Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Talk Claims Openness, Lacks S2S Support

Posted by Hemos on from the unhappiness-in-the-joy dept.

rm writes "This LiveJournal entry by Nugget quite well sums up the disappointment in Google Talk among many Jabber users, caused by the service's complete lack of XMPP server-to-server communication support: '...Google has uncharacteristically missed the real strength of the Jabber design. Despite all their self-congratulation about open communications they've only embraced the smaller, less important aspect of the Jabber openness.'"

3 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. But does it run on Linux? by pieterh · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, I'm tired of hearing about some great new Google product and seeing the "System Requirements".

    Is it so difficult to make portable software in 2005? Do we really have to keep a Wintendo box lying around just so we can use the newest gadgets?

    I think Skype (and many others) have shown that the answer is, "it runs on your box, whatever that is", and I really hope Google pay attention to this. Unless they have a vested interest in reducing their market, they must deliver applications that run on Windows, Linux, and OS/X.

    --
    My blog
  2. Me too by dJOEK · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hey, I blogged something about Google Talk too. Can I be on the slashdot frontpage now? *end sarcasm*

    --
    Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
  3. Re:You know Slashdots going downhill when... by fm6 · · Score: 0, Troll
    Sure, Dvorak's an idiot -- but at least he pretends to be a real journalist. Nugget may be smarter than Dvorak -- but there's no way to tell, because he doesn't write to be read. Like many bloggers, he just dumps out his thoughts as the appear into his consciousness, without trying to make a point or a coherent argument.

    Usually it's a big no-no to comment without reading TFA. But in this case, there is no FA. There's just a statement buried in a blogrant that says the same thing as the submission. It would have been more productive to submit the story without any link at all, just the thesis "Google talk doesn't support S2S! Uncool!"

    Of course, that's not how Slashdot works -- you have to provide a link to an actual story. But something like this is a waste of everybody's time. The editor should have rejected the story and waited for somebody to submit a more thoughtful statement on the same topic. One wonders if the editor even followed the link. In any case, Slashdot editors have gotten terminally lazy -- as the link in my sig verifies.