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

[n0cmonkey]

<< 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. >>



Thanks



<< 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. >>



Direct connect is a bad idea in my opinion. That will keep me away from this alone.



<< 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. >>



Sounds interresting, but I can jump on irc from a palm.



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



Encryption sounds good.



<< 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. >>



I understand. But I think helping out a project that is already farther down the road would be more productive.

Just my opinion. Good luck

 

[KevinMU1]

For anyone interested... new verion is online with sounds, and profiles as the main additions!

 

[Frosty3799]

ok i am up and running (i think) the new version....

 

[Sir Fredrick]

The approach you're taking is less than optimal.
You're diving into this client-first, closed-system, proprietary protocol first.

For the short term, this allows you to put out a product faster. For the long term it means that if you decide to do a major overhaul of the protocol or the way the servers function, you're going to end up doing it in a manner that conforms best to the way your client was already written (you're not going to want to do a whole rewrite, and nobody's going to want to be forced to upgrade).

Because your system is closed and proprietary, you are most likely missing out on optimizations and your methods of transmission may be less than optimal - if it's open you will receive input on the design of the client and the design of the protocol, and there's a very good chance that some people will have thought of things that will never occur to you.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Sir Fredrick, while I am a big fan of open standards and open source I think this is a good way to start out. This is the beginning and if they wanted to do a major overhaul or totally redesign the protocols they will have less problem doing that with a closed system. When they get the protocol working the way they want they can then open it and let others make optimizations to their heart's content. With a closed system they wont have to worry about anyone picking up part of the project, making major changes and expecting them to be implemented or anything. Its just simpler until they are happy with the work they have.

 

[KevinMU1]

<< Direct connect is a bad idea in my opinion. That will keep me away from this alone. >>


Once we get the proxy working, you could always just use it, thus bypassing the direct connects. So the direct connect will, essentially, become an option.


<< But I think helping out a project that is already farther down the road would be more productive. >>


It wouldn't be as productive in terms of giving us experience and learning how to build such a thing from the ground up and how to deal with certain issues, problems, etc. This really is a pseudo-research product on our parts because we are having to figure out a lot of things we didn't know before. It's just a nice side benefit that we have the program that everyone can use. j/k It's just something fun & exciting for us to do, and a way to try something new. We can't wait to implement our #1 new feature (still undiclosed) and let it loose, I think it will be very compelling.

As for the most recent discusion... n0cmonkey has done a pretty good job summarizing our position. Plus, we have absolutely NO desire to try and manage and open protocol. I will repeat again... this project is a FUN thing for us, a LEARNING experience. Further, we have no way to finalize the protocol and prevent additions because we don't know what features we may end up! After it stabilizes then we could go ahead with an open protocol. But for now, we're just managing this ourselves.

You don't have to help, we're just saying "this is what we're doing" and "if you want to help, please do!" Where this project ends up is no one's guess, but it's still growing and it's a nice small alternative to the other "popular" clients if you're into sidestream stuff.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Direct connect is a bad idea in my opinion. That will keep me away from this alone. >>


Once we get the proxy working, you could always just use it, thus bypassing the direct connects. So the direct connect will, essentially, become an option. >>



I like AOL sending the IMs through the central server to help with keeping my system secure. But thats not something Im *REALLY* worried about (especially since I cant run your program ). Just an opinion.



<<

<< But I think helping out a project that is already farther down the road would be more productive. >>


It wouldn't be as productive in terms of giving us experience and learning how to build such a thing from the ground up and how to deal with certain issues, problems, etc. This really is a pseudo-research product on our parts because we are having to figure out a lot of things we didn't know before. It's just a nice side benefit that we have the program that everyone can use. j/k It's just something fun & exciting for us to do, and a way to try something new. We can't wait to implement our #1 new feature (still undiclosed) and let it loose, I think it will be very compelling. >>



I understand, but we think differently.



