Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Wave Reviewed

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the what's-the-skinny dept.

Google 365

Michael_Curator writes "Developers are finally getting their hands on the developer preview of Google's Wave, which means we can finally get some first-hand accounts of what it's really like to use, unfiltered by Google's own programmers. Ben Rometsch, a developer with U.K. Web development firm Solid State, blogged that, it's 'probably the most advanced application in a browser that I've seen.' Wave is like giant Web page onto which users can drag and drop any kind of object, including instant messaging and IRC [Internet Relay Client] clients, e-mail, and wikis, as well as gadgets like maps and video. All conversations, work product and applications are stored on remote servers — presumably forever. 'It's like real time email. On crack,' he wrote. And unlike the typically minimalist Google UI, 'It feels a lot more like a desktop application that just so happens to live in your browser.'" User molex333 has already written a Slashdot app and shares his initial reactions here.

cancel ×

365 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This may seem obvious to some, but... (3, Insightful)

popo (107611) | about 5 years ago | (#28790153)

Does the expression "on crack" mean, "better"? And if so, why?

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (4, Informative)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 5 years ago | (#28790167)

Does the expression "on crack" mean, "better"? And if so, why?

I always interpreted that phrase to mean "way more hyper and totally unpredictable". So in my mind, anyway, that's a "no".

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 5 years ago | (#28790177)

He's probably talking about how lean it is.. Have you ever seen an obsese crack whore?

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (4, Informative)

rhyder128k (1051042) | about 5 years ago | (#28790883)

I wasn't really seeing her, it was more of an one-nighter.

Maybe the guy is a crack addict and he means that it's really really great program that he'd happily steal and lie to get some more of.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

AnonymousIslander (1603121) | about 5 years ago | (#28790219)

Does the expression "on crack" mean, "better"? And if so, why?

A very good question indeed, perhaps you should smoke a few rocks and let us know whether or not things are better for ya...

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1, Informative)

pushing-robot (1037830) | about 5 years ago | (#28790233)

Normally it means "bad" or "messed up", but I think in this case it's more "hyperactive". The author seems to be stating "if your email program could get high on cocaine, it would be like Google Wave."

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790259)

pros: will suck your dick.
cons: is a dirty, smelly nigger.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (4, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | about 5 years ago | (#28790327)

It's a fairly common American expression, or at least it was. Generally anything on crack is something supercharged. Bigger, faster, better. I have no idea where the saying originated from. It's best not to think about it, I guess.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (5, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 5 years ago | (#28790539)

The more appropriate expression might be 'on steroids'. If it was 'on crack', it would look like a MySpace page.

Linguistic intensification (4, Insightful)

StreetStealth (980200) | about 5 years ago | (#28790665)

Most likely, this is an attempt at a linguistic intensification of the idiom "on steroids." There was a time when steroid use was more of a taboo and to reference it in casual conversation was marginally titillating, but perhaps "on crack" comes closer to attaining that mischievousness today.

Even though it doesn't really make sense (steroids increase muscle mass, but crack doesn't really increase anything except an extreme imbalance of neurotransmitters) it fits with our general cultural pattern of intensifying language. "Going ape," for instance, was an appropriate term for wild human behavior as apes tend to be associated with wild movements, but "going apeshit," while sounding more intense, doesn't make any semantic sense in that an ape's feces don't exactly move much at all.

Re:Linguistic intensification (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790785)

It moves quite a bit when thrown.

Re:Linguistic intensification (2, Insightful)

derGoldstein (1494129) | about 5 years ago | (#28791069)

This entire conversation about linguistics and cultural evolution of "street phrases" just goes to show that no one really knows what to say about Wave. We can't test it ourselves yet, and have no idea how useful it'll be in the real world. Even the access they're giving reviewers right now is more of a tech demo.

For realz, yo!

Re:Linguistic intensification (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | about 5 years ago | (#28791235)

I assume that crack has similar effects to other forms of cocaine. That means that it will make people feel energetic and wakeful - it is often taken by people doing jobs that require long hours or constant fast reaction.

Sounds to me like "on crack" is a very good analogy.

Re:Linguistic intensification (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 5 years ago | (#28791237)

I would assume the phrases are meant to be used in place of the effect most people associate with the drug. The effect of steroids is usually being bigger and/or stronger, while with crack the first effect most people think of is hyperactivity and/or being faster. Something that does more different things, or does a thing at a much faster rate, would be "on crack", while something that is bigger and stronger would be "on steroids". Like a lot of metaphors, there are subtle differences in meaning, and they're rarely perfect analogues.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1, Funny)

42forty-two42 (532340) | about 5 years ago | (#28791021)

Given how chaotic and unstable Wave is at the moment (based on my experiences with it anyway), I think "on crack" is a very good metaphor for the situation right now.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (2, Informative)

omeomi (675045) | about 5 years ago | (#28791201)

Now that you mention it, it probably comes out of the fervor in the 80's over crack. Back then, the story was that it made people into these super-crazy super-strong unstoppable criminals. You could shoot a crack-head in the face 5 times back then, and they'd still lift up your police car and throw it across the street. From what I've heard, the punishment for crack possession is still far worse than it is for cocaine possession. And yes, I get my drug insight from NPR, so yes, I am a nerd.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

Miseph (979059) | about 5 years ago | (#28791255)

Crack is, in essence, cocaine on steroids... and speed. And PCP.

