×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Russian Google Competitor Embraces Open Source Messaging

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the bilingual-pun-says-wikipedia dept.

Communications 127

rm writes "Internet search and mail provider Yandex, which many view to be Google's main competitor in Russia, has recently added an instant messaging capability to its mail notifier application Ya.Online. As it turns out, the IM service is based on the open XMPP protocol, with connectivity to all other public Jabber servers available from day one. MacOS X and GNU/Linux versions of the app were also released (complete with sources under the GPL) and are determined to be based on the Psi IM client. Yandex looks to be a firm believer in open-source, also running a mirror site for FOSS and actively promoting its branded version of Firefox. Here's hoping that its affair with XMPP will help eliminate ICQ's enormous foothold in Russia."

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

icq? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907045)

wow, that's backwards

There's an I in "Index" (3, Informative)

jdagius (589920) | more than 6 years ago | (#24909255)

If you've actually visited yandex.com and noticed the big red backward-looking letter "R", then you might be interested to know that it's actually a vowel in the Russian alphabet, pronounced "yah". It's also a pronoun in the Russian language, first-person singular, i.e. equivalent to the English pronoun "I".

So, the term "yandex" replaces the "I" in "Index" with "I", in Russian it comes out "yah" + "ndex" => yandex.

Why "index"? Well all search engines work by building huge inverted indexes (but we slashdotters already knew that, right?).

Wikipedia says it stands for "Yet Another iNDEX". That may be true, but the average Russian citizen, without any knowledge of Western Computer Science, would have no understanding of that cute etymology.

So, the Big Red Yah puts the I back in Index!

HTH,
-Johanus

Well, what do you expect? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907049)

They're communists! Duh.

Missing info (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907053)

As it turns out, the IM service is based on the open XMPP protocol

The summary makes it sound like this is some major advantage over Google. GTalk is also based on XMPP.

But hey, Slashdot needs to pay the bills, and this makes a great Slashvertisment for Yandex.

Re:Missing info (4, Interesting)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907111)

True. Also, Facebook claims that it will be implementing XMPP eventually. That would bring millions of users an open standard chat protocol. And hopefully make currently-buggy facebook chat actually work.

One reason I like Gtalk over Yahoo, ICQ, MSN, etc. is that it can talk to others not using Gtalk as long as they have some sort of XMPP-compatible chat client and an XMPP account with someone somewhere.

Re:Missing info (4, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907143)

Yeah because you can't talk with people using MSN, ICQ, so on so on as long as they have an MSN, ICQ-compatible client and an account for that ..

Atleast ICQ is better than MSN, and russian (?) QIP supports both ICQ and Jabber so that makes it easier for the russians which want both.

I'd like to try to convince people to use XMPP but as long as it don't support voice and webcam there is no reason to even try. There must be a couple of clients which does it in the same way first.

I'd prefer if people used SIP I guess if it wasn't because people have a hard time getting it to work behind firewalls.

I was given a link to http://www.eyeballchat.com/ [eyeballchat.com] from a GIRL a day or so ago and that seems to be a SIP + XMPP client in one package, and also got past firewalls, but sadly it's Windows only so I haven't tried it :(

Re:Missing info (5, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907245)

Well when we say "an XMPP account with someone somewhere" we mean an XMPP account with any federated XMPP server; any domain. Can you set up your own AIM server and add it to the network? Also, Jabber is extensible and has voice chat through Jingle [wikipedia.org] , which is what gtalk uses.

Re:Missing info (3, Informative)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907689)

Can you set up your own AIM server and add it to the network?

No, but AIM users can talk to Jabber. [slashdot.org]

Re:Missing info (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908633)

No, this is just a way to connect to the ICQ network by using an XMPP client, it still doesn't federate (talk to other XMPP servers).

Besides, I've never managed to connect to this service, I think they've canceled this project.

Re:Missing info (5, Informative)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907267)

Yeah because you can't talk with people using MSN, ICQ, so on so on as long as they have an MSN, ICQ-compatible client and an account for that ..

