Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th May 2013 00:45 UTC
Google "So in summary... Google has pulled the plug on support on a protocol they've helped popularize, after years of promising interoperability, for reasons that are dubious at best, and in a way that leaves people who don't jump to the new Hangouts app unable to talk to their contacts without any feedback that their IMs aren't getting through... And they've done that with no warning to anyone. I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere." Google really messed this up. Such a dick move.
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Sat 25th May 2013 02:03 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Google is also starting to screw over developers also:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/24/4363960/google-no-longer-able-to-...

Waith, it may actually be Google's fault, cause it will also exclude Chilean developers.

http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://www...

Edited 2013-05-25 02:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by CapEnt on Sat 25th May 2013 19:17 UTC in reply to "..."
CapEnt Member since:
2005-12-18

No, the blame in the Argentinean case lies in their government, who are doing their best to sunk the whole country into oblivion.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by leos
by leos on Sat 25th May 2013 02:19 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

Don't be evil...

LOL

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by leos
by nej_simon on Sat 25th May 2013 08:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by leos"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Q: Are you guys planning to open up the tech behind Hangouts? Also, is it based on Muji or was it built from scratch?

A: Yes, we plan to publish the specifications needed to interoperate with Hangouts. At a high level, it's based on XMPP MUC (XEP-0045) and Jingle (XEP-0166/167), with some other enhancements needed to handle our architecture. We looked at Muji but concluded it wasn't a good fit for our service.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by leos
by shmerl on Sun 26th May 2013 03:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by leos"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

This looks like an old conversation. Hardly relevant already. Any newer references?

Edited 2013-05-26 03:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by leos
by nej_simon on Sun 26th May 2013 12:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by leos"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

You're right. It was the second post on his blogg so I assumed it was new but I didn't look at the date. So it might not be relevant.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by leos
by bowkota on Sat 25th May 2013 09:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by leos"
bowkota Member since:
2011-10-12

This should be the new definition for "bait and switch".

Well done Google, once again.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by Soulbender
by Soulbender on Sat 25th May 2013 02:30 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere.


I imagine no-one cares since pretty much no-one is using gtalk or hangouts anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 25th May 2013 02:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

You have a good point. And those people who either are using a non-Google XMPP service or have an interest in open standards and open source/free software will find out soon (if they haven't already).

I'm in the process of abandoning Google Talk right now. Testing various XMPP services to find the "best" one to settle with. But luckily even if the first provider I end up with doesn't end up being the last, at least they will all be able to communicate between each other. Because Google Talk already has so many users I could almost live without federation, but the fact that (from how I understand it) they intend to remove XMPP compatibility to the point where eventually third-party clients will no longer work, that's the line right there. It's drawn, it's slowly being crossed... goodbye Google Talk/Hangouts.

Several of the people I know have yet to even given up on the Yahoo! Messenger service. Those people were too stubborn to convert to Google Talk in the first place, chances are high they'll be too stubborn to switch to anything else, and Google's changes won't even affect them.

Edited 2013-05-25 02:53 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by ianm on Sat 25th May 2013 02:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
ianm Member since:
2010-08-16

Everyone I know with a Gmail address, which is almost everyone I know, uses gtalk to keep in touch. Hangouts has been a bit disruptive, but I imagine the rough edges will be smoothed off in short order. The inability to set a status on the hangout client is a pain in the ass.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by WereCatf on Sat 25th May 2013 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Everyone I know with a Gmail address, which is almost everyone I know, uses gtalk to keep in touch.


I've the complete opposite situation: I do not know a single person who even knew what gtalk is, let alone actually used it. Everyone uses either Facebook - chat, iChat or Skype.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender
by ingraham on Sat 25th May 2013 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Soulbender"
ingraham Member since:
2006-05-20

I am also in the camp of everyone I know using GTalk. We all have Android phones, and most of us still have unlimited data plans but not unlimited text plans. GTalk was the obvious answer, especially since we've all got GMail open when we're at our PCs. Skype is not nearly as universal, virtually none of my friends have iPhones, and I despise Facebook even more than Google. So who has recommendations for a messaging app NOT tied to Google, Facebook, MS, Apple, AOL, or Yahoo?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by nej_simon on Sat 25th May 2013 09:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Same here. As friends and relatives moved to using android phones it became natural to use gtalk for IM. I use it all the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender
by panzi on Sun 26th May 2013 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Soulbender"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

WebRTC might be a independent solution. The next Firefox version will have full support for WebRTC, Chrome already has it now (at least on the desktop). So I guess at the end of the year all major Browsers except for IE will support WebRTC on the desktop and on handheld devices (given a recent Android version). WebRTC by itself is just a framework, but I guess there will be a multitude of free web apps. I think Google itself plans to use it instead of the gtalk plugin. I hope we can use some WebRTC based app in the near future instead of Skype. I really don't like that Skype reads my messages, how it behaves (it messes with my audio player in the most annoying ways) and that it is owned by Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender
by zima on Wed 29th May 2013 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Soulbender"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You think decentralised solutions won't be susceptible to eavesdropping?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender
by WereCatf on Wed 29th May 2013 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Soulbender"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You think decentralised solutions won't be susceptible to eavesdropping?


