3 ms·
You are correct about #1 but #2 is way off. Where did you get that assumption? From everything that was said or done about Wave, it seemed like they have no pro
by chapel 16y ago
You are correct about #1 but #2 is way off. Where did you get that assumption? From everything that was said or done about Wave, it seemed like they have no problem with having the data be outside of Google's silos. If they wanted to control it all, why did they want to have it be federated and distributed using multiple variations of Wave or custom apps that speak the same protocol?
- DanielBMarkham 16y agoThanks for the clarification. I contacted the development group at Google and was told the Wave server code was proprietary and they weren't giving it out. Yes, the protocol was open, and the idea was that there would be a lot of clients and such that would use it, but if a team wanted to take the server code as-is and start plugging in sensitive information? The data couldn't live in-house. That's why several projects I had decided not to use Wave. Shame, really. I liked it a lot. I hear that the server will be made available under the Apache license, so I'm looking forward to that happening.
- sp332 16y agoGoogle's own Wave servers probably plugged in to BigTable and who knows what other proprietary stuff. So the source code probably wouldn't have been so useful anyway.
- chapel 16y agoNot sure why the down votes? Am I wrong? Was I offensive. Eh, to each their own.