An account for that... on MSN. Accounts on those networks are tied to the operator of the network. XMPP is decentralised, like email, so ISPs can provide their own servers, or you can use your own server.

I'd like to try to convince people to use XMPP but as long as it don't support voice and webcam there is no reason to even try.

XMPP supports voice and video through the Jingle extension [xmpp.org] , which originally came from and is supported by GTalk, if I recall correctly.

Re:Missing info (3, Interesting)

aliquis (678370) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907805)

Gtalk don't do video, it does audio, however there are only a very limited amount of clients which supports the audio part. For instance Pidgin and Adium don't*.

I appologise if I missread/missunderstood if you where talking about running a server by oneself.

* Sure it was nice to see atleast miranda there, but well, until most / enough clients support it it won't help much and voice isn't enough, most people use skype/teamspeak/ventrilo for voice only anyway

But webcam/voip have always been of very low priority by the developers of pidgin/libpurple and therefor adium is lacking to (since it use their libs.)

Re:Missing info (2, Interesting)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908071)

This summer there was a Summer of Code project for Voice/Video and I think the guy made pretty good progress, but I think right now if you grab the VV branch from monotone and are able to compile it you will only be able to talk to people who are also using Pidgin. But at least it's a start, and maybe next summer someone will finish the job, if the developers aren't able to finish it or don't want to (I suspect more of the latter, but I'm OK with it since the only person I would talk to on google talk is my annoying cousin).

Re:Missing info (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908753)

Empathy on GNOME works fine with audio AND video over the XMPP.

Jingle is extensible, it can support just about any payload type you can think of :)

Re:Missing info (1)

wertigon (1204486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908999)

There are some XMPP clients out there that supports both voice and video. GTalk supports voice for instance. However there are currently no standard way to do it, which kinda sucks.

Thing is, there's this newfangled stream technology for XMPP called Jingle that has been in the pipeline for atleast two-three years now. It's in last call and has been for ages. Once that standard go draft, clients will implement it about a year after that. But Jingle is taking so long I'm beginning to suspect Duke Nukem Forever will beat it to the release date...

Re:Missing info (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24909337)

from a GIRL a day or so ago

LIES!

Re:Missing info (5, Interesting)

t0tAl_mElTd0wN (905880) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907167)

I've worked with XMPP, and despite having it's own organization devoted to developing the standard, it suffers from a lot of issues regarding actual standardization. Most of these issues are in the form of deprecated extensions. I think that will be the biggest hurdle for XMPP - yay standardization and open source and all that, but when old clients do things in a deprecated way and new clients do things the right way and don't bother with the deprecated features (because they're deprecated) then you start having some issues. Just look at all the extensions and tell me that this is a viable protocol for interoperability: http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/ [xmpp.org]

True of all but the smallest open protocols (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908129)

Thats not really fair.

Show me a public/open protocol used on the internet that has a peice of software that supports ALL of its features.

I don't suspect you'll even be able to find a FULLY compliant SMTP or HTTP client or server. Possibly something on the FTP client list.

HTTP is extensible, once you take that into account its practically impossible to have 100% interoperability. My web browser for instance could give a damn about the fact that IIS says its running ASP.NET crap.

Even my browser doesn't know what to do with the ASP.NET header, it still works. Actually, it does know what to do with it, which is nothing, but thats coincidence in this case. Some other web server could possibly send me a header that DOES require action of some sort, and my browser may not know what to do with it. But I'm not really worried about not viewing pages.

I've been using Openfire as an XMPP server for a few years, a good year within the current company I work for, I've yet to have a problem with connecting between clients for sending IMs, internal or external. I communicate with several people on googles service, and many scattered across the Internet with their own servers, god knows how many clients shared between Linux, OS X, Windows and even an OpenSolaris machine or two.

If you think the xmpp extensions are bad, you should take a look at specs like HTML and CSS. They are certainly 100% doable, but NO ONE does. You do what you need to do to work with most clients/targets the rest is gravy.