<< As for the most recent discusion... n0cmonkey has done a pretty good job summarizing our position. Plus, we have absolutely NO desire to try and manage and open protocol. I will repeat again... this project is a FUN thing for us, a LEARNING experience. Further, we have no way to finalize the protocol and prevent additions because we don't know what features we may end up! After it stabilizes then we could go ahead with an open protocol. But for now, we're just managing this ourselves. >>



I hate defending closed protocols/closed source, but I see the value in the way you are doing that.



<< You don't have to help, we're just saying "this is what we're doing" and "if you want to help, please do!" Where this project ends up is no one's guess, but it's still growing and it's a nice small alternative to the other "popular" clients if you're into sidestream stuff. >>



The help people can give you is limited by the closed source nature, but bug reports and suggestions would definitely be a good thing to help you out. Since AT users are usually power users you should be getting some good reports and good suggestions for features.

 

[KevinMU1]

Thanks for being understanding, and I don't think you're defending closed source, you're just giving merit to the intent of our project. I respect that.

Although I do want to ask--do you think (almost) anything should be open source?

Lastly, yes, we have had some good feedback from AT people, and to all of you, thank you very much.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Although I do want to ask--do you think (almost) anything should be open source? >>



I cant think of anything I think should be closed source. The benefits of open source as I see them outweigh the benefits of closed source.

 

[KevinMU1]

But without closed source, how is there any profitable model for business? Plus, managing an open source project would be unwieldy at times... plus there has to be interest for the project.

Anyway, we don't need to rehash all this I guess, you don't have to answer my questions, this debate has been had many times, I'm sure.

 

[Nemesis77]

Sounds interesting and I wish you two the best of luck with your project . Since this is your project, having fun is the most impoartant thing

But, since this is a Windows-program (it is right), I can't really use it, since I'm most of the time running Linux. Also, there is Jabber....

But, like I said, it's important that you have fun and you learn new things. That's what important

 

[Nemesis77]

<< But without closed source, how is there any profitable model for business? Plus, managing an open source project would be unwieldy at times... plus there has to be interest for the project. >>



Sure there can be profitable business with Open Source! just look at Red Hat, they are profitable (or are on the vergo of becoming profitable). And, on many open source projects, profit is not the goal. Many of the projects are done not because they want to earn money but because they like to code. Or because they want to learn new things (that's how Linux got started). I don't get paid to post messages to Anandtech Forums, I do it because I like it . Likewise, many people code because thy love to code, not because they get paid.

But, in the end, this is your project, you have the right to run as you see fit. Important thing is to have fun

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< But without closed source, how is there any profitable model for business? >>



By offering support. I have no problems with closed source projects. I use some closed source software, and if I had the need I would use more (Oracle for instance). And there are no rules against making money off of open source.



<< Plus, managing an open source project would be unwieldy at times... >>



CVS is a pain, but it works. You will have the same problems with large closed source projects really.



<< plus there has to be interest for the project. >>



You will need interrest in a closed source application to get much done with it also.



<< Anyway, we don't need to rehash all this I guess, you don't have to answer my questions, this debate has been had many times, I'm sure. >>



Its not a problem for me. We have managed to keep is civil (surprising in ATOT ) and it bumps your thread for you

Either way, I have no problems with closed source. I will use comparable open source programs when I can. I support open source projects monetarily, I provide support (in forums like this), and advocate the use of the software. I use closed source programs (Mac OS X's gui stuff is closed source, and opera is closed source). I provide the creators of those prducts with the same support I give open source software, but not always to the same degree.

There are, however, closed source applications and whatnot that I detest. I prefer open standards (ie txt) over closed source (ie .doc). Without these open standards, the internet would not exist (tcp/ip). HTML is a good example. HTML is an open standard. I prefer Mozilla over IE. Mozilla is open source and complies to the standards very well. IE is closed source, and while is follows some of the standards well, Microsoft has decided to add in extras that will only work with IE (yes, I know Netscape did the same thing, but this is my example ). This is a problem for users who do not or cannot use IE. It breaks the portability of the standard.

