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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.