Re:True of all but the smallest open protocols (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908397)

I don't suspect you'll even be able to find a FULLY compliant SMTP or HTTP client or server.

Oh, SMTP and HTTP protocols are easy as pie. But you'll need to make difference between the communications protocols and the data that they move around.

It's the presentation and interpretation of data that's spotty - and there's a good reason for that. It's not feasible to support all of those features in all situations. The protocols are designed that way, just to move the data: even if your client doesn't support, say, displaying images in the web, you can still damn well download them.

In other words, the protocols don't need to care if you don't support "ASP.NET headers" in the client, in order to be fully compliant with the HTTP specification. People use the protocols for funny purposes, it's not the fault of the HTTP protocol designers...

Re:True of all but the smallest open protocols (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908455)

Oh, SMTP and HTTP protocols are easy as pie.

You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet nobody seems to be able to do it. Consider language negotiation in HTTP. You aren't supposed to treat language sub-tags as mutually intelligible, yet I'm pretty sure every implementation in existence does.

In other words, the protocols don't need to care if you don't support "ASP.NET headers" in the client, in order to be fully compliant with the HTTP specification.

That's precisely the point. You don't have to implement all of those extensions in order to be fully compliant with the XMPP specification.

Re:Missing info (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908661)

despite having it's own organization devoted to developing the standard [...] Most of these issues are in the form of deprecated extensions.

"despite" is the wrong word here. If you have a bunch of people that are paid for developing a standard, that standard will constantly evolve.

I think the real reason for all those changes all the time is that the standard is relatively new. This will settle in the next few years, when the optimal solution for every feature has been found.

However, even now it's not that bad, because implementing most of those extensions is relatively easy, and supporting both the new and old variant of features can be done (for example, pidgin and Adium support both the vcard-based and the PEP-based avatar standards for both sending and receiving).

Re:Missing info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908739)

Sure it is. The whole IM part is in an RFC, that means it won't change anytime soon.

In theorory you could have problems exchanging avatars or something. In practice you don't. And even if you had I wouldn't call it a major issue.

The whole messaging part is realy stable and very easy to implement. Most of the extensions are rather simple too. If you have a problem with a deprecated feature of your client you should upgrade to one where at least one person devoted a few hours per month during the last 4 years.

Re:Missing info (1)

winphreak (915766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907703)

Also, Facebook claims that it will be implementing XMPP eventually. That would bring millions of users an open standard chat protocol. And hopefully make currently-buggy facebook chat actually work.

OT, but I was wondering if you had a source on the facebook chat XMPP thing or if it was just a rumor.

Re:Missing info (2, Informative)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907861)

OT, but I was wondering if you had a source on the facebook chat XMPP thing or if it was just a rumor.

Yes — I originally read about it in the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] ; it cited a facebook developers blog post [facebook.com] as the source.

Re:Missing info (1)

LunarCrisis (966179) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907963)

True. Also, Facebook claims that it will be implementing XMPP eventually. That would bring millions of users an open standard chat protocol.

Sure, but note that nowhere in that post does it say they are connecting to the other XMPP networks, they only mention logging into your facebook chat with another client. Too bad they haven't committed to taking down any part of the walls around their garden.

Re:Missing info (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908457)

I believe livejournal also supports XMPP...

Incidentally, ICQ by using numeric identifiers is incredibly prone to spam, i still maintain an ICQ number and i get flooded with spam, most of which is russian.

Re:Missing info (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908671)

In my experience, you only get ICQ spam when you enable the web indicator, because those spamming bots only send their messages to online account.

Re:Missing info (2, Insightful)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907429)

Yandex doesn't really need any advertising. It has a well-established market presence in the Russian-speaking world, and no services for other languages. Not every sketchily-written summary involving two corporations is a Slashvertisement, captain.

Re:Missing info (2, Interesting)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907755)

I agree. The summary is bunk. I setup an XMPP federation for the company I work for, and about 5 minutes after the first server was up and running, my client was communicating with a Google employee via xmpp to their GTalk client.