In a lot of ways, crack really is the "all-American" drug, we took a decent import, then beefed the hell out of it by mixing it up with all sorts of other drugs and better living through science to make it stronger, faster, easier and cheaper and built one of the world's last unadulterated capitalist markets around it.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | about 5 years ago | (#28790337)

I think the implication is that "real time email" usually jittery, paranoid, and willing to do anything however depraved, demeaning or desperate for a hit of sweet sweet crack.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790381)

Irony?

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790495)

you're right what he should have said is "on a whole lot of his friend's adderall"

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 5 years ago | (#28790527)

Does the expression "on crack" mean, "better"? And if so, why?

It's like the word 'better', but on crack! It's whacked! It's dope! The roof is on fire! That's bad-ass! Just keepin' it real, dude. You should get with the times, and be a hep cat. Word.

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790585)

Maybe if you'd tried crack you would understand

Re:This may seem obvious to some, but... (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 5 years ago | (#28790753)

Well come on, it's just semantics in the end.

However, I like the idea of unifying existing protocols into one.

I wish the same would happen with HTML/Word/PDF files. One killer 'html/text/graphic/hyperlink' format which is light, but very powerful and flexible, and which is universally used.

Wait, I think... (1)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | about 5 years ago | (#28791093)

...it might mean you can use it completely free, but it may come bundled with malware.

Great! (3, Funny)

csueiras (1461139) | about 5 years ago | (#28790211)

Google is probably one of the most if not the most innovative companies in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they have just created the next generation of communication!

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790309)

lol

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790377)

Indeed! The insightful mod is the funniest part.

Re:Great! (3, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28790391)

Google is probably one of the most if not the most innovative companies in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they have just created the next generation of communication!

Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?


While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.

I want my flying cars. I was promised flying cars......

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | about 5 years ago | (#28790439)

> Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app.

How is that going to get them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers?

Re:Great! (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28790453)

> Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app.

How is that going to get them more eyeballs to sell to their advertisers?

well-played sir, well played.

Re:Great! (4, Insightful)

RichardDeVries (961583) | about 5 years ago | (#28790501)

Google has cobbled together existing technology

This is the mother of all 'get off my lawn' arguments. Using existing technology is what brings us most innovations. In fact, using existing technology is what every programmer does.

... and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years.

SMTP is in beta?
I've only seen the demovideo and done a bit of reading. The ideas behind wave are innovative, ambitious and pretty well thought through. If wave becomes a success, it will take years before it's massively deployed. It might also take years to fail spectacularly, either through bad development decisions, or just through failing to come up with the killer-app.
But to bash it now is stupid. Google is doing this the right way. They're following a vision that might be wrong, or might not be what you're looking for. But it will be open-sourced, so you can create your own wave services. And it doesn't have to be inside a browser, as far as I understand it.

Re:Great! (1, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28790541)

This is the mother of all 'get off my lawn' arguments. Using existing technology is what brings us most innovations. In fact, using existing technology is what every programmer does.

I'm really not flaming you, but you missed my points almost entirely. Google isn't simply "using" existing technology - they are repackaging existing technologies. Outlook with Groove was doing "Google Wave" 7 years ago, albeit in a win32 app. Google is using the web browser as a proxy for software, essentially trying to get the write-once,run-anywhere grail that java had as a goal.


A web browser should never, and I mean NEVER, need half a gig of memory to view my open tabs - but FF 3.5 does frequently because of all the JS that it's running. It's one thing to evolve a technology(Web, html, other 2.0 synonyms), quite another to bastardize it into a swiss army knife.

Re:Great! (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | about 5 years ago | (#28790649)

A web browser should never, and I mean NEVER, need half a gig of memory to view my open tabs

If you don't like it, don't use it. While you sit around telling kids to get off your lawn the rest of us will bask in the new technology that's on offer.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790891)

Are you saying that if all of those tabs were individual traditional native applications that they wouldn't have the same storage requirements? The platform that the code runs on doesn't change the problem that the software solves and therefore it's unlikely that the code would be radically different in terms of resource needs.

Re:Great! (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28791011)

Are you saying that if all of those tabs were individual traditional native applications that they wouldn't have the same storage requirements?

Exactly correct. Open firefox into google apps' spreadsheet then open MS excel. I just did and excel took ~21 MB of ram and FF used over 100 MB of ram. Running apps in a browser is adding another layer of work the hardware has to do: you're introducing inefficiencies.