Indeed, decentralization isn't a guarantee of anything such. XMPP does use SSL, but that only protects data between the client and the server, not that the server won't be able to read everything. In my proposal on my G+ - page I suggested making Off-The-Record Messaging (http://www.cypherpunks.ca/otr/index.php) a built-in, enabled-by-default feature on the clients. It's still no guarantee, but it sure does make things a lot more difficult and even the server can't just start reading your stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Soulbender
by zima on Thu 30th May 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Soulbender"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Regarding OTR - I guess I'm one of the relatively few people who knew what it is ...but, among my IM contacts, I never had anybody with whom to check it out... ;)

Speaks volumes about popularity of such tools. Maybe people in general just don't care that much about encryptions of their chats.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by historyb on Sat 25th May 2013 20:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
historyb Member since:
2005-07-06

I use it to call my family quite a lot

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Soulbender
by Lennie on Sat 25th May 2013 21:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Soulbender"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling hangouts will get a lot more use soon.

Reply Score: 2

Spam part of this?
by jonsmirl on Sat 25th May 2013 03:01 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

My spam IM's had been hitting about 20 a day before this change. Now they are zero.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spam part of this?
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 25th May 2013 03:35 UTC in reply to "Spam part of this?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

My GTalk spam level is and has been at zero for a long time. The only spam I got was during a brief day or two trying out GNOME 3's integration of "online services" a while back. Once I removed all of the accounts from GNOME and continued to use Pidgin, all spam disappeared as fast as it came. Before this brief period of spam, I had not received a single spam message.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Spam part of this?
by bert64 on Sat 25th May 2013 07:53 UTC in reply to "Spam part of this?"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

So don't accept messages from unknown contacts, virtually any im client will allow you to set this option. I get no spam whatsoever on my xmpp clients.

Reply Score: 4

XMPP is no good for mobile
by soulrebel123 on Sat 25th May 2013 06:43 UTC
soulrebel123
Member since:
2009-05-13

Having worked on XMPP a little, I can tell you that it has two big problems for mobile:

1. it requires a long lived connection
2. it is verbose and wastes a lot of bandwidth.

Anyhow it is an extensible protocol and it could be fixed to a certain point, but most importantly basic functionality could be bridged between the XMPP and the new platform, so that text messages get through.

Reply Score: 7

RE: XMPP is no good for mobile
by terrakotta on Sat 25th May 2013 08:53 UTC in reply to "XMPP is no good for mobile"
terrakotta Member since:
2010-04-21

Any messaging protocol is gonna need a long lived session if you want a push mechanism in place (which for chat you do).

Have you ever used skype, facebook chat, whatsapp, viber.... (ok two of them use (non federated) xmpp) on a mobile? They all drain the battery even when not chatting to anyone.Only text messaging like sms doesn t use much battery when idle, at the cost of draining the battery even more when texting (every text needs a new handshake, which is a lot of data compared to the text sent) and with a high latency as a result.

All these high level protocols are trying to solve a problem that ipv6 does on its own with mobile ip adresses. Solving the problem of dialing someone directly, instead of going through a server (ok, you do need some kind of 'home' router that knows what local ip address you have), but I assume it will be less verbose than having seven tcp sessions open just to be online on all these non compatible networks.

Personally i find myself going back to text messaging more than chatting, just for the sake of compatibility and my smartphones battery life being already too short to begin with. Everyone has a phone nr and it is by far the biggest social network on earth.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Sat 25th May 2013 09:46 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

Just avoid using google. I avoid it completely and I'm happy with it.

And yes, you can do it. People are saying otherwise because they have their nasty habits and they hate theh idea of looking for an alternative. Laziness and lack of discipline.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by No it isnt on Sat 25th May 2013 13:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

But what's the point?

The alternatives are either just as "evil" or not nearly as good. Well, I suppose you could replace Chrome with Chromium.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sat 25th May 2013 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

But what's the point?

The alternatives are either just as "evil" or not nearly as good.


Exactly, and while I'm unhappy with many of Google's choices of late, I still benefit greatly not only from their services but also from their open source offerings, not to mention how so many of my favourite open source projects greatly benefit from efforts like Google summer of code.

Since I have a brain I was never under the impression that Google ran on pixie dust, they offer services in exchange for advertising and advertising data which is also what all the other 'free' services does, so the question boils down to what do I get in return.

The quality of Google's services is typically top notch, so I'm unlikely to consider switching based upon technical reasons, the privacy 'issue' is just BS, all the 'players' offering 'free' services gathers your personal habits when using these services and sells that data to advertisers.

It's all the same and unlike the case with government requests, this advertising data can't be used to identify you as an idividual.

Looking past the services, do they offer anything else?