Its worked great and I encourage anyone who wants to communicate with me via IM to use GTalk if they do not have any other XMPP alternative.

This IS the way to go (currently) for instant messaging. Its like SMTP for ANY type of message, not just text, with some state and status information thrown in for good measure.

Re:Missing info (1)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908883)

Google doesn't support S2S (server to server) part of XMPP protocol. With Google Talk you are limited to talk only to other Google Talk users.

Description implies that Yandex simply made its clone of existing XMPP client which supports S2S out of box.

P.S.

Here's hoping that its affair with XMPP will help eliminate ICQ's enormous foothold in Russia.

Knowing conservatism of Russians, I wouldn't hold my breath. ICQ is popular because there are lots of different clients for it with tons of features. XMPP would take some time to catch up.

Also, due to age of ICQ protocols, many firewalls support it natively allowing admins to control precisely what and how their users do. That plays great role in corporate adoption of ICQ in Russia. And since private internet in Russia is still relatively expensive, most people use Net (and ICQ) in office, not at home.

sms and xmpp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907801)

for all XMPP clients like psi, gmail and gtalk, it is possible to send SMS over client without installing anything.

You can get the info from www.jabber.org

or go to

http://www.messagingbay.com/smsxmpp.jsp?navi=27

directly.

Re:Missing info (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907813)

What the hell is wrong with you people? A black man was just charged with the rape of an 8 day old baby [myeyewitnessnews.com] and you people can only talk about instant messaging? Get some priorities for fuck's sake!

There isn't a monopoly at Russia (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908399)

As it turns out, the IM service is based on the open XMPP protocol

The summary makes it sound like this is some major advantage over Google. GTalk is also based on XMPP.

But hey, Slashdot needs to pay the bills, and this makes a great Slashvertisment for Yandex.

And THAT was the part you found odd in the summary? I was personally boggled by the "Many view Yandex as Google's main competitor in russia" part.

Oh really? Do they? Maybe that has something to do with the fact that in Russia, Yandex beats Google by a large margin. Yandex has about 40% share while google.ru about 20% share. Google isn't the worst competitor to Yandex, there.

Technically, it is still correct to say that, just like it would be correct to say "Many view google to be Yahoo's main competitor" but it gives wrong image.

Why does this matter? Well, the difference there is big. Everywhere else, some search engine dominates. Hell, in Finland, google.fi has over 90% share. In USA, Google is higher than ever. In china, Baidu beats the crap out of everything else. But in Russia... The "monopoly" one has only 40% share. They all need to actually constantly improve their services to win others.

Google Analytics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908645)

According to the NoScript list of untrusted scripts on slashdot, they are financed by Google Analytics and DoubleClick.
So who pays the bills?

Re:Missing info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908821)

As opposed to the incessant slashvertisments for Google?

Fukken Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907061)

If I knew how to communicate in the Russian language, I'd probably be masturbating to Yandex brand right now.

Re:Fukken Awesome (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907075)

If I knew how to communicate in the Russian language, I'd probably be masturbating to Yandex brand right now.

Russian isn't hard at all. Observe. In Soviet Russia, Yandex masturbates to you. See?

Editorialize much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907067)

N/T

Number one...with a bullet. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907069)

"Here's hoping that its affair with XMPP will help eliminate ICQ's enormous foothold in Russia."

Why?

Re:Number one...with a bullet. (1)

Panspechi (948400) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907085)

Because I command you!

Re:Number one...with a bullet. (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907131)

Because XMPP is a standard, and OSCAR isn't? Because XMPP supports communication between users of any server configured for XMPP federation and OSCAR is AOL's personal playground?

From the Philisophically Equivalent Department (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907137)

Meh.
Why not?

Hmmm (3, Interesting)

willyhill (965620) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907077)

Looking at that disaster of a front page, I'd say these guys are competing with Yahoo, not Google.