Re:Great! (4, Interesting)

sillycibin (1546695) | about 5 years ago | (#28791221)

Do you not get the point that by running in a browser, it essentially runs anywhere? Linux, Mac, Windows, future smartphones and MIDS. Further, by running in the browser, the application will always be the most current version. You won't have people running outlook version x, y, and z. Social communication or whatever you want to call it is a huge area of growth and a direction the internets is going. Would you rather have Google or Facebook the steward? Google very much tries to be open and "not evil." I honestly don't get the Google bashing.

Re:Great! (0, Flamebait)

Ortega-Starfire (930563) | about 5 years ago | (#28791243)

>a web browser should never, and I mean NEVER, need half a gig of memory to view my open tabs

Hmm. 512MB of ram should be enough for any web browser?

If it bothers you that much though, just go to your about:config page and edit the

browser.cache.memory.capacity

key to however much ram you think your browser should use.

Re:Great! (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#28790599)

Google is probably one of the most if not the most innovative companies in the world, I wouldn't be surprised if they have just created the next generation of communication!

Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology

I think that might be the "innovation". Also, why do innovations have to be perfect suddenly?

Re:Great! (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28790621)

The don't need to be perfect - they just need to be substantially different in a productive way.

Re:Great! (1)

bursch-X (458146) | about 5 years ago | (#28790949)

The automobile was invented by Karl Benz using existing technology, that didn't make it less of an innovation. The wheel was invented using existing technologies (wood carving, punching holes into things etc.), but... get the gist? It's of the innovative use of these technologies in different ways, or the combination and application of known technologies in unexpected places or ways that makes innovation.

Re:Great! (3, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | about 5 years ago | (#28790811)

Are you kidding? Again, Google has cobbled together existing technology and instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago Google is content to have something else that will live in beta for years. Why create new technology when you can duct tape existing things together?

If something taught us SMTP is that is not panacea, there is a big hole in that specification and is called "real time" (well, if you want, add spam to the mix). Wave goes directly to the heart of it, having communication between one or several people (like smtp), but in real time, adding authentication, easy to use and powerful web interface, multimedia and more things that will be disclosed/developed in time. And takes on instant messaging/xmpp if you want too, adding things that are more from smtp realm.

Could had done it mixing and matching existing protocols? Maybe yes, maybe not. And maybe those alternatives dont have the flexibility needed for wild evolution that this could have.

While I'm teetering on the brink of ranting, so Google is releasing an OS, while they continue to overload the web browser with javascript and flash in an effort to turn it into an operating system. Again, we've already done this. We have these tools already. It's called a Native Application. Write some C for christ sake, or hell, even a Java SE app. Maybe some QT/OpenGL? Writing all these applications for the browser is putting a square peg in a round hole.

Considering how safe proved to be the most used operating system around, taking most of the responsibility into something that they could control and fix is not a very bad move. Native Applications could be faster (faster than all the push google and others had done to have a very fast javascript engines, but not for so much now), but could pass easily the ball to the underlying operating system, and of course, not be future proof (future as in other architectures at the very least, both because be totally new or gains more popularity alternative ones).

And maybe you could be right... for local, very cpu intensive applications. But for writting internet applications building them over existing internet clients (i.e. browser, you have there all the portability, all the security, etc) looks reasonable.

Re:Great! (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | about 5 years ago | (#28790833)

"Cobbling together", ahem, building applications by reusing existing protocols and formats is a good thing--not a bad thing. Also, I'm not sure why you're associating this particular app with an OS in a browser because if you watch the preview video it's clearly a collaboration and communication application, but.. anyway...

I thought the goal was to run these apps anywhere while maintaining the same user experience regardless of OS and browser, yet feature lightweight on the fly downloads. Getting users to download a native application and keeping it instantly updated is a big hassle. Have you ever had to deal with writing software that executes on a variety of hardware, OS versions, libraries, and JVM versions? Have you had to deal with ensuring a critical software update gets quickly deployed to millions of installations? I doubt it. A centralized, remote software platform implemented on web standards is easy to deploy and keep updated (by comparision). It also reduces the installation footprint required on a user's machine (such as junking up the registry, etc).

Even considering google OS as a complementary offering, I think this dev team clearly wants deep accessibility and platform independence and not be limited to deploying on their own OS. That's very difficult to accomplish with native apps (Java or C based).

You can complain if you want I suppose, but stuff like this is progress.

Re:Great! (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28791043)

You missed the point entirely!! REUSE IS A GOOD THING PROVIDED YOU BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION. Google doesn't reuse ideas or technology to create new things, they just repackage and recycle existing technology. Pagerank was the last innovation they had.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

lena_10326 (1100441) | about 5 years ago | (#28791165)

You missed the point entirely!! REUSE IS A GOOD THING PROVIDED YOU BUILD ON THE FOUNDATION.

