Jump to content

Talk:Google Wave: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 141: Line 141:
Either hosted at Google, or hosted privately by the owner?
Either hosted at Google, or hosted privately by the owner?


David H.
David H. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.110.215.6|194.110.215.6]] ([[User talk:194.110.215.6|talk]]) 10:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->




Line 147: Line 147:


David H.
David H.

<span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.110.215.6|194.110.215.6]] ([[User talk:194.110.215.6|talk]]) 10:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Revision as of 16:40, 11 December 2009

WikiProject iconInternet B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Better description ?

At the moment it's just a collection of buzzword and it deosn't make a lot of sense for those who don't already know what it is about. Someone should try and describe it in one/two non-techy sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.31.69.178 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I came here to find out what it's all about, having seen it on the TV news, and I'm no wiser than before. Is it because no-one quite knows what it is yet? Peter Harriman (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more that it's difficult to describe than that people don't know what it's about yet. It took an 80 minute presentation for google themselves to properly explain it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.156.79 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also written too much like a marketing statement and not enough like a neutral article. "Google Wave is designed as the next generation of Internet communication?" Come on, now. --DuckFerret (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can describe it as a merge of the electronic mail and instant messaging services with enhanced features. --201.223.73.82 (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Is the name a reference to Serenity/Firefly? -Johnm4 (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I saw several Firefly references in the video. Lars referred to something as "Shiny", and Jens had a snippet of prepared c&p text: "Curse your sudden, but inevitable betrayal." They made a connection that I can see, but I'm not a reliable source. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 06:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down to "wave" in: http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/CortexLexicon 93.173.13.61 (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this article I found is reliable enough? The writer just confirmed that the 50 developers working on this project are Firefly fans. http://www.itnews.com.au/News/104396,opinion-googles-wave-drowns-the-bling-in-microsofts-bing.aspx -- Valistar (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this will be the end of all privacy. They plan to use it to eventually eliminate normal emailing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.213.229 (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French translating and typo

I removed the note about spellchecker "ignoring" a french typo, because that is not correct. The translator translated "lus" as a tense of "read."

What may be interesting to note, is that the spellchecker did not fix that typo in the way it had fixed "been" and "bean" typos earlier. Sp3ctre18 (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a demo, it's not yet possible to comment on any inconsistencies of the spellchecker between languages. Such inconsistencies can simply be the result the difficulty of simultaneously developing support for several languages evenly. -- EDG161 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol Section Merge proposal

The protocol section is much to long. There is already a separate article on the Protocol. Imho most of the section should be merged/integrated to this separate article and the section should only contain 1-2 short summarizing paragraphs. With a link to the main Protocol article: {{main|Google Wave Federation Protocol}} at the start.

-- 91.14.215.166 (talk) 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The Google Wave client and the Wave Protocol are two separate things, each with their own articles. -- EDG161 (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licence?

The article says that it is an open standard licence, but that is not really specific, while it will be open source, it is not a very specific for a licence, the only place I can find Google mentioning a licence is their draft specifications for the their Protocol: http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/. --Svippong 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; Open Source is a broad term and there are numerous licenses that can archive that goal. However, that's all we can really say at this point. Google gave us a sneak peek, not their whole business plan. We'll just have to wait and see.
In my personal opinion, what they've done with things like the Android OS represent a precedent. That would be the minimum of what they would likely need to do, in terms of openness, if they truly want Waves to replace e-mail. EDG161 (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion on User Federation?

Today, the Wiki says: "It should be noted that user-data is not federated (i.e. not shared with other wave providers). Aside from the obvious privacy reasons, there is simply no reason to do so." (emphasis mine)

Seems like the section author went out on a limb here.

Jonathan.lampe@standardnetworks.com (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Aside from the obvious privacy reasons, there is simply no reason to do so.""

Its an opinion, not a statement and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is google wave just a realtime wiki with chat and email oriented capabilities?

