Sep 1, 2009
I have two meaningless comments. First, the naming convention. Everything is {.*}y. Spelly, Linky, Rosey, etc. And there is an autocorrecting “i think i know what you want to do” context menu represented as a light bulb a la OpenOffice which is itself somewhat a clone of microsoft’s clippy. A google product mimicking the most hazed MS mascot? Not really, but the connotation persists absent any significant similarity. Second, federation. Google operates or, maybe, at least at one time, operated under the motto “don’t be evil.” Allowing federation in the protocol (so outside implementations can coexist with the original Google Wave, allowing communication and competition) presents, as Rasmussen expresses without solicitation, significant complexity and overhead but is an amazing step away from evil vendor lock-in to which google might be seen as having every ‘right’. Props to google [engineers].
Most of the time I spent thinking about communication software while hiking centered around implementing an open sourced “federation” framework for social networking. Though I could not articulate such a convenient title until I was motivated by being unable to host the space flickr won’t give me (maxed out the 200 free picture limit) as well as my failed quest to find an open source solution for “photostreams.” There is still room for me; it doesn’t look like Wave does picture hosting!
Google Wave
I remember reading an underwhelmed computer scientist describing the state of computer technology as lacking innovation. Instead, this unattributed rant continued, computers were used in novel ways to advance only conventional communication paradigms. That is, software totally fails to exploit the real power of current technology. It seems google’s Wave could be an answer to this. This is a big statement. And my only exposure is to the longer-than-an-hour video on the appropriated google subdomain. (How did I go so long unaware of this? I got here mistyping weave)I have two meaningless comments. First, the naming convention. Everything is {.*}y. Spelly, Linky, Rosey, etc. And there is an autocorrecting “i think i know what you want to do” context menu represented as a light bulb a la OpenOffice which is itself somewhat a clone of microsoft’s clippy. A google product mimicking the most hazed MS mascot? Not really, but the connotation persists absent any significant similarity. Second, federation. Google operates or, maybe, at least at one time, operated under the motto “don’t be evil.” Allowing federation in the protocol (so outside implementations can coexist with the original Google Wave, allowing communication and competition) presents, as Rasmussen expresses without solicitation, significant complexity and overhead but is an amazing step away from evil vendor lock-in to which google might be seen as having every ‘right’. Props to google [engineers].
Most of the time I spent thinking about communication software while hiking centered around implementing an open sourced “federation” framework for social networking. Though I could not articulate such a convenient title until I was motivated by being unable to host the space flickr won’t give me (maxed out the 200 free picture limit) as well as my failed quest to find an open source solution for “photostreams.” There is still room for me; it doesn’t look like Wave does picture hosting!
About
inconsistent disproportions of signal and noise
You can subscribe via RSS.
