7359960
story
Comments: 176 +- Linux: Google Eliminates Gizmo5 Client For Linux on Sunday November 29, @08:10AM
Posted
by
kdawson
on Sunday November 29, @08:10AM
from the poor-relation dept.
from the poor-relation dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiccommunications.gif); width:96px; height:62px;
communications
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topiclinux.gif); width:60px; height:70px;
linux
cuttheredwire writes "Evidence on the Gizmo5 forum (login required) confirms that since Google's takeover of Gizmo5, only the Windows, Mac, and iPhone clients are available for download from the official Web page. The Linux download link no longer works. This is a potential problem for happy Linux users with paid-up credit in their Gizmo5 accounts if they need to reinstall the software. A back-door download is still available, although it is speculated on the forums that it will go away soon. Does this mean that (as with other Google projects such as Google Talk) Linux will be the poor relation for Google Voice also?"
Related Stories
It doesn't much signify whom one marries, for one is sure to find out
next morning it was someone else.
-- Will Rogers
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Protest this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do not allow Linux users to be silenced
Re:Protest this. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Put DOWN the pitchfork (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Chrome OS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chrome OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Redundant? More like insightful. Forget malware installing itself on your OS and sending back information about your data and activities, ChromeOS just sends all of your data itself to servers somewhere where it can be picked through and analyzed in detail, and ensures that all of your activities are actually performed on those servers so that you can't actually do anything without them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chrome OS probably won't spy on you itself, it doesn't need to. It's the web applications which Chrome OS encourages you to use that spy on you. That privacy-intruding experience is available on every browser and every operating system, it's which web app you use that matters.
Re:Chrome OS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Modded troll. Hmmm. Fanbois bite.
The fact is, I like Google. I use a good bit of their stuff. But, another fact is, they make tons of money. They also answer to investors. Could ChromeOS be the ultimate spyware? Yes, it COULD!! Do I expect it to be? Not really. But, all the same, why don't we wait and see just how much spying it does in it's final version? I know for a fact that Google has a ton of spy crap watching us on the web. This is why I have AdBlock Plus - I don't like Google Analytics analyzing every move I make on the web.
Come on, children, let's stop being fanbois, and do our own analysis. And, someone mod Johnsie back up to at least a zero.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like the kickass version of Chrome for Linux? Oh, right, there isn't one...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Heh your comment reads like a FOX headline.
Sure there's no stable release of Chrome for Linux yet, however you can download the current dev version from http://dev.chromium.org/getting-involved/dev-channel [chromium.org]
It's being worked on, and if anything ChromeOS (which is linux+chrome) should tell you they're taking it quite seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should check your facts.
"Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier." [google.com]
Re:Chrome OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm disappointed that [Google] have so much infrastructure running on [Linux] and have been letting the (desktop, admittedly) community down a bit lately.
Likewise, I'm disappointed that Nintendo have so much infrastructure, such as devkits, running on PCs and have been letting the (PC gaming, admittedly) community down a bit lately.
My point is that a lot of companies that use Linux in the server room think Linux is for servers and Windows is for GUI apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have news for Google. They are not yet a total monopoly, and while some of their products are actually quite useful, they d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Chrome OS? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And tied to it in some way, so if you run 'generic linux', you have to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole goal of ChromeOS is to have *no native apps*, it's all web baby, so a conspiracy theories about native ChromeOS Gizmo5 app might have to be re-thought.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I didn't see much of Gnu in ChromeOS. It's a freaking kernel with a browser. Gno Gnome, gno Gnash, gno gnothing. Just Linux and Chrome. That may be subject to change, but from the things I've read, gnot freaking likely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So we need to write an OSS distributed search engine called Gnugle? It could run as the idle task in your browser or screensaver and replace the centralized ad-supported search with distributed free software. Time to take back the internet from Google.
Listen up ICANN, DNS would be next.
ok now more seriously-- (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:ok now more seriously-- (Score:4, Informative)
Gizmo does use SIP. I have an Asterisk box for my home phone that registers to their SIP server.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why not use MO-Call ?
MO-Call [mo-call.com]
It is standard SIP, they have a QT based Linux client and you can use your account on your mobile as well - they support different methods to make calls, so you have more flexibility.
Disclaimer, I am involved with MO-Call, so this is more of a plug - we are aiming to support as many methods to make international and voip calls as we can.