 

[eakers]

okay i requested a username

*kat <-- all about the chat.

 

[KevinMU1]

Nemesis77: We are having boatloads of fun. This is one of the most rewarding things that I've ever done. And yes, this program is for Windows... sorry about that. The server is written using gcc if that's any consolation. And yes, we are doing this because we love, and we figure anyone who tests will do it just to do something fun, trying something and seeing how they like, and to help it grow. Some people are into that kind of thing.

n0cmonkey: True, support is a way to make the $$$. I would have realized it if I had thought about it about 2 seconds.

As for staying civil, well, I prefer civility, being non-civil doesn't accomplish much at all.

I understand all of your arguments and agree with them in many cases. I guess though I hadn't though all that much about open vs closed in terms of my own development until revealed some of that development to the world.

As for the bumping... I was hoping nobody would notice. hehe

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< okay i requested a username

*kat <-- all about the chat. >>



That should increase the userbase right there...



<< n0cmonkey: True, support is a way to make the $$$. I would have realized it if I had thought about it about 2 seconds.

As for staying civil, well, I prefer civility, being non-civil doesn't accomplish much at all. >>



non-civil flames have their place, but you werent being an idiot about anything so I saw no need



<< I understand all of your arguments and agree with them in many cases. I guess though I hadn't though all that much about open vs closed in terms of my own development until revealed some of that development to the world. >>



Ive thought about how I would do things if I started a programming project. I figure I would keep it closed source until I was comfortable with the code I had. At that stage I would consider open sourcing it. Much like you will probably consider opening atleast the protocol for your project.



<< As for the bumping... I was hoping nobody would notice. hehe >>



The best part of an actual discussion in the thread would be the stealth bumping.

 

[KevinMU1]

Well I'm glad to see that some people don't make flame wars just for the sake of flame wars.

And yes, eventually I think that the protocol will be opened up. Of course, right now there is no documentation of the client protocol, since I'm the only one who needs it. LOL That can be easily fixed.

Thanks for the good discussion btw, I certainly have thought about some things I hadn't considered before.

 

[twobrain]

why cant everyone just use irc

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Well I'm glad to see that some people don't make flame wars just for the sake of flame wars. >>



Ill do that too, just not on interresting topics



<< why cant everyone just use irc >>



You mean some people dont?

 

[KevinMU1]

oh good, show me a topic where you're in a flame war and i'll go join too, I've been missing one!

As for irc... I don't know...

 

[GigaCluster]

<< When we have millions of users, then we'll worry about the network that will be necessary to support them. One of those bridges to cross when we get there. >>


I, for one, will never rely on any solution whose author doesn't give any thought to the infrastructure until it's too late. History seems to repeat itself... with the whole Y2K business, with 32-bit IPs (granted, no one could've predicted such an Internet boom), and with many, many other software projects that failed because of lack of planning beforehand.</rant>

Besides, why reinvent the wheel when you can enhance the existing one?

JABBER!

 

[KevinMU1]

There is no reason what we have won't be scalable, we've talked about it, but I'm not gonna stay awake at night worrying about it.

As for the whole why are we doing this instead of something else, see any of my discussions with n0cmonkey, we already talked about this. It's a learning experience for me and my friend, just doing something that we enjoy and have an interest in learning about, and anyone who wants to help us and give us feedback is welcome to. If you're not interested, that's fine too. It's just a fun project that we're using to learn about software engineering, data comm, etc.

 

[Yasi]

For my first ever AnandTech post, I would like to announce that I have been AIM-free for exactly a week now-- I have renounced it and become completely faithful to BitWise. There's a rumor that file transfer has been implemented, so in my opinion AIM now has nothing on BW.

 

[KevinMU1]

File transfer should be functional this week, hopefully mid-week, I'll let everyone know when it's ready to download.

Thanks everyone for your patronage!!

 

[KevinMU1]

Well everyone, 0.1.4 is out, with support for file transfers. Y'all enjoy! http://www.bitwisechat.com