Now you're talking gibberish. So, HTML, XML, CSS, Javascript are not considered foundational tools? Odd. I would rather you point out their design or implementation flaws (there are many) rather than make obviously untrue silly statements. You can say the foundation is poorly implemented, but you cannot argue that these tools are not foundational.

Google doesn't reuse ideas or technology to create new things, they just repackage and recycle existing technology. Pagerank was the last innovation they had.

Uhhh.. Map Reduce? By the way, an automotive store doesn't create new things nor do they innovate yet they're important.

Re:Great! (2, Funny)

bonch (38532) | about 5 years ago | (#28790835)

You touched on my biggest reason for not buying into the hype about web applications. People are desperate to create another layer in the system via the web browser, encouraging developers to venture forth into a GUI-less world like the MS-DOS days where everyone must develop UI toolkits and other APIs from scratch, even though there are desktop APIs developed 20 years ago that were already written to do this stuff.

If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.

Re:Great! (1)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28791017)

If the internet is supposed to be an app platform, why not develop a remote app delivery protocol for running native applications? Why rely on a web browser, which was first developed to view static, magazine-like pages that have links to other pages? That gets you thinking about other things that were supposed to deliver cross-platform remote apps in the past, like Java. But it didn't take over.

There is one, it's called X11. =)

Re:Great! (1)

lena_10326 (1100441) | about 5 years ago | (#28791107)

I don't see how the design and implementation of 1st generation browsers applies when assessing the quality or correctness of the current browser generation. The original browser concept morphed into a general content delivery system. We got there by expanding the definition of "content" to include dynamic content generated on the server-side. Then it expanded again to include client-side generated content (animated images, streaming audio and video, javascript, java applets, flash). Then once again to include DOM aware applications capable of modifying in-page structure and styling (primarily javascript). It was then that the explosion of Web 2.0 apps began. Saying that the browser should not implement these things is like saying it should not support images, or pipelining, or compression, or streaming audio, because originally it didn't.

Re:Great! (5, Insightful)

fabs64 (657132) | about 5 years ago | (#28790861)

"instead of learning the lesson that SMTP taught US 25 years ago " which lesson in particular are they ignoring?

As for the thick app argument, why do you care? Seriously, if the solution works it works. The toggle switch guys scoffed at the punch card guys, the punch card guys scoffed at the interactive asm editor guys, the asm guys scoffed at the C guys, the C guys scoffed at the Java guys, the Java guys scoff at the Ruby/Python/PHP/JS guys.
You don't see the trend?

Re:Great! (3, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28791155)

This isn't a coke vs. pepsi thing. I can run MS excel with 20 megs of ram. Google spreedsheet in firefox takes over 100 megs of ram. An ftp socket and script to upload my excel file somewhere for sharing doesn't account for 80 megs worth of space complexity: 400% more resources than the thick client app! Once more, someone could have a macro in excel that does the uploading with one-click, so grandma can do it, and maybe you'll see 21 megs of ram used. I just don't understand why we aren't see new and DIFFERNT types of software instead of office applications, photo editors, audio editors, 3d games, and anything else you've used before appear on the web, but with Social 3.0!


I'm all about the right tool for the right job: I don't care who makes it as long as it works well, is reliable and efficient. Google does a lot of things, none particularly well, sans advertising; Wolfram even has better search then they do and I really to hate to say this, but Bing has decent results. (i still default to google search though)

Re:Great! (5, Interesting)

rossifer (581396) | about 5 years ago | (#28791151)

What you're not seeing is Google's strategic intent (I work for Google, but this stuff is public).

Google's goal is to commodify (reduce the marginal profit to zero) of everything that they don't make money on. The hardware is pretty much commodified already. Plenty of competitors and the profit margins are razor thin. Next levels are the OS and the applications. These are not yet commodified due to Microsoft's aggressively maintained monopoly. Contrary to common knowledge, Microsoft's real monopoly is in the Office file formats. From that, they've levered a monopoly into basic individual productivity applications and then (with Apple's cooperation) the operating system. They are also a serious player in second-generation collaboration tools (extensions to basic email).

In order to reduce Microsoft's war chest and eliminate their competitiveness, Google seeks to lower the profit margin on everything Microsoft currently produces at a profit (Windows and Office). So they produce a cheaper operating system, cheaper productivity applications, and cheaper collaboration tools (ideally free to the typical user). Google doesn't need to make money (though breaking even would be nice), Google just needs to apply pressure to Microsoft to cut their revenues/profits and the strategic goals are being met.

Writing apps that run on Windows? Doesn't help Google very much (though SketchUp and Picasa and a few other things are native apps).
Writing protocols that run on any machine? Helps Google a lot.
Writing web applications that use those protocols and run on any machine? Helps Google a lot.

Look at the bigger picture. Google is acting extremely rationally here.

