Dump AIM/ICQ/MSN/Y! and join the BitWise revolution!

[no0b]

im in username = tekk

 

[Sir Fredrick]

I think the best thing for the messaging world would not be yet another closed network, and yet another proprietary client that is incompatible with other clients.

What we need is an open messaging standard which allows servers to connect to eachother (instead of using a centralized server controlled by one person/company).
Since it would be open, any messaging client would be free to use it, so even if AOL refuses to join in, we might find MSN and Y! able to talk to eachother, for example.

Of course, not having a centralized server leads to quite a few unique problems, one being what happens if two people who want to talk to eachother are connected to different servers which are not connected to eachother?
I think it's possible to come up with solutions to these problems though, and at this point in the game that would be the only thing useful that could be added to the instant messaging world.
Until then, I'll use Trillian - "bloated" or otherwise.

 

[thawolfman]

i'll be on under thawolfman

 

[spazntwich1]

I'm in as "spazntwich". IM me, people!

 

[no0b]

TTT

 

[KevinMU1]

In the end, we may open source the protocol, which would allow anyone to write clients and servers for it. But for now, until we get a stable platform that we know can work, we're keeping it closed.

As far as distributed servers all talking to each other, that is also possible, I don't see why it wouldn't be. It would just be a long way off.

Remember, we're in infancy, things will get better and portability and compatibility will ultimately be a very high goal.

Hope that helps clear things up a bit.

 

[bjb86s]

<< I think the best thing for the messaging world would not be yet another closed network, and yet another proprietary client that is incompatible with other clients.

Until then, I'll use Trillian - "bloated" or otherwise. >>



Couldn't have said it better.

 

[bugsysiegel]

Being processed, I suspect anyway.

Looking forward to giving this a shot. I'll be under bugsysiegel.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

I'm cool with AIM+, does what I need it too... Besides you need to clean up your Site if you want your product to take off...

 

[Atvar]

I'm on it now.
Username: Ryddick

 

[b0mbrman]

Heh...that sounds pretty cool

 

[RSI]

<< I'm cool with AIM+, does what I need it too... Besides you need to clean up your Site if you want your product to take off... >>

Exactly what I was thinking. I'd be more than happy to help out on the site. web design is fun.. a lot easier than writing program code.

Damn I wish I had programming skills though

 

[KevinMU1]

TheOmegaCode-It's not a "product"--we're not selling it. And besides, we're concentrating on actually making a good server & client, not some snazzy website. At some point the web site will be overhauled, but for now it's functional and it's not going to be majorly redone.

RSI-As for getting some programming skills... well, that I can't help you with.

 

[n0cmonkey]

This looks like a bad jabber-esque clone. And since you cant download the software unless you sign up there is no real way for me to find out if there is only a win32 port or if the coders actually want to support multiple platforms like AOL.

 

[KevinMU1]

It is, at present, win32 only. However, a Java client is in the works, but don't hold your breath for a release soon. So now you know. Plus, if we open up the protocol at some point, then whoever wants to build a client can.

Thanks for your interest.

 

[TheOmegaCode]

<< Main Entry: prod·uct
Pronunciation: 'pr&auml;-(")d&kt
[...]
2 a : something produced
[...] >>


Sure it is... And making a snazzy Site isnt a matter of skill... It's a matter of withstraint... Follow a less-is-more approach... Here you only really see a few different colors... That is a really simple layout, nothing fancy...

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< It is, at present, win32 only. However, a Java client is in the works, but don't hold your breath for a release soon. So now you know. Plus, if we open up the protocol at some point, then whoever wants to build a client can.

Thanks for your interest. >>



JAVA does me no good. JAVA isnt well supported under all OSes. Jabber on the other hand will build on practically any OS out there that people use as a desktop

Their protocol appears to be open and IANA has given them port #'s. Guess you are a day late and a dollar short

 

[Fandu]

Not to rain on your parade, or thread crap or anything, but it seems what your trying to do has already been done. Jabber is a free, opensource, and lightweight IM. Has connectivity with AIM, ICQ, Y!, etc, etc, etc. Tons of clients out there, personally I like Jabberzilla.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Not to rain on your parade, or thread crap or anything, but it seems what your trying to do has already been done. Jabber is a free, opensource, and lightweight IM. Has connectivity with AIM, ICQ, Y!, etc, etc, etc. Tons of clients out there, personally I like Jabberzilla. >>



Thats what I said (kinda )

 

[Frosty3799]

i sign up for a name (frosty3799 so add me everyone ) just waiting for confirm

 

[KevinMU1]

TheOmegaCode--I repeat, the web site is supposed to be functional... it works, it does what we want, and we'll snazz it up later after we're in something past ALPHA testing.

n0cmonkey & Fandu--Actually, we will have several features NEVER before seen in a chat client, we just haven't implemented them yet. What we're doing hasn't been done yet, once we get a little farther along. Just wait.

Remember, we're not done yet by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< TheOmegaCode--I repeat, the web site is supposed to be functional... it works, it does what we want, and we'll snazz it up later after we're in something past ALPHA testing. >>



I found the FAQ a pain to read. I dont care about the layout of most of the site (although I thought it was ugly it worked most of the time ), but the FAQ could use a little sprucing up. Just a suggestion.



<< n0cmonkey & Fandu--Actually, we will have several features NEVER before seen in a chat client, we just haven't implemented them yet. What we're doing hasn't been done yet, once we get a little farther along. Just wait. >>



Lets hear some of the ideas.



<< Remember, we're not done yet by any stretch of the imagination. >>



I understand that, but why not try to help out a project that is farther along instead of reinventing the wheel?

 

[Ladies Man]

Ladies Man

is my screen name

anyone feel free to message me

 

[Utterman]

Ok, I'm now up and running. You can msg me as Utterman

 

[KevinMU1]

FAQ has been spaced out a bit, should be easier to read anyway, and some clutter was taken off the front page. Design may be toned down some over the weekend.

Two new features that we'll be implementing that we're willing to disclose--

1) The clients will eventually be detached from the server so that the server can go down and the clients can continue to function with the current information. The clients will also store last known IPs, so even if you can't get status updates from the server, you could TRY to message someone at last known IP and see if they are still there. I don't think this is available elsewhere. Hell, to the extreme you won't even have to log in. although I don't think that will be until way down the road.

2) Since we have offline messaging, we'll allow a regular polling of your offline messages and have them be forwarded to regular or PDA/phone email addresses, so you could get your messages anywhere. You will be able to select whose messages to send, or whose messages to ignore.

Other minor features, those present elsewhere, will be included, like file transfer, encryption, etc, as time goes on.

Why reinvent the wheel? Because the first wheel wasn't perfect, and besides, we wanted to develop from the ground up, and this is ultimately just FUN for us, you know? There's something to be said when the protocol starts as a blank notepad page.

Any other Q's?