Re:Hmmm (5, Interesting)

Jerf (17166) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907179)

Cultures vary surprisingly widely on what constitutes "good design". Many Asian cultures, for instance, all but require you to have a very busy page.

In a way, I'm surprised at how some of it turns out. If you came up to me and asked me which of the "East" or "West" would prefer Google to Yahoo, I'd have picked East to prefer the Google aesthetic and West to prefer the Yahoo approach, but I would be wrong. (Very, very broadly speaking. I am aware I am generalizing, this is a Slashdot comment, not a sociology PhD thesis. Please don't cite "a counterexample" at me and think it proves anything.)

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907677)

Many Asian cultures, for instance, all but require you to have a very busy page.

Pinch of salt and all, but where on earth did you pull that one out of? Aren't the Japanese the ones famous for minimalism in design? Are you thinking "east is the opposite of west... so obviously they must hate google's simplistic page..."?

Yeesh. Don't even bother commenting here until you've got at least something to cite.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Zero return (1244780) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907293)

Have another look at both pages. Yahoo is cluttered and about three screens deep.

Yandex's home page is just one simple screen and easy to look at. Much closer to Google than Yahoo's unreadable mess.

Re:Hmmm (5, Informative)

sulfur (1008327) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907407)

Yandex has a light [ya.ru] version of their website (even more minimalistic than Google), just like Yahoo [yahoo.com] . The reason why Yandex is still more popular than Google in Russia is because it handles language-specific morphological variations of words better.

Re:Hmmm (0, Redundant)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908891)

You're looking at the wrong page. Try this one [ya.ru] .

Why is this important? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907097)

Google seems to have a "competitor" in every major contry. But why is anything they do relevant to those of us not living in Russia?

Re:Why is this important? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907169)

Because Russia is cool?

Re:Why is this important? (4, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907509)

Because some of us are actually interested in the rest of the world outside USA. Most of the slashdot stories are USA centric. Just look at the front page, FAA, Sarah Palin, DMCA mentioned casually as if everybody is familiar with them. Every once in a while another country gets mentioned and there is somebody complaining about it

Re:Why is this important? (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907903)

I think you missed his point.

He's not complaining that Russian company got mentioned, he's complaining that a Russian company got mentioned because it's competition to Google. His statement is that there's probably a company in every country that competes with Google, so why is this one worth noting to anyone who lives outside of Russian borders?

Re:Why is this important? (2, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908473)

If a company becomes successful in one country, sooner or later they will want to expand out of their borders seeking new potential business.

Re:Why is this important? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908793)

A curious fact: Google is the number one search engine in all but three (China, Russia, France - I might be wrong about France) major countries.

Re:Why is this important? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907905)

I still don't see how this is relevant. How does this help it compete with Google, even in Russia?

Even the US centric stories, really affect everyone something. This is like announcing a new swing at the local fastfood chain. I mean this story has as much useful information as a fox( or sky internationally) news story.

Re:Why is this important? (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908077)

Because it's great material for soviet russia jokes?

In before.... (1)

Proud Virgin (1354837) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907135)

... a thousand Soviet Russia jokes.

Re:In before.... (3, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907221)

In Soviet Russia, a thousand jokes post before YOU!!

Gchat (4, Informative)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907185)

Gchat also uses XMPP, and you can use any client that supports the protocol, like say Pidgin.

Re:Gchat (2, Interesting)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907237)

Right, but GoogleTalk is not Open Source, see: http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en [google.com]

And GoogleTalk isn't available for GNU/Linux.

And Google doesn't host a mirror of OSS projects (except GoogleCode, which is different).

Anything else?

Re:Gchat (5, Insightful)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907269)

That's the beauty of it: GoogleTalk doesn't need to be open source. Because it uses an open protocol, we can make our own tools to communicate with it, rather being stuck with Google's.

Re:Gchat (3, Interesting)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907301)

That is of course true, but that doesn't mean that Google's implementation is anywhere near as open as Yandex.

Google: Open Protocol, Closed Client
Yandex: Open Protocol, Open Client

Looks like Yandex wins.

