Slashdot Mirror
Could IM Be The Next Step For Google?
Rob_Warwick writes "Silicon.com has released an article theorizing that Google might be thinking about releasing an Instant Message client. Between a google_im:// protocol embedded in the Google Desktop Search, and their acquisition of Picasa and their IM client this summer, it almost sounds possible."
Probably more secure in the encryption sense, so that it's harder to eavesdrop on someone else's IM conversation.
--- Bwah?
Try using GAIM. It's a chat client that allows you to use a variety of protocols, including AIM. No ads, no bloat, and if you have multiple messenger services, it can cut the number of extraneous icons in your taskbar. Only drawback IMO is the lack of video and sound options and the occasional interruption of service when one of the messenger services decides to get clever with their protocol. However, Gaim tends to catch up within about 24 hours on the latter case.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Have you tried some of the other clients, such as Trillian or gAIM? Perhaps you would like those better.
*Disclaimer*
Before anyone jumps on me for not mentioning Kopete, he was talking about the AIM client, and no Linux user in their right mind would use the Linux port of AIM's client.
I would suggest jabber. You can sign up for/access it from gaim and you can choose a server with AIM/MSN/Yahoo compatability so you're not stuck with an AIM and Jabber client.
iChat IMO is pretty much what one wants in an IM client, and I tried both Audio & Video conferencing with them to places around the world and I have to say I am very very impressed by it.
In essence, if google really creates it's own client, it will most likely use an established protocol, and AIM would almost certainly be the logic consequence.
Now let's hope that iChat starts to support other IM Protocols soon.... They already allow for it in the addressbook.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
gim.com
gchat.com
gmessage.com
gtalk.com
All *not* registered by google (unless they're doing some sort of proxy registration to hide their name.) I'll be watching gbrowser.com anyway which *is* owned by them.
I tried out the Gmail notifier for two weeks, then uninstalled it.
Aside from it having some minor issues (popup requesting confirmation of email login and address every reboot not always being able to connect and check you messages, among other things)
It has a 7+ MB memory footprint for its process.
Its stores it on your computer. Google Desktop doesn't actually interact over the Internet with Google, unless you have it search your gmail account, which I think is an option.
You can find the index here: \Documents and Settings\userid\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search
In my case, GDS found 134,576 items it deemed worthy of indexing; the index consumes 1.58GB of disk space.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
Gmail integration is not an option, but a highly requested feature.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
And saw this part at the end:
A Google representative said the protocol flagged by Smith does not hint at a pending Google IM product; rather, it is merely a component used to capture IM data from AOL Instant Messenger and make it searchable on the desktop.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You may want to look into Miranda. It's a GPLed, light-weight, multi-network IM client that's much less of an eyesore than GAIM, and with the rather large number of plugins, is as flexible as you want it to be.
Think of it like Trillian's smaller, sleeker cousin.
you want gPopper
"gPopper is a FREE Gmail utility which acts as POP3/SMTP Gmail server allowing you to use programs such as Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, and Thunderbird to send and receive Gmail."
I use it and it works super duper.
http://gmail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answ er=10313&query=dot&topic=&type=f
:)
:)
Think about how many different gmail addresses you have just adding dots
You're welcome
google has already their IM it's called HELLO
http://www.hello.com/index.php
The search is good, still some problems. Its better for finding text inside of files or email. If your searching for a file with a certain name it is a pain in the ass.
Yeah, gmail lets you leave out the period if you wish. It also lets you use extension addresses - so you can have firstname.lastname+extrainfo@gmail.com and it will still go to the firstname.lastname account. Comes in handy for filtering or finding out who has been selling your address to spammers.
1. No feedback on message delivery.
UDP means that the application is reponsiable for delivery. When a TCP message fails in transit, it has to wait for the timeout.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol)
For voice applications UDP is the correct protocol because it's quick.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients. This is the 'big' issue. I there are ways around it, such as the 'super node' concept used in distributed file sharing. Also, I've got an idea of my own... (patent pending!)
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online). As oppossed to the modem user which would need to download all 100 buddy images from that *lovable* central server.
5. It wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall. I am not sure which firewall you use, but I have never seen one that won't support UDP.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected. Sure this is a bit of an issue, but as more poeple get on stable broad band connections, this will become less of an issue.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list.
It would also mean that no central server will have your contacts, sure you might have to carry your own buddy list info, but then you would also be the only one responsiable for securing it.
UDP is an underated protocol, it has been eclipsed by TCP mainly becuase (IMHO) TCP is easier. For an IM application which incorporates voice along with text, I believe that it would be a good choice.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
P2P UDP is actually a very good solution.
I'm tired of the quasi-judeo-christian belief that client/server is the only way to implement networking systems.
1. No feedback on message delivery.
Of course you can have feedback on message delivery. What a silly comment.
2. Bandwidth overhead introduced by error correction/checking (UDP is the wrong protocol).
UDP has error correction (it doesnt have error correction). TCP uses UDP uses IP. There is nothing that TCP does that a system built using UDP cant. Conversely, a purpose-built protocol over UDP can be more efficient than the lazy approach of just using TCP for everything.
3. Central server still needed to record IP addresses to pass to clients.
You thik this is a good thing? In any case, ID's can be virtualised. Heard of Freenet?
4. Massive bandwidth outlay on connection. (Modem user has to send buddy image to all 100 buddies online).
Caching and distributed resource delivery.
5. t wouldnt work throught a NAT firewall.
It could work fine through a NAT. The NIC doesnt care how you architect your software.
6. You wouldnt know if you had become disconnected.
Keepalives.
7. You couldnt log on from any machine (ala msn, icq), because no central server to give you your contacts list
User ID's and passwords, encrypted distributed storage
If you want to consider more intelligent message delivery system, move past client/server with TCP.
-Christian
Whoops... http://gaim-encryption.sourceforge.net/
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Yes there is. It's called Jabber. That's why Google would be smart to push Jabber if they did start an IM service.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Also useful from a legal viewpoint is that Gaim by default logs all conversations. There was some ruling several months ago that IM chat logging could be considered as analagous to recording phone calls and therefore may not be legal without both parties being aware of said recording. However, they also said that any service which logged conversations by default was exempt as there was a reasonable doubt that the user intentionally logged said conversations. As a result, you can log legally with Gaim, but turning on chat logging for any of the services which don't come with it on by default could potentially put you into sticky political waters. (And no, I have no desire to know what's in politcal waters that always makes them so sticky...)
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
It is using IE in the background, hence 7 megs.
The authentication dialog is from Internet Explorer. It's not using iexplore.exe, but one of the dlls.
Soon I'd be getting "spam" to my GMail account based on my most frequently used words.
Uh, Gmail doesn't spam you. There are just some 'sponsored links' at the bottom of the page. It's the usual Google concept that text is much less annoying than pictures and pop-ups. Google prospers by not pissing off the people who use it.
Sure, you can avoid sending sensitive information to/from Gmail if you're worried about privacy, but Google ads seem a great way for you to 'pay' for the service. Your IM client would have a line or two of text ads, the words you use might even affect your Gmail ads, but so what?
#define struct union