[Noisebridge-discuss] [POTENTIAL DRAMA] What do people think about GW?

[Danny O'Brien]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Rachel McConnell <rachel at xtreme.com> wrote:
> Thank you for helping David Fine manage his inbox.
>
> I can't see any new and different downsides of using Wave, as compared
> to Gmail or other Google products.  I haven't used it more than a small
> amount of playing around, in which it didn't seem to do the things I
> thought it was supposed to do.  I expect it centralizes its information,
> which would be problematic for many if it catches on, but possibly no
> more so than IM systems *IF* Google lets other people implement Wave
> servers.  I haven't done this research at all though.

The protocol is open (based on XMPP/Jabber), and people have been
writing basic servers. http://www.waveprotocol.org/

It smells a bit of overgeneralized solution right now though. I think
a bunch of googlers got REALLY EXCITED about the many problems that a
generalized IM-meets-delta-changes protocol might solve, in the same
way as almost all of us have gone HEY BUT WHAT IF TOTALLY GENERALISED
THE IDEA OF "KNOWLEDGE" INTO A SET OF TRIPLETS OF PURE INFORMATION
LINKED INTO A SEMANTIC [TAKES DRAG ON GEEK CRACKPIPE] NETWORK OF
SOCIAL RELATIONS?" at some point. In Wave's philosophy the equivalent
is HEY WE CAN MODEL ANY DOCUMENT OR FUNCTION USING JABBER, XML and
BOTS

but it turns out that just being super abstract doesn't help you
create a concrete solution to a narrow band of particular problems,
and it might actually get in the way. i think maybe Wave might find
its own set of problems to solve, but I really haven't found them yet,
and they may just involve a matching set of tradeoffs that exist for
IRC or email or twitter or what have you.

More drama-like, using a trademarked thing to store my data in one
company does creep me out, and goes against what I like about the
Internets, despite Google's attempts to make this very decentralised
and open. But your sensitivity to creepiness and levels of idealism
may vary.

d.

>
> There was one article I found helpful on what Wave is for, but I can't
> find the link.  if I run across it again I'll forward it to you.
>
> Michael Shiloh wrote:
>> Forgive my ignorance.
>>
>> I know very little about Google Wave, and I'm really curious: is
>> everyone jumping onto it, or do some people have reservations? If so,
>> what are they?
>>
>> Convince me why I'm a fool for not asking Martin for an invite.
>>
>> M
>>
>> Martin Bogomolni wrote:
>>> Google has given me another batch of invites.   If you'd like to check
>>> out Wave, email me.  first come/first serve, until I run out.
>>>
>>> -Martin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>