Re:Gchat (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907385)

Yeah cause the open source world *really* needs one more incomplete IM client. For those tired of Pidgin's clunky UI, space-hogging design, and 1980s-era theme on Windows, or of Kopete's bugginess, or Miranda's bizarre minimalist design, or aMSN's incompleteness (can that thing render with my GTK theme on Linux yet?), you can now have the flat white frame-that-escaped-your-web browser look of google chat, and have it talk only one protocol too. Please, please, stop making your own IM clients, make Pidgin somewhat sensible (hint: take a look at Adium; it's open-source), and let us chat in peace. Until then, gtalk-in-the-browser and MSN Messenger are by far the most usable IM clients, and guess what, they're what 90% of people are using.

Re:Gchat (2, Insightful)

Arivia (783328) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907675)

About Adium - it uses libpurple (from Pidgin) for connecting to all the IM services. If you look at the Pidgin changelogs, most of it is usually libpurple fixes - leading me to believe that Adium can look so good because it's not busy fixing the library everyone uses. It's not that Pidgin's team does a bad job - it's that they do a good job on the actual messaging part and have little time left over for UI redesigns.

Re:Gchat (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907749)

I honestly don't mind Pidgin's UI.

Sure, Adium is easily one of the best-designed apps on the planet (in terms of being visually appealing, functional, and customizable in all the right places), but I never saw Pidgin as being particularly bad.

Yeah, it's a bit clunky on Windows, though other good alternatives exist on that platform, and it's still easily one of the best GTK+ apps on Win32. Pidgin does need to move to a native toolkit for its windows version, though what's there now isn't all that bad.

Re:Gchat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908817)

And it shows. Response to bug about Facebook chat: "Oh, mentioned that in the release notes, sorry!"

Yet works just fine with the Pidgin plugin...

Re:Gchat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907421)

Well, more power to those of you fluent in Russian. The rest of us are stuck with closed-client Gtalk. Forgive me if it *is* available in English, but until then, this is of little relevance (to me, I guess).

Re:Gchat (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907493)

Seems to me Google is better, since they are actually encouraging the use of other clients.

Re:Gchat (1)

Phlegethon_River (1136619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907589)

They are "encouraging the use of other clients" by not providing an option for Linux. I think you should have said they are "requiring the use of other clients if you want an Open Source solution."

So, they are better because they're offering is closed source and thus encouraging people to use another client?

Re:Gchat (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908537)

by not providing an option for Linux

Why should they? There are several excellent options for Linux as well, and they are pre-installed. How could they possibly do better than that?

So, they are better because they're offering is closed source and thus encouraging people to use another client?

No, they are better because they rely on existing solutions where they exist. Linux ships with XMPP clients, Windows does not. Hence, they need to do something for Windows. Windows is the exception here that requires extra work. Linux and Google work together the way they should.

Re:Gchat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907625)

I would really be a lot happier about Google's support for XMPP if they'd push it more and lean on other IM services to support it. I'm sick of using transports for my XMPP server to connect to other services; it's kludgy and doesn't work very well.

Chatting between my XMPP server and GTalk, on the other hand, is quite smooth. Now if Google would enable XMPP file transfers and allow external components, that would be just dandy.

Re:Gchat (1)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908541)

if they'd push it more and lean on other IM services to support it

They tried. They pushed hard form AIM interoperability, and they didn't even get that really working.

It's the other services that aren't doing it.

Re:Gchat (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907753)

Nothing is stopping you from using any open client with gtalk.

Re:Gchat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907277)

The software being open source is irrelevant as long as the protocol is open.

Pidgin, and probably some others, can use gchat accounts.

In Soviet Russia... (2, Funny)

bemo56 (1251034) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907197)

Google Searches You!!!

Well my karma is in the way down, might as well encourage it!

I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but... (-1, Offtopic)

harrie_o (1350423) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907329)

I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but...... naked aggression in Georgia sickens me as a human being and an IT professional.

