger, conversations, whatsapp, uber, googlemaps, podcast addict
  295. jjrh I read the news a lot on my phone that's the other thing I do.
  296. lovetox the only thing where i sometimes think a smartphone would be nice
  297. lovetox is navigation
  298. lovetox like if i dont find a thing where i want to go
  299. jjrh google maps is really nice.
  300. jjrh Especially for like bus stuff. Tell you all the times, all the connecting buses. I was in montreal a few months ago and didn't need to ask anyone for directions, google maps planned everything out for me
  301. lovetox yes if you are in a foreign country it definitly needs more preparation if you go out of the house
  302. lovetox like i have to really look on the map what the town looks like, what buses drive where etc
  303. lovetox but on the other hand i find this nice, because i feel like im on a pro level
  304. lovetox you know i dont need this, i just find things on my own
  305. lovetox with my mind
  306. jjrh Yeah and I mean if you survive fine without a smartphone then great. Save yourself some money :)
  307. debacle Yes, when I was in another city and had to find my hotel on the bicycle, I had to ask the people on the street. Like in the old times.
  308. SABer i have a non-smartphone
  309. SABer and not often with me
  310. SABer but i would love to have this:
  311. SABer
  312. SABer (mobile edition)
  313. lovetox haha