Re:ok now more seriously-- (Score:4, Informative)
I have Gizmo5 working just fine with my Linksys ATA. There are even instructions on the Gizmo home page on how to set it up.
Gizmo5 + my ATA + Google Voice means I now have a spare phone line that allows me free unlimited calling on a normal telephone (though I do have to initiate calls from my web browser). My primary phone is my Blackberry, but it's nice having a spare line with unlimited minutes.
Parent
really just linux? (Score:2, Informative)
Mindless panic as usual (Score:5, Informative)
Gizmo, entirely unlike Skype, is based on standard SIP interfaces. You don't need their proprietary client to use the service.
Just pick your favorite SIP client, preferably with a lot of codecs and STUN support, and get on with your day.
Panic over!
Re: (Score:2)
Saying Skype is easier to use than SIP is incorrect, Skype is not a protocol, it is a package. Its kinda like saying Firefox is easier to use than SSH. Skype is a single, isolated environment, with their own way of connecting to phones. SIP is a standard, has ton's more features, and can natively work with most phone systems (including many commercial PBX's from Cisco, Shoretel, Avaya, etc) and is being heavily used and invested in by business. I can show you that a Shoretel or Asterix phone system can
Re: (Score:3)
- Needs to have a simple installer
- Needs to run without any setup besides running the installer and registering an account
- Needs to be able to be recommended to others who can use it without any explanation whatsoever
- Needs to take care of NAT automatically
- Needs to provide voice and video over IP without any further setup besides possibly camera calibration
- Needs a large user base
- Needs to
Chicken little ? (Score:2)
Are you sure? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Funny)
Why, that's just shocking!
Parent
Use Ekiga (Score:2)
It has issues, but is has serious development team behind. It supports lot of codecs, including industrial standards and commercial ones.
Non-story (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Google uses Goobuntu internally, which is a modified Ubuntu.
Re:Time to learn a lesson about Linux support (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1998 called, they want their rant back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well there's always the elitist and arrogant attitude of those who haven't used linux since 1998 and don't even realise that most modern distros are far better for common users needs than their current Windows box. These idiots who think granny and most people are going to learn how to edit registry files and remove their own viruses?
You want ReactOS (Score:5, Insightful)
If we could combine the transparency of Linux system and its expert friendliness, with the user friendly GUI characteristics of Windows and Windows backwards driver and app backwards compatability, it would be a winning combination.
Windows drivers rely on services provided by the NT kernel. So the only way to ensure compatibility with Windows drivers is to reimplement the NT kernel. ReactOS [reactos.org] attempts to clone Windows NT 5.x thoroughly, but it's nowhere near ready for prime time. So let me sum up your rant: "I'm disappointed that development has concentrated on Linux rather than ReactOS."
Parent
Re:Google: Community Taker, Not So Much Giver (Score:5, Insightful)
Color me confused, this is a brand of open source that I haven't heard of before: Are you saying that any company that uses open source software should also support Linux with all their projects?
Can you please point me to the text in the GPL/APL/BSD licenses that states that?
Or are you saying that companies *shouldn't* use open source software if they are not willing to see (by most recent estimates) a 1% to 2% Linux desktop market share as a primary platform?
Personally I would be happy that a large company is contributing new programming languages (Go), support & employ the main guy behind Python, contribute to the kernel, released their webbrowser and mobile phone os as open source, organize and sponsor a 'Summer of Code' projects that contribute to open source, spend heaps of cash sponsoring large open source conferences, and, well released over 100 open source projects?
In fact Google is one of the larger contributors to the OSS movement that I personally know of
Citing the "do no evil" does not make you automatically cool, smart or insightful imo, just boring and lame (something about crying wolf comes to mind)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Google does not strut about mouthing "Do no evil", it's in the "Ten things we know to be true" (http://www.google.com/corporate/tenthings.html) that it believes it can do business without being evil, but the strutting around mouthing the "Do no evil" mantra is done by the people who want to use it as some kind of perverted emotional blackmail to force a company to do their bidding.