As a 3rd-generation Czech in America I fear that appeasing the Russian's will only bring disaster upon the heads. I hate Bush and Cheyney as much as the next American but Russia needs a response here.

Re:I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907351)

What does this have to do with Yandex?
You don't see many people boycotting Google for the war in Iraq.

Re:I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but... (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907601)

If you were shooting for +5 Insightful, your best bet on Slashdot would have been replacing "Russia" with "United States" and "Georgia" with "Iraq".

The more you know.

Re:I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but... (1)

harrie_o (1350423) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907697)

And replace "Russia[or US]" with "Israel" and replace "Georgia[or Iraq]" with "Lebanon".

[ Looks back on Prague-smashed-by-Russian tanks-in-1968. ]

But the US left Iraq democratic and free (to do it wants after 2010. The US got no benefit from Iraq and a massive black eye. The Russians have a post-WW-II history of destroying everything they touch that makes Bush pale by comparison. Why give them a free pass in Georgia?

Re:I realize Slashdot ain't politcal but... (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24909351)

Oh, I was being sarcastic.

If you scroll back through the archives, when the US threatened to invade Iraq, every Slashdot thread from top-to-bottom was on fire with Europeans, Indians, Canadians, etc screaming bloody murder.

But several countries have invaded each other since then, even with overtly evil intentions in mind, but you'll see people defend China and Russia into the ground, or simply mod you down, if you've got a blurb to speak about either.

The way I see things, Europe really should be worried about what happened in Georgia. It was an expansionist move and who's to say where they will plan to expand next? It could be Poland for all we know. Of course, the conversations about missile systems in Poland will get a lot of anti-American screaming, as well. That is, until they are needed.

Just think of Russia as a Mac and the US as a PC. :)

Why is it that open source is always 'embraced'? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907335)

Can't it be just joined, takes up.. emm .. anything else?

I always wondered why different people from every part of the world came to "embrace" open source?

This open source guy must be a very cosy man .. or a very good kisser ;)

Re:Why is it that open source is always 'embraced' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907721)

You did not read 1984, did you?

Re:Why is it that open source is always 'embraced' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907855)

Why read it when you can live it?

Re:Why is it that open source is always 'embraced' (2, Funny)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908143)

You have to embrace it before you can extend and extinguish it.

Duh.

Thanks for this information (1, Funny)

TheModelEskimo (968202) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907661)

I was wondering about the status of open source in Russia. I knew they had recently invaded the neighboring country of Georgia and had been involved in some atrocities against civilians and journalists, but in the midst of all that I was like, "hey, where is this country with the whole open source thing?" Thank you for your efforts to clear this up.

Re:Thanks for this information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908435)

And before any of you America-haters start to post your slime on here, let me point out that America never invaded either Mexico or Canada.

In fact, none of the 70+ countries we invaded since 1945 [wikipedia.org] were neighboring!

Shame or the Russians!!!1!

Re:Thanks for this information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908969)

Actually, We've invaded Mexico a lot of times. In fact, a large part of the US used to be part of Mexico. These parts include Texas, New Mexico (funny the name, right?), Arizona, parts of Colorado... The Marine Corps Hymn starts with, "From the Halls of Montezuma," which talks about the time we invaded Mexico and took their capitol with about 100 Marines. So, before you start implying that you aren't an American hater, maybe you should learn our history. It is in fact true that we haven't invaded them in the last century, and our reasons for invading Mexico have mostly been justified, in my opinion. When a country goes to war, its not enough to look at the fact that they went to war, and with whom, but to take a close look at why.

not a competitor (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 6 years ago | (#24907743)

Even if Yandex wishes to believe this, it's no competitor even to Yahoo or MSN etc, because it is first a directory with results being ranked based on who paid more. Simply search for 'russkey' in yandex vs any other search engine. First few dozens of pages from yandex will be results of a Russian firm while results from other search engines will be ranked based on the popularity of FF add on.

XMPP? In Russia ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24907763)

XMPP? In Russia we use carrier goat!