As an open source proponent I find Google offers a great deal here, they fund Google summer of code, they fund development of Linux, FreeBSD, GCC, Clang/LLVM, Webm (VP8/VP9), Firefox, Chromium, Android, Blink, etc.

As such I wouldn't use Bing even if it was as good as Google search.

I get nothing back from Microsoft beyond the service itself, instead any advertising dollar I put in Microsoft's pocket will most likely be used against my open source interests as Microsoft will use that money to further their proprietary vendor lock-in strategy (to which open source is a long time threat).

Reply Score: 7

v RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sat 25th May 2013 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sat 25th May 2013 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Running a Linux VM on an Azure Instance in Microsoft's Cloud. Yeah, sure sounds like vendor lock in.

That support is a result of Linux already having a huge presence in typical VM workloads, as such not supporting Linux on Azure would be commercial suicide.

Are you seriously trying to pass that off as evidence of Microsoft not being about vendor lock-in?

Microsoft is incredibly active on the W3C

I'm sure, just as they were incredibly active when they bribed their way in getting OOXML accepted as an ISO standard.

their .NET scene is pivoting towards open source,

Whatever the '.NET scene' is 'pivoting' to is not due to Microsoft, how about they open source .NET and allow it to be ported to any platform? Now that could indeed be construed as them 'pivoting' towards open source.

and plenty to do with Google using and abusing open source to suit their own agenda.

How is Google 'abusing' open source? As for using open source for their own agenda, certainly, just as every other company out there which uses open source.

Google however also gives a lot back to open source, which is something that can't be said for many companies.

Certainly not Microsoft whose 'open source initiatives' as you described them are extremely weak at best, but furthermore has a long history of actively trying to harm open source and open source projects.

This classic bait and switch is hilarious,

Coming from a Microsoft fanboy it makes you sound like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


That support is a result of Linux already having a huge presence in typical VM workloads, as such not supporting Linux on Azure would be commercial suicide.

Are you seriously trying to pass that off as evidence of Microsoft not being about vendor lock-in?


Yes, because it is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You have a high degree of choice on Microsoft's cloud offering.


I'm sure, just as they were incredibly active when they bribed their way in getting OOXML accepted as an ISO standard.


Do you have any evidence that they're doing anything shady on the W3C? Their performance monitoring stuff just reached candidate recommendation. They're also responsible for some Touch Events stuff going into WebKit and Blink, and pushing it forward at the W3C level.

Do you forget about their work on WebRTC? The work they've done on HTTP2.0 including SPDY support in IE11?

Hell, they brought Node to Windows.
How is any of this lock in? You don't get to say "Well its popular anyway so they had to" because that isn't true at all. Microsoft has consciously plotted this course for themselves, and contribute to open source software quite frequently.


Whatever the '.NET scene' is 'pivoting' to is not due to Microsoft, how about they open source .NET and allow it to be ported to any platform? Now that could indeed be construed as them 'pivoting' towards open source.


Microsoft open sourced ASP.NET MVC which is the largest single component of .NET next to WPF. I wouldn't expect you to know that, given your aversion to anything Microsoft.

Also .NET is a ECMA standard with the internals of the C# language, the XAML vocabulary, and CLR/CIL stuff being fully documented and regularly updated.

People like you conveniently forget that Mono exists and is supported by Microsoft. Hearing people like you talk, and then attending a Mono event sponsored by Microsoft last year shows something starkly different to your invented reality.

.NET actually represents Microsoft's open source initiative rather well.

Microsoft has OSI approved licenses for their free and open source software, and promotes .NET projects as OSS on their CodePlex website. Which has Git integration.

TypeScript is open source. Roslyn (their next generation C# compiler as a service and syntax transformer) will be open source.

They've teamed up with HortonWorks to make a Hadoop distribution for Windows Azure.

All of their Azure SDKs are open source. That's Java, Node, .NET, PHP, etc.

A lot of their Windows 8, WPF, and Silverlight patterns&practices (Prism, Kona, CAB) are all open source software and have been since like 2006.

The Dynamic Language Runtime, a major part of .NET which enables IronPython, IronRuby, and IronPHP among others is completely open source software. IronRuby itself is open source.

Large swaths of .NET such as the Rx Framework and MEF for composition are open source.

So thats' what I mean about pivoting to open source in .NET, again, something you'd understand if you did this for a living. Which you don't, so your interpretations of the facts is at best unwillfully ignorant.

NuGet, their package management system for Visual Studio is open source. CoApp is a way to author and publish open source components is open source.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you could possibly objectively arrive at the conclusions your'e arriving at.


How is Google 'abusing' open source? As for using open source for their own agenda, certainly, just as every other company out there which uses open source.


This is exactly the point. Google is no different from Microsoft in this regard in that they use open source when it lines up with their business model. I have no illusions about why Microsoft chooses to make something open source.


Google however also gives a lot back to open source, which is something that can't be said for many companies.


