I am referring to the contacts window. I don't care if chat windows are big because if I am chatting that's what I am focused on. But I want the contacts window to be visible along side whatever else I am working on. That said, I don't think I have used the 1.0 release but I have used it relatively recently.
And pointing out that I used bold doesn't make what I said false - which is something you didn't even try to show.
Telling me things about revenue from Yahoo vs Trillian doesn't change the fact (yes fact) that many people consider using a third-party messenger client to be either wrong or unsafe.
Thanks. I also ditched Fire because, like Yahoo, it was also too big. I can live without IM for a few days while they get this fixed. There are enough Adium addicts that it won't last forever:)
No. The ads are really, really tiny (sorry I can't show you a screenshot). I barely even notice they're there. But the buttons are huge (even if you disable all the other tabs there is still space for the buttons), there is plenty of simply empty space, and you can't change the font size.
Point one isn't really vaild. How many of the banner ads does your mom click on? Or is just being bombarded by them make her paying?
Yahoo takes that risk when they choose to pay for their service that way. But not using the Yahoo client and not clicking on banner ads are substantively very different.
As for webcams, that's up to the clients. Most of them use P2P and don't go through the service.
I don't understand. Does each service have their own webcam protocol or is there a standard everyone implements? If they're different, aren't you still relying on Yahoo to not change their standard?
In answer to your point #2, a single client with a single connection is better then 1 client with many connections all on different ports. Most of which need to be kept open, firewall rules created etc.
It's a minor point, but I'll grant it. It also adds an additional point of failure, though. If either Jabber OR MSN is down I can't talk to MSN. Using my own client there is no Jabber server point of failure.
Third point... I have a friend that works for jabber. And the do actually have a service (a jabber.org server) that you can connect to.
So are all Jabber users in one namespace? Or do you have to keep track of which server someone is on? (like, I want to chat with joe@jabber.uk not joe@jabber.ru) If it's the latter, I can't imagine this NOT being a deciding issue.
The nice thing about jabber is you can setup your own local private server. But also have connectors to other servers/services as you choose.
Fine. And if I were setting up a corporate system I would care. Since we've primarily been talking about home users it doesn't really matter.
Bottom Line I can't make a compelling case for anyone in my family or circle of friends to use Jabber because there are some things they will see as disadvantages and nothing they will see as an advantage. I also imagine this is true for most home users.
First, a lot of people are not interested in "freeloading" the system. I would have a hard time convincing my mom that going through a backdoor to communicate with her Yahoo friends wouldn't be wrong and that everything (including webcams) would work just right.
Second, how is using a multi-service server better than using a multi-service client? The only difference is how many places have to be patched when Yahoo upgrades.
Third, Jabber doesn't appear to be an actual service, just a protocol. That introduces new problems. Jabber just appears to be an overly complicated solution to a problem that has simpler solutions.
Of course, the best solution is to create a superior protocol and set of clients, get it standardized, and somehow get them widely adopted (yeah, I know, this is the hard part), and make it so that Yahoo and MSN want their messengers to be compatible with IT.
And while you're at it you can find a cure for cancer and end all wars, everwhere.:)
So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether?
The problem is that it's not as simple as one person changing messenger clients. If I change, I can't talk to anyone I currently do unless 5 other people change (I am apparently in the minority with such a small list:). But those 5 people won't change unless the 20 people on each of their lists changes. And *those* 20 (times 5) people won't change unless....you get the picture.
And that's why multi-service chat programs are needed.
Some of the clients are just too big. My family uses Yahoo on their PCs. I have a 12" PowerBook and the Yahoo Messenger client for OS X takes up a good 10+% of the screen. Adium, on the other hand, takes up about 10% of the space that Yahoo Messenger does so I can leave it always visible in the corner of the screen. For me it has nothing to do with ads and everything to do with customization for my needs.
I am more worried about what this will do the adult entertainment business in Vegas. Imagine, thousands of showgirls and prostitutes out of work for a week!
Even if all the other stores go out of business Apple will still have competition: file sharing networks.
Jobs seemed to be the first major player in the field to understand that you need to offer a competitive alternative to get people to use a store instead of Kazaa. I doubt that view will change anytime soon.