Old school ICQ was awesome. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908019)

The old school ICQ rules.
1) Numbers instead of weird freaking nickname (e.g. "chunkylover"). I hate coming up with idiotic nicks that I can never remember. On top of that, I rather not send messages to my boss from a "chunkylover" nick. Of course, the ICQ UIN number was just like a phone number - you could still set your name and nickname to whatever you wish. So, if you really wanted to message your boss from a "chunkylover" nick, well you could have.

2) Single message interface default with chat available. If you want to chat with people, then start a chat with them. Most of the time I just send couple of messages here and there. I hate the fact that most of the new messengers force you to leave the message/chat window open the entire time of the conversation. If I wanted to do that, then I may as well use IRC. If you want to yack with someone, then fscking call them. ICQ was sweet because it allowed you to send a quick message and then go back to doing whatever you are doing. Besides, its the best way to message people when your boss is always walking around. Think CTRL+SHIFT+I, type message, ALT+S to send. Takes like 5 sec to do that and you are in the clear.

3) No pop-up messages (it would just blink the systray icon). Don't you just hate when you are playing Quake and the stupid messenger opens up a window and takes focus just before you are about to frag some guy? What about when your boss is looking over your shoulder while you are explaining something to him? 'Nuff said.

Seriously, what the hell happen? ICQ was awesome until stupid AOL bought them out. They screwed up ICQ, Winamp, Waste and Gnutella. Idiots.

I was always hopping that someone would write a small, lightweight messenger that was like original ICQ. And they did - check out www.miranda-im.org. Its GPL!

The only stupid thing is that no one came out with a better service so I still use ICQ.

Russian Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908139)

What's NSA in Russian?

ICQ is not going anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24908251)

"Here's hoping that its affair with XMPP will help eliminate ICQ's enormous foothold in Russia."

Nah, icq is a sort of a standard here in Russia - everybody has it. Well, Mail.ru Agent (open specs!) is also quite popular, but not to the same extent. I just hope the people at ICQ will simply ban the whole country one day by ip range, like they did with Turkey. Mmm... No more icq...

Re:ICQ is not going anywhere (2, Insightful)

temcat (873475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908401)

It seems you want ICQ to disappear. Why? It works for me and for millions other people in Russia.

If only Gadu Gadu could be killed (2, Insightful)

mzs (595629) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908315)

I wish something open standards would come along that could kill Gadu Gadu in Poland.

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

The Gadu Gadu client for Windows used to be a lot like the original versions of ICQ, now it is a bloated and ad supported POS. Good luck with it if you want to use it on a Mac or Unix-alike there used to be official clients that worked, but for about two years now using clients other than the official ones has been forbidden with the network. The open source projects have varying degrees of working but it seems that the protocol is tweaked every now and then so it is hard to keep-up.

Google Yandex for search anyway (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908413)

But at least I now know a good mirror where I can download Linux distros :-)

Re:Google Yandex for search anyway (1)

temcat (873475) | more than 6 years ago | (#24908419)

Shit, I meant Google is_more_than Yandex. Stupid slashcode.

XMPP traffic goes through the server (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24909309)

One advantage of XMPP is that all the traffic goes though the server. That makes it is easier to spy ono the users. ICQ is peer to peer, so ICQ users have more privacy.

The XMPP server used is ejabberd (1)

mremond (211755) | more than 6 years ago | (#24909313)

See ejabberd home page [process-one.net] .
This is a flexible and powerful XMPP server written in Erlang.

Portugal was the 1st! (1)

BigUX (64121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24909377)

The largest ISP in Portugal who detains the largest portal (SAPO [www.sapo.pt] ) developped (along with the Psi team, like Justin Karneges, one of Psi creators) the SAPO Messenger [messenger.sapo.pt] it's own IM back in 2004 with the same features plus, SMS and VOIP to land lines and mobiles, gateway to MSN,ICQ etc ... so I don't the understand where from came the idea the Russia is such an enterpreneur country.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?