Saturday, June 19, 2010

What MSN and other chats really need

Here's a list of what I thought IMs (Instant Messenger e.g. MSN, Google Talk, Yahoo Messenger...) could add into their protocols.

1. Make their protocols modular like XMPP

Most protocols can be said to be modular to a small degree but the XMPP protocol (Google Talk is XMPP) is by far the most modular protocol I have seen.

2. Security.

I have done testing of chat security and as like many people who have used Wireshark / Ethereal to capture chat conversations, I could see my conversations and logins in full plain view. The amount of eavesdropping on conversation and breach of privacy is escalating and it's time we need to protect ourselves. Pidgin IM have an RSA encryption plugin but you need another Pidgin IM with RSA plugin installed and enabled. Why not a universal standard cross - chat , OS and programming language platform security protocol to protect us using IMs ?

3. Proper file transfer

Most IMs file transfer sucks big time. Slow and prone to dropping... especially MSN's. There's a need for a proper file transfer. Maybe MSN might want to build in a proper FTP function that supports the standard FTP... not MSN's own file transfer. Use the standards. Don't try to reinvent the wheel and fail horribly. Current chat file transfers are can be summarized in one word: UGLY !

4. Universal emoticon symbols

Some messengers support certain symbols for certain emoticons. I think there is a need for a universal standardized emoticon and symbol set. Maybe someone could propose that to some world standards body like ISO ?

5. OPENNESS of APIs.

Most messengers are trying to open up their APIs and that's good but I noticed that more work and effort is needed.

for now, this is a list of what most IMs need to look into.

Friday, June 18, 2010

GoogleCL, what it's for ?

Google have introduced a Linux command line package of tools to access it's web services.

Go to: http://code.google.com/p/googlecl/

Maybe Google thought that Linux users are 'geeks' and therefore 'geeks' like terminals and command lines ? I have no idea what Google was thinking when they released GoogleCL.

My personal opinion is they are doing something useless. It's far more efficient to use a browser or Google Apps with all the GUI to access the Google Web Services then a long string of command line command.

Imagine you want to post a blog using GoogleCL which would be the bottom command:

google blogger post --title "GoogleCL, what it's for ?" "Google have introduced a Linux command line package of tools to access it's web services.


Go to: ...

Maybe Google thought that Linux users are 'geeks' and therefore 'geeks' like terminals and command lines ? I have no idea what Google was thinking when they released GoogleCL. 

My personal opinion is they are doing something useless. It's far more efficient to use a browser or Google Apps with all the GUI to access the Google Web Services then a long string of command line command.

Imagine you want to post a blog using GoogleCL which would be the bottom command:..."
Wow, that would be a hell of a long command string to just make a blogging post to blogger !

This is yet another product where Google is making, not knowing what to do... and having bad imaginations and ideas besides wasting precious software development time and developers on unnecessary things and bad product ideas.

They could have redirected these quality time and developer resources to more useful development like the WebM project, Chrome browser...etc.

I think this is one of the bad decisions and uncreative things Google have created.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Google's 2 OSes

Google have made two different OSes so far. One of them is the infamous Android and the other is the still in development Chrome OS. Both OSes are based on Linux.


Why don't Google reuse the already well-liked and infamous Android OS and modify it for desktop and netbook usage rather then reinventing the wheel, spawning the Chrome OS ? If Google really wanted Android OS to have the Chrome browser-like feel which Chrome OS is using, they could simply write some sort of layer over Android like what other Android mods have done (customizing their Android mods).


By choosing just Android to work with and having a desktop / netbook Chrome-like feel mod, all they need to do is focus on one single OS and that's all they need. 


Splitting attention between two OSes can sap a lot of resources and attention. Logically speaking, Chrome OS would have a high possibility of being discarded sooner or later because the amount of attention and resource being sapped from maintaining two OSes is quite a lot, even for a huge company like Google.


Google, please think twice. It's not late to give up on Chrome OS and create a mod for Android to run a Chrome-like desktop/netbook OS.

Apple's HTML 5

Read this: http://www.osnews.com/story/23411/Apple_s_HTML5_Showcase_Isn_t_HTML5_Blocks_Other_Browsers


Apple claims to showcase HTML 5 but this showcase is the HTML 5 that only Safari can perform. It block the Firefox 3.5 browser I used to access it. Why doesn't it allow other browsers to take the test ? Isn't it purely not being open and fair to other browsers ? Oh well, Apple has been known to be unfair and close anyway even though it did contribute in open source projects, it did it for it's own gains in the end.


Below is the screenshot of my Firefox 3.5 browser trying to access the HTML 5 showcase page. It's highly misleading.