switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... Last
[#] Thu Aug 05 2010 16:30:27 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Pity... I used wave on rare occasions. I think it could have gone somewhere if they had promoted it a little differently.

[#] Thu Aug 05 2010 16:48:34 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Why don't they just run one of those java to native compilers. If
they're not keeping to any spec where you can share the bytecode
anyway, what's th epoint?

Actually, that could be kind of cool -- the app is distributed as bytecode, but compiles to native code when the app is installed to the mobile device.
Kind of like distributing source code except with less room for things to go wrong.

[#] Thu Aug 05 2010 18:06:38 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hey, look at it this way: at least they didn't decide to develop apps in FORTH.
Buncha obsolete wankers and their outdated embedded systems :)

[#] Thu Aug 05 2010 18:58:39 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Google Go would probably have some advantages as an embedded systems language...

[#] Thu Aug 05 2010 19:46:27 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

then they'll have google Me Go.

[#] Fri Aug 06 2010 12:14:45 EDT from athos-mn @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I used Wave a couple of times - I was never gripped.

[#] Fri Aug 06 2010 15:52:16 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It was supposed to be the Next Big Thing but I don't think anyone ever figured out what it was useful for.

[#] Sun Aug 08 2010 01:14:25 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's the thing, they were pushing a product w/o a need. Features that nobody thinks they can use now. Thing is though, I used wave a bit and it really did have serious potential. It re-worked they way people could have used e-mail to communicate. It re-defined e-mail. Add a person into an existing conversation and they get the ability to read/view the convo from the begining, including any attatchments.

VERY useful features for biz; esp. when working on a project and add'l people are brought in to work on it, either from outside (consulting) or inside the corporation.

[#] Sun Aug 08 2010 06:49:09 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, the biggest problem with Wave, perhaps, is that it's centrally managed.

If businesses had their own Wave engine, where all their data remained at their facility, it might be more compelling.

[#] Sun Aug 08 2010 08:10:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, they did publish the protocol, and a bunch of code. If it had taken off there would have been a lot of software able to host it. I had observed that if it became huge, we would have built Wave support into Citadel. Even the folks at Lotuss and Microsoft could have played.

[#] Sun Aug 08 2010 15:57:33 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I can see a problem with add-somebody-to-a-conversation-later features.
I realize its the same thing as adding somebody to a reply all chain, but if that became the standard way of doing things, it make make it so much of a habit that people would add the wrong person not having seeing the bad comment made in their direction.

[#] Sun Aug 08 2010 23:02:28 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Of course, that problem exists now.

[#] Mon Aug 09 2010 02:37:02 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Aug 8 2010 11:02pm from fleeb @uncnsrd
Of course, that problem exists now.

Right, except that with Google Wave, all of the attachments that were part of a "wave became accessible to new participants of the wave. Oh, and you
could also have public and private waves, and wavelets. I got a little confused as to what constituted a wave versus a wavelet but the whole thing was just cool.

There was one point where I shared a video with people, when Wave first started coming out. And instead of having to eat up bandwidth and take up more storage space in my webmail account by forwarding the same file to new people as they entered the convo, they were able to view the video (and all comments from the beginning) just by joining the wave. That just had a coolness factor of like a Googolplex!

[#] Mon Aug 09 2010 21:30:13 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That's great, but it seems that Wave doesn't do that any better than any traditional message board, or even a blog. The added functionality of seeing everyone update the conversation in real time has coolness factor, but does it really add any value?

[#] Tue Aug 10 2010 02:09:43 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

You actually were able to "replay" the entire conversation from the beginning, and watch as people joined & contributed to the conversation.

[#] Tue Aug 10 2010 07:39:53 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

again, cool but valueless...

[#] Tue Aug 10 2010 10:49:08 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Not only valueless, but it may actually be a liability. I would compare it to the problems that began to surface when it became common to send word processing documents as email attachments, and unwittingly created situations where the entire undo history was viewable. ooooops.

[#] Tue Aug 10 2010 16:46:30 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

compare it to the problems that began to surface when it became common

to send word processing documents as email attachments, and unwittingly

created situations where the entire undo history was viewable.

Does not compute, and here's why:

The situation you mention, with which I'm more than well-aware and familiar applies only to MS-Word documents (still does, actually) and it's a design "feature" of the MS-Word document file format. You start off with a base file and all edits are stored as "metadata." This is why law firms created, in-house at first (until some smart geek took the program he created for the firm and marketed it on his own) and then finally just using the tool either as a stand-alone product or as part of the law-firm packaging that most firms purchase to go along with their MS-Office installation (the law-firm packagin is separate and apart from the MS-Office insall, and is NOT offered by MS but by various consulting companies).

Thing is, MS never told anyone about all this hidden data that they were storing in their files. The way that people found out about it, was that the IT department of a law firm was going through e-mails as part of discovery for some lawsuit, and realized that they could recover all of the edits in the documents that were sent over because of the way that the files were structured (they weren't examining the documents themselves but rather the PST or whatever files that the opposition had sent over in compliance with a demand for discovery -- you know, the archived e-mail file that OUTLOOK uses).

Sooner or later, this was bound to happen but let me tell you -- the law firms were all up in arms over this, especially as there was no disclosure forthcoming from MS that that's what they were doing.

Coincidentally, this was never an issue with WordPerfect or OOO, b/c their file formats don't contain such "metadata."

With Wave, and the ability to re-play an entire conversation from the beginning, Google is letting you know up-front that that's a feature of the product (although honestly I can't recall if "replaying" a wave shows the original text being edited or just the edited text being plopped in; I'd have to log in & find a wave where I knew text had been edited after being placed into the wave).

So long story short, this isn't a liability b/c Google's Wave discloses such behaviour, whereas MS-Office did NOT.

[#] Wed Aug 11 2010 01:09:11 EDT from Nite*Star @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Or, people who use it for business would be better suited to not include anything they wouldn't later want anyone seeing at some point. It's sort of the same philosophy of tailoring one's writing on-line for public view, since privacy is a phallacy anyway. Not to mention, since 99.9% of e-mail that is sent of the Internet is NOT encrypted in any way, shape, or form, DESPITE there being perfectly good, low-to-no-cost solutions for doing so, I place the blame squarely on the writer of such content. Even "sensitive" e-mails that I send out don't contain all of the pertinent information; usually, I include a request for a telephone call to discuss anything I wouldn't want to become public. :p

[#] Wed Aug 11 2010 10:12:48 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Although all of the above is true, it sounds a lot like you're trying to make the job fit the tool. People don't change the way they work without a whole lot of brand new value added to the toolset.

Go to page: First ... 48 49 50 51 [52] 53 54 55 56 ... Last