As for whether Wave is innovative or not, I don't think you've tried it and are speaking without informing yourself. Wave is to email as email is to snail mail (single addressee, no broadcast, etc.). Wave tackles the problem of a widely CC:'d email with an attached Word or Excel document (two threads of changes: one in the email thread, one in the document) (multiple obsolete copies of the document available) (possible confusion and delay as people are added to the thread and have to re-read the history duplicated in most of the recent emails). Wave creates a "place" for this discussion/collaborative authoring to happen and then let's everyone bring whatever they want to help out. Wave is not email++ (which is what Outlook and Gmail are).

Sounds like g.ho.st (5, Interesting)

sanjosanjo (804469) | about 5 years ago | (#28790215)

I've dabbled with http://g.ho.st/ [g.ho.st] and it sounds similar. I've been impressed at how snappy g.ho.st is, so I would expect good things from Google, also.

Re:Sounds like g.ho.st (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28790369)

G.ho.st is interesting, but no, wave isn;t like that. Wave isn't an emulation of a notional desktop computer on a web page. Wave is like a mixture of email, IM and live collaborative document editing, with a open API such that 3rd parties can create additional communication centric applications.

Re:Sounds like g.ho.st (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 5 years ago | (#28790663)

Well G.ho.st allows email, IM, and live collaborative document editing via Zoho and Google Docs via the G.ho.st virtual machine. It also has an open API [g.ho.st] if you read the forums that developers [g.ho.st] can create additional communication centric applications.

Re:Sounds like g.ho.st (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28790743)

Yes. But Google Wave really isn't that.

Re:Sounds like g.ho.st (2, Informative)

Sporkinum (655143) | about 5 years ago | (#28790555)

I had never heard about g.ho.st before your post. It's interesting technology, but looks like it has a ways to go. Less than 10k views of their demo video on youtube. Also, it ran pretty slow in my browser (firefox 3.5). On a good note, since it is a web page, adblock+ works.

More info, please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790235)

So this is pretty much Sharepoint?

Re:More info, please... (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28790395)

No. Sharepoint is a marketing term covering a disparate range of collaborative applications from Microsoft. Similar to how the .NET label was a marketing label for a bunch of disparate technologies.

Google Wave is a single innovative new technology on which many collaborative tools are and may be built.

Re:More info, please... (4, Insightful)

teknopurge (199509) | about 5 years ago | (#28790445)

No. Sharepoint is a marketing term covering a disparate range of collaborative applications from Microsoft. Similar to how the .NET label was a marketing label for a bunch of disparate technologies.

Google Wave is a single innovative new technology on which many collaborative tools are and may be built.

Do you work for google PR? Sharepoint is a portal server and a webapp framework. Disparate huh?

Re:More info, please... (0, Troll)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28790699)

Do you work for google PR?

Funny, on another thread I'm being accused of being an Apple Fanboi. You guys should stop being so juvenile. I won't come down to your silly level and accuse you of being in MS PR. But instead just give a citation to prove my point:

The term "SharePoint" can collectively refer to a number of products ranging from the base platform to various services. The platform is Windows SharePoint Services (WSS), which is included with Windows Server and available as a free download for those with Windows Server licenses. Services such as Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS) provide additional functionality and features and are licensed accordingly.[2]
Microsoft identifies the following as part of the current SharePoint products and technologies family:
Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 (WSS)
Search Server 2008 Express
Search Server 2008
Forms Server 2007
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 MOSS Standard
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 MOSS Enterprise
Microsoft Office Groove Server 2007
Microsoft Office Project Server 2007
Microsoft Office SharePoint Designer, a free[3] editor to help administrators develop and customize SharePoint solutions, is also in the SharePoint family.
Previous versions of elements of this software used different names such as "SharePoint Portal Server 2003" and "SharePoint Team Services" but are also referred to as SharePoint or SharePoint Technologies. Since the beginning, when the SharePoint initiative was collectively called Tahoe, SharePoint development has been a mixed bag of products and technologies and included the now defunct Site Server 3.0.
SharePoint, as a collection of technologies, is not intended to simply replace a full file server or to be a single use solution. Instead, it is geared and positioned to play various roles in the business and enterprise environment. Microsoft markets these vectors as Collaboration, Processes, and People.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharepoint [wikipedia.org]

Re:More info, please... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 5 years ago | (#28791077)

Nice citation. I'm amused that you think it "proves" that there are multiple disparate technologies involved, by quoting a link that lists both: Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 MOSS Standard and Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 MOSS Enterprise as saying "look, not integrated".

And there's an editor application, and a search engine.

Hint: One can have an integrated set of tools, without requiring only one .exe file.

Re:More info, please... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28791211)

I guess there was too many words for you. I'll cut some out, and see if it gets through to you.

Since the beginning, when the SharePoint initiative was collectively called Tahoe, SharePoint development has been a mixed bag of products and technologies and included the now defunct Site Server 3.0.

"A mixed bag of products and technologies". Just like .NET.