Now evil is not an objective term, what to one could be considered 'evil' might be perfectly normal to others (drinking
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope you realize that this is the kind of attitude that impedes greater commercial support of open-source technology. If businesses think that using FOSS means having to placate rabid fanboys like you who bitch and moan that the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So are you saying that the real story here is that one Linux user decided to install it while the server was momentarily down, freaked out and wrote a panic-mode slashdot submission which was then published to the front page with zero fact checking?
then 2 comments later, your post, with the succinct quote:
It looks like the "Don't Be Evil" days are long gone at Google
This is why I don't pay much attention to slashdot any more, and user-generated content on internet more generally. almost every eloquent vit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``It's evil to build your huge business on a technology made from community contributions, then take more than you give back while shutting down some community projects.''
I don't agree. If the license allows it, it's fair game. If you didn't want that to happen to your software, you shouldn't have released it under a license that allows it.
If you want licensees to have to make available improvements they make to your code, you may want to take a look at the Affero General Public License. This license requir
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Don't let the LSB people fool you. There is no single, common, standard Linux ABI set to target when developing a commercial app"
Not true. If you build your app against X86 LSB 3.2, it'll run on any X86 Linux distro that supports LSB 3.2.
You have to package it twice, once as rpm and once as deb, to reach everybody, but that's not so hard.
And if there are libraries missing from the LSB, you have to link them statically, or hope that
they have the same package name and ABI on all distros.
That said, commercia
Re:Linux is a support nightmare (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very, very old argument, I hope you know. And it's quite wrong.
For all your ranting, you're really just demanding that the open source software ecosystem behave in the same manner as the proprietary software ecosystem that you're used to. I'm surprised that this still needs repeating (especially here on Slashdot), but here it is anyway: Open source software and proprietary software are not the same thing.
In the proprietary software world, all players take responsibility only for their own products. (And often, not even then.) When there's a problem that looks like it might be the fault of some other company's product, the user is directed to the other company for support. Sometimes, the situation reaches a stalemate where one company blames the other and you can't get them to budge from that position. Since the code is closed, you don't even have the option of fixing the problem yourself, even if you have the skills to do so or the money to hire someone. If you want anything besides a base OS install (which generally isn't very useful), you have to go out and buy software, and then go through an often non-trivial installation process involving physical media, registration, CD keys, and reboots.
In the Linux world, the distributions try to take responsibility for the entirety of the end-user's computing experience. On Linux, the onus is on the distribution to provide a stable and usable base system, hardware drivers, desktop environment, and thousands upon thousands of free third-party programs. End-user support is largely community-based, but there are commercial support options as well. To install new software, you just open up your package manager, click a button or two, and your new software (plus any dependencies) is installed automatically. Most hardware devices are completely plug-and-play right out of the box, with no device drivers to manually install or some endless series of reboots.
"Fragmentation," as many people put it, is part of the Linux ecosystem by design. It gives the distributions the freedom to innovate, try new features, new designs, new subsystems, and so on. It gives the end user choice. If they don't like one Linux distribution for whatever reason, there are several others to download and take for a spin. If all distributions were forced into a single unyielding design or set of libraries all for the sake of a few proprietary apps, then there would no longer be any point to having multiple distributions. All distros would essentially be indistinguishable and we'd be stuck with the same interface, bugs, and security problems for decades on end. (Remind you of anyone [microsoft.com]?)
Google certainly can leave it up the distros to port and build, that's the way the Linux software ecosystem is meant to work. All Google has to do is release the source and the distros will do the rest. Subscription fees don't even enter into it. You can't please everyone and there will always get people who get mad at the world because they don't know how to operate their own computer, but if the software is good enough, there will be few support problems. Even in the worst-case scenario, it would even be within Google's right to say, "here's a port of our software to Linux, you're free to use it, but don't come crying to us for support." This is exactly how Skype has always handled it and they seem to be doing just fine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You wrote:
In Linux though, unless you have a good package system and stick with strickly vanilla packages as offered by the Distro, you are screwed, blued and tattoo'd as soon as you step outside official repositories because of version specific library needs.
But just before that, you wrote:
Although Windows had DLL hell that could give people real headaches, it was fairly easy for the coders to simply change the directory where the app located specific DLL version to it's installation folder though few did.
Why is this solution acceptable for Windows but not Linux? I've seen it done plenty of times on both platforms. Do you just not know what you're talking about? Or are you biased? You are, after all, engaging in apologetics for an admitted fault of Windows when you won't allow the same defense for Linux.
Actually, I think there's a third, far more likely explanation aside from you being uninformed or biased against Linux. People judge potential tasks on a basis of rew