Google Wave is a great idea, but it's not awfully original. There are striking similarities to some of the concepts in one of the hosted google apps called Radixmail. Here's a link to the cached version: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0Cs_c-j8QmwJ:www.radixmail.com/+radixmail&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

I'd say that's a fair summary of its basic functionality, except whereas a wiki is visible to and editable by anyone on the internet, a wave is only visible and editable for those with whom it is shared. I guess you could say that it applies a wiki tool set to one-to-one communication—though it supports one-to-many communication as well. The one place where it surpasses wikies, in my opinion, is its use of operational transformation technology to prevent concurrent edits from colliding with each other. New technologies don't necessarily need to be completely original to have merit, and I think the improvements Wave makes to prior technologies are significant. Mazer (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selfish query

All I want to know is whether it will allow me to collaboratively edit a Word document with someone else on live on the net. The document share thing they have currently refreshes about every 20 seconds: that sucks, although it's better than nothing. Anyone know? Tony (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wave updates character-by-character, and you can see the other person typing live. --taestell (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that waves are not saved in the Word .doc format, but I'm certain that eventually a software developer, perhaps Microsoft itself, will release a plugin to export waves to .doc files. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft Word had an integrated wave client in 5-10 years. Mazer (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect it to be faster than that. Being an open protocol, I would imagine it fairly easy to add the Word and Excel functionalities to a wave. Once the protocol and engine are made public, I would expect a Microsoft response within only a couple of years. The addition of a "wiki" in Sharepoint did come years after Wikipedia started becoming so vastly popular, but it has been met with a lot of user satisfaction (despite it's limitations) and I can imagine Microsoft jumping all over a collaboration engine that allows concurrent editing (something that Sharepoint sort of implements, but not really).Tigey (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I dont see my MS would bother with Google wave. Office 10 is online for free, and wouldnt be more in MS's intrest to build their own wave platform and incorporate Office into it "out of the box" so to speak?

Up to date info needed

The web is buzzing about wave right now, and the article is not reflecting the current status of invites or providing info that many news articles and blogs are. Wikipedia is always the first place I go for up to date information... Antonycarthy (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there still isn't much to say. It's still a work in progress. New features aren't really being added; it's simply being refined/debugger. Most new features are market based extensions and that's a little hard to keep track of. =/
If someone here like to manage an up-to-date list of extensions, be my guest. lol
-EDG161 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invites?

Should we put something up about google wave invites? The whole effort to secure one is a serious internet phenomenon. Everyone is asking for a damn invite. If you go to the unofficial [irc] channel, they even say "don't ask for invites" in the topic! Crazy! So, lets add something about invites. And, while we're at it, if you happen to have an invite, let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no invites for Google Wave. It hasn't been officially released yet. If you wan't developer access to the GW sandbox, you can try applying for it. I believe there are about 100 000 developers on the sandbox.
Otherwise, put in a request to be notified when it goes public and stop asking people for some sort of blackmarket exchange of GV accounts.
-EDG161 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How did I get an invite to their Google Wave Preview if your claim is true? --Svippong 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You got an invite to the Sandbox because you put in a request, like I said above. Anyone who was at the I/O conference automatically got access; the rest of us with access got it because we asked, they considered all the applications, than they decided who to say yes to.
-EDG161 (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wave Sandbox and Wave Preview are different things. Adambro (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just got the invite for that today. It looks like the invites work for the "developer preview" work the same as for the "sandbox". Hopefully they're going to be less restrained with the number of people. If they are, it'd be awesome if someone could find citation. That's the kind of update people are looking for.
-- 03:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDG161 (talkcontribs)

More old future ideas

Since years I had defined a global project with important similarities with Wave at the start, with a wider set of principles (while of course Wave is much more sophisticated for what it does) but that has not been implemented yet because I'm not a programmer and it was not "notable". http://spoirier.lautre.net/trustedforum.html

http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol/browse_thread/thread/d70ca2ae3642881a#

The wikipedia article about it had even been deleted for lack of notability. Now that a subset of the idea has finally gained tremendous notability, I hope someone will will be interested to think and discuss the initial wider concept I had. I tried to contact the Wave team by many ways in recent weeks but did not get any reply. Or any other proposal of discussion towards possible open-source implementation would be welcome. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spoirier (talkcontribs) 23:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

open beta?

so is there any news about open beta? or any plan?

I heard it suppose to go public by the end of the year or early next year or some sort?07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)07:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArielGenesis (talkcontribs)

Dosent google release everything in beta instead of a "final version"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Rasmussen?

Perhaps this name should be mentioned in the article? Surprisingly, there isn't even an article about the person himself (just other people with the same name). --WayneMokane (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20-30 or one million?

which is it? did the developers get 20-30 invites so it was 2-3 million people trying it? or did they get 9 so it was 1 million trying it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.206.253 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


What would it take to create a shielded corporate instance of a Wave server?

Which thoughts does Google have about possibilities to create shielded corporate or social instances of a Wave server? Either hosted at Google, or hosted privately by the owner?

David H.


Another question from my side: what impact will Google Wave have on spam emails? This seems to be an opportunity to fight spam.

David H.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.110.215.6 (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]