This screams of a rationalization for why your beloved company has started acting out in the open. This is exactly the thing that I said would be happening in short order from Google. To take the gloves off with Microsoft as they seem intent on doing, you need to play dirtier. Microsoft also has ways to make your air your laundry in public (as they did when they baited Google into sending a C&D over the YouTube app which showed how petty Google was).

They simply can't expect to play hardball and keep up that silly little saint routine that people like you keep falling for.


Certainly not Microsoft whose 'open source initiatives' as you described them are extremely weak at best, but furthermore has a long history of actively trying to harm open source and open source projects.


Extremely weak because you choose to understate their significance on an online discussion, not weak because they're actually weak.


Coming from a Microsoft fanboy it makes you sound like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.


Uhuh. I really don't envy your position, having to eat crow and all, but this has little to do with me.

You were the one who was so incensed that Google could possibly be acting like a normal company that you tried to drag Microsoft into this.

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sun 26th May 2013 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Yes, because it is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You have a high degree of choice on Microsoft's cloud offering.

Again, since they can't leverage their desktop monopoly on the cloud, they have to support popular VM OS'es like Linux on their offering or it will simply not be used. You can't spin this as 'Microsoft opening up'.


Do you have any evidence that they're doing anything shady on the W3C?

Do you forget about their work on WebRTC?

Their 'work' on WebRTC was to refuse the standarisation on vp8/vp9 as a default codec and instead propose a version without a standard codec (since they know h.264/h.265 can never be a required standard due to demanding royalties, but they want to be able to force it as a de facto standard and thus collect).

Yes, this sounds exacly like the type of 'work' in standarisation I'm used to from Microsoft, odf/ooxml makes itself reminded.

Hell, they brought Node to Windows.
How is any of this lock in? You don't get to say "Well its popular anyway so they had to"

Why the heck not? Node is popular and Microsoft wants to keep servers running Windows, so this makes perfect sense from a vendor lock-in perspective.


.NET actually represents Microsoft's open source initiative rather well.

Which isn't particularly flattering, you are right that I'm not doing .NET development for a living (a fact I'm perfectly happy with), but AFAIK the vast majority of .NET is still proprietary and thus anything but an open source platform.

Mono's re-implementation of .NET is incomplete and as it's not from Microsoft it's subject to potential patent abuse as it includes components not covered by ecma standards.

I suppose that for someone like you who is used to Microsoft lock-in this must sound like total openess, but really it isn't.


This is exactly the point.

I asked how Google was 'abusing' open source which is what you claimed.


Extremely weak because you choose to understate their significance on an online discussion, not weak because they're actually weak

Extremely weak in comparison with Google, which is what they were compared against. That they are 'strong' in comparison with Microsoft's own pathetic open source history means little in this context.


This screams of a rationalization for why your beloved company has started acting out in the open.

Bullshit, first off there's no denying that Google has done and is doing tons more for open source than Microsoft ever has and I dare swear ever will.

And this is all I've been discussing here, I don't care if it's named 'Google', 'FaceBook', 'Apple' or even 'Microsoft', I care about open source.

So again if the choice was between a Google and a Microsoft service being equal, I would choose the Google service because of how much they benefit open source in comparison with Microsoft.

Now if someone else steps up and puts Google to shame in the promote/benefit open source department, while also offering adequate services then I will switch in a heartbeat.

Maybe someone will (I hope so), Google is far from perfect, but it isn't going to be Microsoft, that's for sure.

Meanwhile as long as Google is the company who is benefiting open source most, I will continue to use their services. My 'allegiance' is to open source, not any specific company, while yours is obviously to Microsoft.

You were the one who was so incensed that Google could possibly be acting like a normal company that you tried to drag Microsoft into this.

Don't make things up, the comparison between Google and Microsoft I made was that of what one gets in return for using their respective services.

'No it isn't' correctly pointed out that from a service perspective, Google search is better, and from an 'evil'ness perspective they are certainly no worse than the competition, which in this case would be Microsoft (Bing).

I argued that as an open source proponent I would use Google over Bing any day even if Bing was just as good, given that Google's benefits to open source/open source projects vastly overshadows those of Microsoft.

I really don't envy your position, having to eat crow and all, but this has little to do with me.

Uh? I don't work for Google, nor do I rely on their products/services professionally (unlike your situation with Microsoft), I care for open source and it will survive Google, and certainly Microsoft aswell.

And while I favour companies who favour and benefit open source, again I don't identify with them (unlike you with your Microsoft zealotry), because they are companies, there to make money for their owners.

Again, the instance another company comes along who are better proponents/benefits to open source and offer adequate rivaling services then I will switch and they will get my 'advertiser' dollars.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Again, since they can't leverage their desktop monopoly on the cloud


You accuse me of spinning and then go off and say this. The same could be said about every company, including Google. Google uses open source because it is a convenient tool, not because of so ideological alignment with your beliefs.

From that perspective, what they are doing to you and other open source proponents is using you until the point where they no longer need you, then they discard the very principals which drew you to the platform.

You might love to pretend there's a difference between Google and Microsoft on this, but there really isn't.