Re:More info, please... (2, Funny)

rossifer (581396) | about 5 years ago | (#28790981)

Sharepoint is a way of "sort of" sharing Word >=2003 documents to "sort of" make a wiki.

Other than that (which isn't much that twiki can't do), it's basically a gigantic waste of everyone's time.

(I do work for Google)

Re:More info, please... (2, Informative)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 5 years ago | (#28790867)

There's this popular misconception that Google Wave is some sort of service, when in fact it's a protocol built on XMPP [wikipedia.org] . Google's offering of the service is of course a major part of this, but the essential character of the thing is a protocol and messaging semantic.

Let me know when they release the server (4, Insightful)

White Flame (1074973) | about 5 years ago | (#28790237)

They've said they're going to open-source the server so others can host their own waves. Until then, since I'd want to use this for collaborative development, and possibly for hosting my own sites, I'd rather not they own my content.

Indeed (3, Interesting)

caitsith01 (606117) | about 5 years ago | (#28790839)

I want guarantees that no-one and nothing at Google, Inc or anywhere else I don't expressly authorise has access to anything I drop into this magic box in my browser.

Based on Google's track record, users should otherwise assume that anything and everything they let this system touch will be stored indefinitely even if deleted, indexed, and trawled for marketing and other purposes.

Re:Indeed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28791189)

Wah! My privacy is being invaded by voluntarily using this program!

on crack = A.D.D. = no work done = you are fired! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790263)

on crack = A.D.D. = no work done = you are fired!

Re:on crack = A.D.D. = no work done = you are fire (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790463)

No if you have A.D.D and are on crack, you focus better.

Tried it (5, Informative)

agendi (684385) | about 5 years ago | (#28790275)

I've participated in a wavelet writing hack-a-thon and was impressed by the scope of the collaboration that it provides. I saw it as an email, shared docs, blogs, instant messaging, photo sharing in one protocol. It certainly wasn't perfect and some parts were rather underwhelming but overall it seemed like the beginning of a new way of doing things. I was talking with one of the devs in the Sydney office and he said that they use it internally and are surprised by the way that the more they used it the more they discovered new ways to use it. I took that as a good sign that it was a technology/protocol that was at the beginning of the discovery rather than one that is released with every usage known. Would I use it commercially - not yet, but I can imagine it becoming a core tool to organising/interacting my social circle. I could easily see it being a great tool for collaborative programming and/or a new generation of remote role playing (build a dice rolling tool, a mapping tool etc.)

Re:Tried it (1)

darrylo (97569) | about 5 years ago | (#28790431)

Heh, I'm more interested in the long-term plans for offline access.

All this talk about new technologies is fine, but usability is important, too. I want to see what will happen when you're someplace without internet access.

Re:Tried it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790517)

I want to see what will happen when you're someplace without internet access

You DIE!
After all, according to some people in the world (People on Slashdot, all these nutcases thinking webapps are the new way) internet is ubiquitous around the world!...

Re:Tried it (1)

abigor (540274) | about 5 years ago | (#28790529)

Re:Tried it (1)

darrylo (97569) | about 5 years ago | (#28790595)

I know about Gears. I'm more interested in Google's thinking ("future visions", if you will) on how this is all supposed to work together.

Re:Tried it (1)

lennier (44736) | about 5 years ago | (#28790569)

"I want to see what will happen when you're someplace without internet access."

Without... Internet access? That would be like... being 'off-line'? But then how would people post lolcats? They'd have to get Facebook updates via Gmail... oh wait...

I'm sorry, I can't grasp that concept at all!

Re:Tried it (1)

darrylo (97569) | about 5 years ago | (#28790651)

I'm sorry, I can't grasp that concept at all!

Perhaps it's time for an intervention? :-)

Wave Is Going To Be A Turning Point For The Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790533)

"I can imagine it becoming a core tool to organising/interacting my social circle"

Pretty much every single app that touches that touches the Net/Web is either in the process of being rethought at a fundamental level and either rewritten or started over, or combined with other apps with Wave being the underlying technology. Developers are a bit like ravenous chained up dogs going mad over a nearby piece of meat with only a small number of developers having access to the servers right now but by September the floodgates are going to be opened and there is going to be an explosion of Wave apps coming out.

If you are an existing developer of a Net/Web app you had better get ready to upgrade to Wave tech or someone else is going come out with Wave versions of your stuff and leave you as an outdated relic.

If you are someone who is has never worked on a social media, Wave is going to be the opportunity for smaller developers to get the jump on existing big names and come out with fundamentally better versions of what is out there now.

Web discussion boards
Collaberation
Document sharing
Version control
Instant messaging
Email
and on and on

Every single existing website or application that performs those tasks and others is going be getting Wave versions that are going to make existing versions look like a joke.

Re:Wave Is Going To Be A Turning Point For The Net (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | about 5 years ago | (#28791091)

I LOL'ed. Really? What press release did you copypasta that from?

What utter horseshit.