The level of misinformation being cast is surprising to me.
If GPL-covered code were to find its way into a proprietary system or application, it would become public and free to use by anyone.
First, it's only true if you are shipping a product. If you use the code in house you are under no obligation to distribute changes. Second, "find it's way????" I can imagine the developers coming into work one morning and being shocked to "discover" GPLed code in their project. "Honestly, I don't know how it got there!!"
How do those providing and using open source applications know that someone's intellectual property wasn't stolen and inserted?
It's been mentioned before but I'll include it for completeness: how do those providing closed source software know that someone's IP wasn't stolen and inserted? And how much harder is it to verify this in the case of closed source versus open source?
The pure open-source model is not capable of supporting for-profit firms. While the service-support model can provide sustainable profits, as the U.S. experience has demonstrated this model can only support a handful of firms at best.
The fault here is in thinking that the software industry is the only industry that matters. Software features that once cost thousands are now available to other companies for free. Less profits for the computer industry means lower costs for every industry using computers (um, all of them?) Even if this means the complete death of the entire commerical software industry, how can this not help economic growth?
Much of the questions about open source software and applications come back to basic economic incentives. What incentives exist among volunteers to do their best, most innovative work? There is little.
The answer to this question should be self evident given that people are currently motivated enough to be putting massive effort into free and open source software. Money is a terrible motivator. Anyone who has taken rudimentary human factors classes knows that. Pride, while one of the deadly sins, is actually a much better motivator.
Comcast has indicated they will be doing just that. Other ISPs are beginning to shut down port 25 for everyone. As many times as I have disagreed with Comcast in the past, I like their plan of action this time.
One major reason that spammers are using zombies is that ISPs cracked down on spammers and closed a lot of open relays. Are you suggesting these weren't good ideas? Just because a spammer may find another way to spam doesn't mean we shouldn't shut down the known methods of spamming if we know how.
I think the real issue with forcing a shift in technology is that of development for multiple platforms.
If Microsoft makes a colossal shift in technology with the release of the XBox 2 then every developer who wants to release a game for the XBox 2 will probably be doing a single platform release.
The real question I don't know the answer to is: is there a lot of code/design re-use in the industry right now. If there is, then Microsoft is asking a lot from developers. Will many of them be willing to put effort into an XBox game knowing that they won't be able to release the game on any other platforms?
That's fine but that doesn't tell us whether MS is turning a profit on the business. Making money on one part of the business doesn't guarantee that the business is profitable.
Why would you buy an 8-hour DVD for $5 when I can rent it at Blockbuster for a week for $4? Really, if these were to take off they would have to be priced about a $1.
My favorite "green" story comes from when I worked retail during college. We sold flea and tick sprays for pets. One manufacturer switched from aerosol spray cans to a pump spray. This was probably a good thing. However, to celebrate their new environmentally friendly product they surrounded the pump spray bottle in a completely unecessary shiny cardboard sheath to proudly announce their environmental friendliness. At the time very few places accepted this kind of shiny cardboard for recycling.
It still boggles the mind that a company actually did this.
It can be even more restrictive! The complex I am moving into in Chicago has a cable requirement. I have, essentially, a $16 monthly surcharge on my rent that goes to cable. I don't know what channels that comes with so I can't say whether it's a good deal or not.
He was standing outside the three story downtown mall. I don't know the name because I usually walked there from the old conference center, through the Hilton and an office building right into the mall.
If they're simply going to replace it then why make them waste the paper?
It is pretty funny, though, the lengths some people go to in an attempt to "get the word out" on their religion. Working at Meijer (a store like Wal-Mart with food) I had people return products with religous materials stuffed inside. A guy recently bought my computer. When he left I found a religious book in my trash. And then there was the guy outside the mall in Milwaukee handing out bibles muttering "evolution is a lie" under his breath.
Bibles in hotels I can live with. It's the other things that weird me out.
Slashdot Mirror
I am referring to the contacts window. I don't care if chat windows are big because if I am chatting that's what I am focused on. But I want the contacts window to be visible along side whatever else I am working on. That said, I don't think I have used the 1.0 release but I have used it relatively recently.
And pointing out that I used bold doesn't make what I said false - which is something you didn't even try to show.