Microsoft happens to offer Azure choice (as opposed to lock in) because they want reach across a broad spectrum of developer tools. Azure is already pushing Windows into the cloud, be it an Azure PaaS instance or a VM running on top of Windows imaged with Linux.

Microsoft does do core business outside of Windows, and Azure is just another facet to this. While Azure runs Windows, its secondary to their main strategy of profiting off of the explosion in Cloud computing by any means. Azure I think is well on its way to being a $2B business, so by all accounts its working well.


Their 'work' on WebRTC was to refuse the standarisation on vp8/vp9 as a default codec and instead propose a version without a standard codec


Their work on WebRTC includes bringing it to IE in a way that interoperates with other browsers. The codec choice has always been a wedge issue on these standardization processes, and by the same token one could argue that Google is trying to force vp8 and vp9 as a default codec. Something they obviously have a vested interest in seeing happen.

Microsoft not wanting to cede that much ground to Google isn't surprising.


Yes, this sounds exacly like the type of 'work' in standarisation I'm used to from Microsoft, odf/ooxml makes itself reminded.


I think the problem with your line of thinking is that you assume that there is one true standard, and that any standard not published by companies or groups that you agree with are automatically bad.

And what does that have in common with OOXML besides the fact that they were both standardized? FWIW I think OOXML was handled much more poorly in comparison. I just don't think they directly relate.

Do you think it is bad that Microsoft is participating in the W3C? I think they're doing a great deal of good, especially surrounding the extensive test suites they routinely release to the W3C.

I just think this opposition to MS for the sake of opposition is dangerous. I wonder how deep your knowledge of Microsoft's open source initiatives goes, beyond headlines and rash dismissals.


Why the heck not? Node is popular and Microsoft wants to keep servers running Windows, so this makes perfect sense from a vendor lock-in perspective.


But you're not locked in AND Microsoft achieves their goal. You're technically running Windows, but you can move anywhere you want.

Microsoft clearly has a goal that's aided by open source, just like Google. They do the same thing. One isn't magically better than the other, it just so happens that Google's business model lines up with OSS initiatives more often.

And that's fine, but its entirely different from implying that all Microsoft does is lock you in. This is demonstrably false.


Which isn't particularly flattering, you are right that I'm not doing .NET development for a living (a fact I'm perfectly happy with), but AFAIK the vast majority of .NET is still proprietary and thus anything but an open source platform.


This is false. .NET is built on open standards. CLI, the CLR, and CIL are completely documented and regularly updated by the ECMA. C# is standardized. So is XAML. So is the entire BCL.

So .NET, the CLR and all characteristics, the meta data format, the byte code, the language, the UI language, and the class library are standardized.

The rest is selectively open source, with ASP.NET and the DLR being the two single largest open source components. There's also MEF and Rx. This together makes up a large amount of Microsoft's own .NET components on top of the BCL.


Mono's re-implementation of .NET is incomplete and as it's not from Microsoft it's subject to potential patent abuse as it includes components not covered by ecma standards.


Mono is covered under a legally binding non aggression promise from Microsoft, which coincidentally covers other technologies which I'm sure you're perfectly fine with. Microsoft sponsors Mono events regularly and features them at BUILD, their developer conference. There are plenty of equitable defenses that would render such a case useless. Real equitable defenses based on real case law. Not made up estoppel theories like OSNews did for Samsung v. Apple.

Mono doesnt have to support "All of .NET" because it is implementing a standard. Various browsers have various supports for HTML and its associated standards. In fact, I can probably guarantee that the parity between .NET and Mono is beyond what most browsers achieve with each other.

The only people that say Mono and .NET diverge in a meaningful way are people who don't port code to either platform. I do this for a living, as you mention, so I have a great deal of experience in having to know the exact difference between the two implementations.

In .NET 4.5 Microsoft actually slimmed down the .NET Profile to support Windows Store apps, which makes it even easier for Mono to support .NET 4.5 because there's less Microsoft stuff on top of it.


Extremely weak in comparison with Google, which is what they were compared against.


The crux of the argument is that the differences are imaginary. Basically, Google is better at convincing you that its your friend than Microsoft is because Google genuinely needs to pretend more of the time.

They have a business model that directly lines up with open source in many ways, so naturally some people thought of Google as a stalwart defender of the cause. This obviously isn't the case, and from that point of view there is no difference between them and Microsoft.

You might want to invent a difference for your own rationalization eg. "Google contributes more to open source", but it is one thats in your head only.

I wouldn't be happy that Google is able to make me think they care about standards or open solutions (CalDAV, RSS, and XMPP) while it benefits them, and then discards it when they're done. If you're happy that they do it to you, that's fine.

I like I said have no illusions about what Microsoft is or why it does what it does -- there's a business decision behind everything. I don't understand why people hold Google in that light, and when their reality comes crumbling, why they don't accept that all companies are the same instead of preemptively taking a pot shot at another.