Re:Tried it (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 5 years ago | (#28790575)

Question is, will it be adopted. And if a company can push new things, it is Apple, Microsoft and Google. Also, how will people transition from their email?

Ads (2, Insightful)

rodrigovr (1396497) | about 5 years ago | (#28790325)

Will Wave have ads? Perhaps compulsory ones?

Re:Ads (1, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 5 years ago | (#28790419)

That's like saying will HTTP, FTP or SMTP have ads. It's fundamentally a communications protocol with some example apps built on. It can be used for ads just as it can be used for many other things. No doubt some people will use it for ads.

Elfen Lied vs Les Luthiers (0)

Tei (520358) | about 5 years ago | (#28790335)

One man can love Elfen Lied and Les Luthiers.
Or hate both.

I imagine some dude playing with IE4 "Web desktop" mode playing ...a Web OS. He.. maybe Microsoft was visionary!, by mistake!.

I am (of course) looking forward for this. I am on the list of people that will murder the guy that is before it on the queue (PRO-TIP: be the latest one to join, that will guaranted your survival from the purge).

One thing I would love to see is "Internet: World Wide Web" integrated in a website, because Feedback make a good job with these tiny-ity "add a link" and "add a movie". But I WANT MOAR!.. I want to integrate streamed videos!.. illegal stream videos of all Japan animes!. RAWR!.

Imagine, everything cool of the internet, inside a website that is a OS. Can I say pocket dimension?

And meanwhile... (4, Funny)

Fear the Clam (230933) | about 5 years ago | (#28790499)

There's a girlfriend wondering why he won't annnnnsweeeeer any of the phone calls, voice mails, text messages, emails, or she's sent in the last ten minutes.

Re:And meanwhile... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28790797)

There's a girlfriend wondering why he won't annnnnsweeeeer any of the phone calls, voice mails, text messages, emails, or she's sent in the last ten minutes.

You must be new here. Slashdotters don't have girlfriends.

Google Browser OS paradigm (1)

msheekhah (903443) | about 5 years ago | (#28790535)

I really hope that Google is going in the direction I think it's going... a hybrid webos/cloud computing will enable Netbooks and older hardware configurations to have all of the features one would wish from a much more expensive Windows or MacOS box. While having a high performance machine is something I think will never go away, there are people who aren't serious enough gamers or production professionals who still want to play the latest games or use high end software occaisionally... I hope that Google can create that dream. The best computer experiences shouldn't belong exclusively to those with disposable cash to spend.

From the article. (1)

Jartan (219704) | about 5 years ago | (#28790571)

One telling remark, however â" given that Wave is supposed to run in a browser and not require any kind of desktop support: âoeIâ(TM)m not sure if there are API interfaces into the application but, ironically, itâ(TM)s crying out for a proper desktop client.â

This could be interesting beyond Waves own success/failure. It sounds like we're finally going to face real wide scale usage of a full blown web based javascript app for the first time. Perhaps if it's successful we'll see someone write a stand alone version too.

Yeah it seems like others (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 5 years ago | (#28790611)

like Yahoo are trying to do the same things [yahoo.com] with their search engines and web sites as well. here is a list of things Yahoo provides to developers [yahoo.com] including the BrowserPlus [yahoo.com] project which sounds a lot like what Google is try to do if I am not mistaken? Why is Yahoo not covered by Slashdot but Google is, for have an open API for developers to build on?

Yahoo has had my.yahoo.com for a long time now for those who never even heard about it. I use it to keep track of content on web sites like Slashdot, etc and it looks like the Yahoo APIs are there to extend it like Google's Wave APIs.

Re:Yeah it seems like others (1)

whhyohwhyslashdot (1546467) | about 5 years ago | (#28790777)

actually, you are mistaken. this is nothing like some new plugin to tie web pages to your desktop. it is different. It's hard to explain, because it uses a lot of things we are familiar with, so you think it is just another incremental bell or whistle tacked onto a web page. but the results is way more than the sum of it's parts. watch the video, it's long, but going through it you can really see the possibilities of what this could become.

Re:Yeah it seems like others (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | about 5 years ago | (#28791065)

Well since I cannot sign up to the Wave project to it, and my access to the video is blocked, I cannot see what the fuss is all about.

I am going by screen shots which looks a lot like my.yahoo.com to me, and the Yahoo API developer system.

Mod me paranoid (5, Insightful)

carp3_noct3m (1185697) | about 5 years ago | (#28790661)

But between this and Google OS and everything else, google is getting dangerously capable of mass information collection for nefarious purposes (read: more than is currently possible). Ive been willing enough to forgive the search engine because of its usefulness, but I see Google as the biggest potential data mining operation in the world. Have an OS, web search, email, chat, and voice all have the central management of one company who for all we know could have been served on of those secret orders they cant even talk about that all data mussed be passed on to some crazy orwellian agency. Not saying its true, but it makes you wonder...now I'm off to finish building my patented alaskan off-the-grid living structure called an igloo.

