[mdlug] Google Wave invites

[Paul]

Adam Tauno Williams <awilliam at opengroupware.us>, on Wed Dec 09, 2009 [04:27:05 PM] said:
> On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 12:57 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > What I really miss is powwow.
> > Powwow was basically Unix/Linux talk (character by character,
> > rather than line-by-line, transmission) with split screen
> 
> Actually just about everyone I've talked to about wave gives the
> opposite as a complaint - that wave is char-by-char rather than
> line-by-line.  It is not only distracting to the reader but not
> conducive of effective communication for the writer.  People want to
> compose a message, possibly rethink it, and then commit to sending it
> out into the world.  Who hasn't banged something into an IM line and
> then thought better of it?  In real-world applications the moments pause
> is important.
> 

	Hi;

	Well having experienced n/talk, char at a time ICQ and
IRC and other clients dating back to primitive IM in the mid '80s
over bitnet, I have to say char at a time sucks ass.

	If you disagree, I suggest a session with my father
who can actually touch type, but at an infuriatingly glacial speed.

	Actually, the funiest communication I received in the
early days of email (before the internet proper) were messages
that included all the typed text, including backspaces,
deletions, etc. You got to see the message edit itself. (at 9600
baud) If you ever see someone say 'MD is a saint^H^H^H^H^H serial
killer' then you know what this refers to;)

Paul
set at pobox.com

> > allowing simultaneous typing, but had the advantage that
> > unlike talk, it didn't require a talk deamon.
> > ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, AIM, etc are just glorified
> > versions of write(1) (which are "line at a time"
> > communications), only with network capability
> 
> I think that is a gross over simplification of what IM is.  The concept
> of "presence" is critical to every IM, that and much other meta-data
> associated with the actual simple passing of messages.