Bullshit, first off there's no denying that Google has done and is doing tons more for open source than Microsoft ever has and I dare swear ever will.

And this is all I've been discussing here, I don't care if it's named 'Google', 'FaceBook', 'Apple' or even 'Microsoft', I care about open source.


If you cared about open source you'd push open source, not help prop up a company that is detrimental to open source. You're making excuses for Google, a company that just murdered XMPP and abandoned CalDAV weeks after criticizing MSFT for not supporting it.

Me, personally, I don't give a rats ass about open source. Its a tool. It helps get the job done. I never really understood the cultish devotion some have to it.

You're so against Microsoft that you've started shilling for a company that acts just like them. Congrats, you're trying extraordinarily hard to be me. ;) .


So again if the choice was between a Google and a Microsoft service being equal, I would choose the Google service


Trust me after all the mental contortions you've done in this thread, I know.

[q]

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sun 26th May 2013 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Meanwhile as long as Google is the company who is benefiting open source most, I will continue to use their services.


Microsoft technologies make me money. But other technologies did before that. The minute I make my living somewhere else, I'll naturally have deeper knowledge on that other company.

You like to pretend you dont support Google, despite you singing their praises in every thread leading up to this.


Google's benefits to open source/open source projects vastly overshadows those of Microsoft.


As an open source proponent, you should use whichever one makes you happy regardless of their positions on open source. Using one because they support open source is foolish, given that the reasons they support open source are not really the same reasons you support open source.

I'd use Google at any rate, Bing is truly and unexcusably terrible.

I wonder if XMPP or CalDAV appreciate the "benefits" that Google brought them now, post dagger in their back.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by JAlexoid on Mon 27th May 2013 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I have no illusions about why Microsoft chooses to make something open source.

Yes - platfrom proliferation. Google's SoC is mostly about talent search. Google's open-source initiatives are mostly out of conflict with their core business, same as Microsoft. Though considering that Google is a services company, they shouldn't release as much as they do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by phoenix on Mon 27th May 2013 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Running a Linux VM on an Azure Instance in Microsoft's Cloud. Yeah, sure sounds like vendor lock in.


Can you migrate that VM to a non-MS VM host? Of not, that's the lock-in. Can you manage that VM using non-MS tools? If not, that's more lock-in.

Just curious, as I haven't used MS VM tools.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by UltraZelda64 on Sat 25th May 2013 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

The alternatives are either just as "evil" or not nearly as good.

That depends on what you define as "good." Sure, as far as number of users goes, theoretically Google Talk is good. After all, everyone who has a Gmail address has a Google Talk address; whether they actually use it or not is another thing entirely. I have been primarily using my e-mail address, for the most part; most of my friends are too stubborn to leave Yahoo! Messenger. And as far as uptime and reliability goes, again--not much can beat the strength of such a massive corporation with seemingly unlimited money to blow on power, servers and system maintenance, so that's all bound to be good on a Google-run server.

But on the other hand, many of these "alternative" XMPP services around the world probably also have perfectly adequate uptimes and reliability. The only problem with them is... well, there's just so many, and they don't have the money and time that a mega corporation like can devote to the service... so you have to actively search for the one that will be the most reliable of the bunch and just trust them to keep the service going.

You also have to consider things like "will they be around five years from now?" But is that really any different from Google, or at least in this case, their XMPP-enabled Google Talk service? I bet years ago when Google Talk was first conceived and started picking up, people didn't stop to think, "will this still be around five years in the future?"

But now the little guys all have one major advantage that Google's service is now losing; the ability to chat with people on a different server without having to sign up multiple accounts. I'm still on my quest to find the "best" XMPP service, and honestly, so far the performance and reliability of the vast majority of them has been pretty damn good. I'm thinking it will take quite some time of evaluation to come to even a halfway-decent conclusion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by No it isnt on Sat 25th May 2013 20:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

You may be right, but I was responding to marcp talking about avoiding Google altogether, not just Hangouts. Without XMPP federation, you will of course not use Hangouts if none of your contacts do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by panzi on Sun 26th May 2013 18:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
panzi Member since:
2006-01-22

You don't watch YouTube videos?

Reply Score: 2

Well then
by liamdawe on Sat 25th May 2013 10:24 UTC
liamdawe
Member since:
2006-07-04

That has pretty made made Pidgin useless to Me since half the messages now appear on my phone and not my computer, time to switch to a new/old protocol I guess?

Reply Score: 2

Not sure why people are complaining
by belal1 on Sat 25th May 2013 16:17 UTC
belal1
Member since:
2013-05-25

This wouldn't have been a problem if people just stuck to using Jabber or another open protocol. The key is to stick to your principles and not to what's "cool" and what everyone else is using. So instead of Skype or whatever else is closed, you should all get your family and friends to use Ekiga or PSI (whatever Jabber client)or whatever else you desire that's free and open source.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

This wouldn't have been a problem if people just stuck to using Jabber or another open protocol. The key is to stick to your principles and not to what's "cool" and what everyone else is using. So instead of Skype or whatever else is closed, you should all get your family and friends to use Ekiga or PSI (whatever Jabber client)or whatever else you desire that's free and open source.