Browser OS? (2)

hotfireball (948064) | about 5 years ago | (#28790677)

What I am wondering: if Google OS is essentially "boot into your browser", then why would I need to write things in a slow JavaScript, if there is a fast Java itself? Android makes sense, but making applications (web/ajax stuff) within an application (browser)? What is wrong to get a 10M JRE from http://www.java.com/ [java.com] install it and have it running now and today in high performance even in 3-4 years old laptop, rather then get latest netbook on Atom 1.6GHz and cry for bloated Firefox?.. Anyone?

OK, I do lots of Ajax programming in ExtJS style as well as GWT, as well as plain Java. GWT is great, yes, Ajax works everything foobar. But wait a minute, why I do Ajax? Right, because JRE is not everywhere and users needs to install it. But if you go with a Chrome OS, you are going to install it, right? What's wrong to just install latest JRE then?

One more thing: JavaScript isn't really that great as it is imagined. It is slow and still not really standard everywhere. Essentially, browser is a VM for JavaScript, which would be the same if you run Java bytecode on your JRE. The difference, however, that you can do nearly everything with a plain Java, while you can not really do much with JavaScript (e.g. write a multimedia player). To do so, you will still need mix it with other stuff, like Adobe Flash or Microsoft *cough* Silverlight *cough*. The only why one would prefer to use JavaScript: dynamic language. But hey... if you want your Java application to be written in JavaScript (in style "look, Ma, no Java!" because I love dynamic languages), then get Rhino engine and call your Swing stuff from there, then run on your netbook, using a webservices on your servers.

Anyone correct me, please?

One more thing... (1)

hotfireball (948064) | about 5 years ago | (#28790703)

How I would work with Chrome OS offline?..

Video (4, Informative)

Twinbee (767046) | about 5 years ago | (#28790781)

And here's the obligatory hour long video to show the potential of the thing:
http://wave.google.com/ [google.com]

Some new and interesting concepts if you have the time to spare.

Non-browser GUI version? (2)

Twinbee (767046) | about 5 years ago | (#28790817)

It would be nice if... you know... Google Wave existed outside the browser, and in a proper Windows/Linux GUI interface for faster widgets, less memory consumption etc.

Internet/comm things don't HAVE to be done in the browser all the time.

Re:Non-browser GUI version? (4, Insightful)

Norsefire (1494323) | about 5 years ago | (#28790841)

It's an open protocol, you can make whatever GUI you want. In the video they were using a terminal client.

The open protocol is a BIG win (4, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 5 years ago | (#28790877)

The biggest deal here, which so far is quite understated, is that the protocol is open. It's based on XMPP (aka Jabber), including the server-to-server protocol. This means no one will be locked into a single site -- not even Google's, although I'm sure Google is counting on a lot of people using their site, and I'm sure they'll find other ways to leverage it to make some money as well. They're good at doing that -- and unintrusively, too.

If this thing catches on, it's going to turn the whole Internet on its head -- in a good way. It's the end of being locked in to walled gardens like Exchange and Facebook -- although either of those products would be able to tie into the global Wave federation if they wanted to.

I'm looking forward to seeing lots of different software and sites that speak Wave protocol. For that matter, I'm looking forward to writing one someday.

Too Bad (0, Offtopic)

tpstigers (1075021) | about 5 years ago | (#28791073)

I was going to link to this post from another forum that's been discussing Wave. Then I read the comments. It took me five minutes to find one that wasn't juvenile. Is this what Slashdot has come to?

Sounds a lot like what... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28791117)

Douglas Adams wished for.....

FTW? IRC?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28791121)

Sorry, IRC??? Who fucking cares if they can make an irc client which can be dropped and dragged in a web browser.

Old technology, cobbled with more old technology that smaller vendors have been doing for a long time. Google does it and now its a fucking revolution.

Its nice too see a pimped out version of the iGoogle system but really, if Google doesn't make it free and doesn't make it developer friendly than no one will use it, other than that this is like the Pussycat dolls re-releasing "I will Survive" with an electric beat rummaged through it.

Do Not Want (1)

Dynamoo (527749) | about 5 years ago | (#28791181)

I've looked at the stories and the explanation about Google Wave.. and my attitude is definitely "Do Not Want". It really doesn't seem to meet a real need as far as I can tell.. oh yeah, it's pretty clever. But what's the elevator pitch? How is this going to improve my life?

Wether wave is good or bad, (1)

killthepoor187 (1600283) | about 5 years ago | (#28791227)

I like what google has been doing. I sometimes don't think that their goal is even to make super successful technologies sometimes as it is to push the internet forward by showing what can be done with it. It would make sense too, they don't get money from giving away free email and office software, they make money from getting more people onto the web. The more developed the web is, the more pull there is for people to get on it and see their ads. Even if it fails, just by the nature of it being ambitious should get others to emulate it, hopefully with some great new ideas of their own.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>