Telling me things about revenue from Yahoo vs Trillian doesn't change the fact (yes fact) that many people consider using a third-party messenger client to be either wrong or unsafe.
Thanks. I also ditched Fire because, like Yahoo, it was also too big. I can live without IM for a few days while they get this fixed. There are enough Adium addicts that it won't last forever :)
No. The ads are really, really tiny (sorry I can't show you a screenshot). I barely even notice they're there. But the buttons are huge (even if you disable all the other tabs there is still space for the buttons), there is plenty of simply empty space, and you can't change the font size.
Point one isn't really vaild. How many of the banner ads does your mom click on? Or is just being bombarded by them make her paying?
Yahoo takes that risk when they choose to pay for their service that way. But not using the Yahoo client and not clicking on banner ads are substantively very different.
As for webcams, that's up to the clients. Most of them use P2P and don't go through the service.
I don't understand. Does each service have their own webcam protocol or is there a standard everyone implements? If they're different, aren't you still relying on Yahoo to not change their standard?
In answer to your point #2, a single client with a single connection is better then 1 client with many connections all on different ports. Most of which need to be kept open, firewall rules created etc.
It's a minor point, but I'll grant it. It also adds an additional point of failure, though. If either Jabber OR MSN is down I can't talk to MSN. Using my own client there is no Jabber server point of failure.
Third point... I have a friend that works for jabber. And the do actually have a service (a jabber.org server) that you can connect to.
So are all Jabber users in one namespace? Or do you have to keep track of which server someone is on? (like, I want to chat with joe@jabber.uk not joe@jabber.ru) If it's the latter, I can't imagine this NOT being a deciding issue.
The nice thing about jabber is you can setup your own local private server. But also have connectors to other servers/services as you choose.
Fine. And if I were setting up a corporate system I would care. Since we've primarily been talking about home users it doesn't really matter.
Bottom Line
I can't make a compelling case for anyone in my family or circle of friends to use Jabber because there are some things they will see as disadvantages and nothing they will see as an advantage. I also imagine this is true for most home users.
First, a lot of people are not interested in "freeloading" the system. I would have a hard time convincing my mom that going through a backdoor to communicate with her Yahoo friends wouldn't be wrong and that everything (including webcams) would work just right.
Second, how is using a multi-service server better than using a multi-service client? The only difference is how many places have to be patched when Yahoo upgrades.
Third, Jabber doesn't appear to be an actual service, just a protocol. That introduces new problems. Jabber just appears to be an overly complicated solution to a problem that has simpler solutions.
Of course, the best solution is to create a superior protocol and set of clients, get it standardized, and somehow get them widely adopted (yeah, I know, this is the hard part), and make it so that Yahoo and MSN want their messengers to be compatible with IT.
:)
And while you're at it you can find a cure for cancer and end all wars, everwhere.
So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether?
:). But those 5 people won't change unless the 20 people on each of their lists changes. And *those* 20 (times 5) people won't change unless....you get the picture.
The problem is that it's not as simple as one person changing messenger clients. If I change, I can't talk to anyone I currently do unless 5 other people change (I am apparently in the minority with such a small list
And that's why multi-service chat programs are needed.
Some of the clients are just too big. My family uses Yahoo on their PCs. I have a 12" PowerBook and the Yahoo Messenger client for OS X takes up a good 10+% of the screen. Adium, on the other hand, takes up about 10% of the space that Yahoo Messenger does so I can leave it always visible in the corner of the screen. For me it has nothing to do with ads and everything to do with customization for my needs.
I am more worried about what this will do the adult entertainment business in Vegas. Imagine, thousands of showgirls and prostitutes out of work for a week!
Even if all the other stores go out of business Apple will still have competition: file sharing networks.
Jobs seemed to be the first major player in the field to understand that you need to offer a competitive alternative to get people to use a store instead of Kazaa. I doubt that view will change anytime soon.
The level of misinformation being cast is surprising to me.
If GPL-covered code were to find its way into a proprietary system or application, it would become public and free to use by anyone.
First, it's only true if you are shipping a product. If you use the code in house you are under no obligation to distribute changes. Second, "find it's way????" I can imagine the developers coming into work one morning and being shocked to "discover" GPLed code in their project. "Honestly, I don't know how it got there!!"