You can't get Average Jane and Joe to use something just because that something is free as in libre or decentralized, they do not understand and/or care and that's that. It doesn't help at all that all the F/OSS alternatives for Skype/Messenger/whatever generally suck arse.

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Just because you can't always succeed at teaching and trying to convert the clueless masses, doesn't mean you can't (or shouldn't) try. That said, people can be extremely stubborn. Those ones aren't even worth converting, honestly.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Just because you can't always succeed at teaching and trying to convert the clueless masses, doesn't mean you can't (or shouldn't) try. That said, people can be extremely stubborn. Those ones aren't even worth converting, honestly.


So, first you're saying we should convert people to libre alternatives, but then you take a 180 and say that we shouldn't even bother with some people. Does it ever occur to you that that is exactly because Skype et.al. are doing so good? I mean, the people who you don't deem worthy converting are keeping those services alive and then those people who might be worth converting won't move away because their friends -- those same ones who aren't worth converting -- don't.

That attitude is just like digging your own grave. The way to get people on board the F/OSS-train -- atleast when it comes to IM-solutions -- is to lose such elitist attitude and aim to please the largest group of people, not the smallest one. And all F/OSS IM-solutions suck at that, they're developed by the geek, for the geek.

Edited 2013-05-26 03:24 UTC

Reply Score: 6

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

So, first you're saying we should convert people to libre alternatives, but then you take a 180 and say that we shouldn't even bother with some people.

No, I'm saying that there is no problem with explaining and trying to teach someone the benefits of an open service (in fact that's a good thing), but if they're far too dense for anything to ever sink in then there is no point in wasting an excessive amount of time and energy on them. Or in other words: Do what you can, but don't waste your energy fighting a losing battle. Other people might just be more open to something less advertised, so why bother with those people who you know are far too stubborn to ever switch, let alone even care that there is an alternative? Talking to some people is literally like trying to talk to a brick wall; pointless. It's these kinds of people I'm talking about.

Edited 2013-05-26 04:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

No, I'm saying that there is no problem with explaining and trying to teach someone the benefits of an open service (in fact that's a good thing), but if they're far too dense for anything to ever sink in then there is no point in wasting an excessive amount of time and energy on them. Or in other words: Do what you can, but don't waste your energy fighting a losing battle. Other people might just be more open to something less advertised, so why bother with those people who you know are far too stubborn to ever switch, let alone even care that there is an alternative? Talking to some people is literally like trying to talk to a brick wall; pointless. It's these kinds of people I'm talking about.


And as I said, that attitude serves no one except the elitists themselves. If you only care about converting the converted you're doing nothing but serve yourself. The unwashed masses don't care unless you give them a reason to care and if you refuse to seek a way to do that then it's pointless to complain how they won't make the switch, you'll always end up holding the losing end.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Hey, if someone wants to go their own way and keep using their own proprietary IM protocol of choice, and I just say "go on ahead then," then how exactly is leaving them alone and making their own (often misinformed) choice only helping me? That's one less person I'll have on my "buddy list" or whatever you want to call it to bullshit with, and they'll continue to use whatever it is that they used to begin with. How exactly is that a win for me? It seems to me like the win would have been handed to the person who refused to be persuaded from the way I look at it.

I see it as simply a choice, one that I don't mind telling people the basics of and recommending that they at least give it a try, but if they don't like it and want to switch back, then why does it matter to me? And why would I want to find some way to basically force something onto someone else when they downright refuse? I mean, seriously, I like open standards--but I'm not going to go out of my way and make a game out of it, trying to force everyone I can to switch. In the end, it's their loss. Or win, depending on how you look at it--maybe they really do have too many people on their list who would be out of contact if they switched. Never know.

Win, loss--it all has different meanings in different contexts, and I'd prefer to neatly sidestep that mess and just call it what it really is in the end: a choice. One that, like any other, in not worth dedicating you life to trying to enforce, to the point where you're actually taking away choice. If in the end they choose to live in a sandbox, then fine with me. It's really up to them in the end.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

How exactly is that a win for me?


Because you get to feel the rush of superiority, you get to claim you're better than them and if they don't follow you they don't even deserve anything better.

but if they don't like it and want to switch back, then why does it matter to me?


Then why complain in the first place about the situation at all? You want XMPP or some other open protocol to become the de facto standard and you want interoperability you gotta work for it, simple as that. Complaining about it and then refusing to do anything about by claiming the higher ground and superiority don't help none, it only makes you feel good 'bout yourself. The proprietary stuff ain't gonna disappear in a poof of pixie dust unless you make something so much better that it can't compete anymore.

Win, loss--it all has different meanings in different contexts, and I'd prefer to neatly sidestep that mess and just call it what it really is in the end: a choice. One that, like any other, in not worth dedicating you life to trying to enforce, to the point where you're actually taking away choice. If in the end they choose to live in a sandbox, then fine with me. It's really up to them in the end.


We wouldn't have e.g. Firefox and open web standards if everyone thought like that, you know? Mozilla - devs went out of their way to try to make the superior product and try to make it appeal to the common man and boy, it sure did take a lot of effort. That effort did pay off and it just keeps on giving.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Those ones aren't even worth converting, honestly.


"Converting". Jesus, what is this? A damn religion?
Do we get to wear pointy hats and kill infidels?

Look, not all software has to be open source and not all software has to come without a price. A healthy playing field includes both OSS and closed source software. It's far more important to have open and freely available standards and protocols.

Reply Score: 4

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"Converting". Jesus, what is this? A damn religion?
Do we get to wear pointy hats and kill infidels?

LOL, you're the one using a damn religious figure by name... converting, enticing, switching, migrating, moving... whatever you want to call it, who gives a shit? Why not suggest a different term if it bothers you so much? Seriously, it's just a word. You're the one here trying to make some religious meaning out of it... I was just trying to make a point. I see you have nothing really to add other than bitching about choice of words.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It doesn't help at all that all the F/OSS alternatives for Skype/Messenger/whatever generally suck arse.


On the other hand, Skype (jesus, is there any worse engineered software available? anywhere?), Messenger and pretty much every closed source IM sucks arse too so that's not really a strike against oss ;)

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The key is to stick to your principles and not to what's "cool" and what everyone else is using.


Yeah, then I can stick to my principles and have conversations with myself, because nobody else is using the IM network I'm on ;) Bahaha!

Reply Score: 3

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 26th May 2013 03:48 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

The only way Google can remedy this is by publishing their Hangout protocol. If they aren't going to do it they deserve to be boycotted.

Reply Score: 1

lost interop
by Lion on Sun 26th May 2013 05:37 UTC
Lion
Member since:
2007-03-22

I work full time with Microsoft Lync, while this won't make a difference in most of the deployments I work with... there are some for which this is going to cause real headaches.
It seems a really bizarre choice on Google's part

Also the lack of user-selectable presence information (status) is a massive point of pain.

Reply Score: 2

What is wrong with this picture?
by orfanum on Sun 26th May 2013 08:13 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

I find it a gentle irony that we have this piece not long after an article here regarding which people were, despite its acknowledging Google's many faults (http://www.osnews.com/comments/27049), more or less invited to stand by the company because it is after all and at bottom about "being open" and is "developer friendly" .

What I am about to say is not intended to be flamebait or to ridicule or undermine that vast repository of intelligence and dedication which is the global network of coders and developers. What I would hope is that people will take the message in the spirit in which it is offered, and try to rethink all the implications of the use of 'open' in the context of organisations such as Google.

In short, there's a class of coder that is unwittingly putting itself in the position of not only appearing to be very (perhaps increasingly) naive but also of duping ordinary users. The result may be that the kinds of openness that they deliberately and rightly support to enable a global community utilising accessible and sensibly rational global services and tools will be undermined by the very adherence to a concept of 'open' that is too narrowly and too technically defined.

I am not saying there's a direct or primary correlation in this specific case between Google's 'now too big to fail' size and its promotion of 'open', nor am I saying that on the whole, your regular user of the Internet cares a great deal about this tussle about what constitutes 'open' in a conscious way.

However, what is 'open'? Is open a bunch of code whose licence is couched in a certain way or is it that plus a mode of transparent and active communication with user and developers, that plus a decidedly more ethical means of doing business, that plus whatever else you could think of that really would make up an entity where 'do no evil' was a precept to live by rather than a marketing slogan?

Unless these other aspects are encoded (forgive the pun) into our minds then (and this is the controversial bit) in a sense the absolute and uncompromising demand on the part of that sort of developer who expects to exercise complete and concrete code-sharing freedom is actually based on the hidden, intangible consequence that millions and perhaps billions (remember the new guy at Android saying recently that the exciting thing for him is the 'next 5 billion' of the global population that does not yet have a smartphone?!) will lose their freedoms to privacy, to effective choice, to 'good' or even 'less evil' options.

In short, Google uses 'open' like the angler fish uses its lure, and its mouth sure is wide open as it swallows you whole. And perhaps soon, no, there won't be 'plenty more fish in the sea'. The question is, are developers intelligent enough to avoid that evolutionary trap and stay in the gene pool, to fortify the real DNA of choice and freedom?

Orf.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by pashar
by pashar on Mon 27th May 2013 08:53 UTC
pashar
Member since:
2006-07-12

Hmm... Just tried to message between my 2 google accounts using pidgin and my phone. Everything works fine, both ways. Am I missing something?

Reply Score: 2

Big G...
by Drunkula on Tue 28th May 2013 15:23 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

This is one of those situations where I completely disagree with Google. When they enforced non-anonymity on Play Store reviews I removed my G+ account. This looks like another move of theirs to promote G+ more.

Hey, Google? Follow your mantra...

Reply Score: 2