How do those providing and using open source applications know that someone's intellectual property wasn't stolen and inserted?
It's been mentioned before but I'll include it for completeness: how do those providing closed source software know that someone's IP wasn't stolen and inserted? And how much harder is it to verify this in the case of closed source versus open source?
The pure open-source model is not capable of supporting for-profit firms. While the service-support model can provide sustainable profits, as the U.S. experience has demonstrated this model can only support a handful of firms at best.
The fault here is in thinking that the software industry is the only industry that matters. Software features that once cost thousands are now available to other companies for free. Less profits for the computer industry means lower costs for every industry using computers (um, all of them?) Even if this means the complete death of the entire commerical software industry, how can this not help economic growth?
Much of the questions about open source software and applications come back to basic economic incentives. What incentives exist among volunteers to do their best, most innovative work? There is little.
The answer to this question should be self evident given that people are currently motivated enough to be putting massive effort into free and open source software. Money is a terrible motivator. Anyone who has taken rudimentary human factors classes knows that. Pride, while one of the deadly sins, is actually a much better motivator.
Comcast has indicated they will be doing just that. Other ISPs are beginning to shut down port 25 for everyone. As many times as I have disagreed with Comcast in the past, I like their plan of action this time.
One major reason that spammers are using zombies is that ISPs cracked down on spammers and closed a lot of open relays. Are you suggesting these weren't good ideas? Just because a spammer may find another way to spam doesn't mean we shouldn't shut down the known methods of spamming if we know how.
Earth doesn't own the solar system.
If we plant our flags there first we do.
No flag = No ownership
I think the real issue with forcing a shift in technology is that of development for multiple platforms.
If Microsoft makes a colossal shift in technology with the release of the XBox 2 then every developer who wants to release a game for the XBox 2 will probably be doing a single platform release.
The real question I don't know the answer to is: is there a lot of code/design re-use in the industry right now. If there is, then Microsoft is asking a lot from developers. Will many of them be willing to put effort into an XBox game knowing that they won't be able to release the game on any other platforms?
Making a profit on the console, no.
Making a profit on the games, definately.
That's fine but that doesn't tell us whether MS is turning a profit on the business. Making money on one part of the business doesn't guarantee that the business is profitable.
Just because you release a platform before a competitor doesn't automatically make it better.
Exactly. Look how well the Dreamcast crushed the PS2.
Why would you buy an 8-hour DVD for $5 when I can rent it at Blockbuster for a week for $4? Really, if these were to take off they would have to be priced about a $1.
My favorite "green" story comes from when I worked retail during college. We sold flea and tick sprays for pets. One manufacturer switched from aerosol spray cans to a pump spray. This was probably a good thing. However, to celebrate their new environmentally friendly product they surrounded the pump spray bottle in a completely unecessary shiny cardboard sheath to proudly announce their environmental friendliness. At the time very few places accepted this kind of shiny cardboard for recycling.
It still boggles the mind that a company actually did this.
Will the mailer be recyclable too? And what about the fossil fuels that will be used to transport the disk to the recycling center?
This still doesn't sound like a sound plan.
It can be even more restrictive! The complex I am moving into in Chicago has a cable requirement. I have, essentially, a $16 monthly surcharge on my rent that goes to cable. I don't know what channels that comes with so I can't say whether it's a good deal or not.
He was standing outside the three story downtown mall. I don't know the name because I usually walked there from the old conference center, through the Hilton and an office building right into the mall.
If they're simply going to replace it then why make them waste the paper?
It is pretty funny, though, the lengths some people go to in an attempt to "get the word out" on their religion. Working at Meijer (a store like Wal-Mart with food) I had people return products with religous materials stuffed inside. A guy recently bought my computer. When he left I found a religious book in my trash. And then there was the guy outside the mall in Milwaukee handing out bibles muttering "evolution is a lie" under his breath.
Bibles in hotels I can live with. It's the other things that weird me out.
Hotels do not place bibles in the rooms, the Gideons do.
If that's the case, then am I breaking any hotel rules if I throw the bible away? I shouldn't be, since I wouldn't be destroying hotel property!