Instant Messaging
-
Would it be possible to have instant messaging in the left sidebar? Maybe even if it's just a wrapper for pidgin or similar which you'd have to install as well, it would be very convenient on laptop-sized screens.
-
I think they're already considering integrating some sort of chat functionality to the browser. Not sure if that's IM or IRC though. I'd prefer the former but I'd also like to have IRC as well.
-
I use Miranda IM day and night… But I can't see any benefits from some simple IM in Vivaldi... Vivaldi simply can't have some feature rich IM supporting tons of protocols. Would be nice to leave Miranda IM for build in Vivaldi IM in Vivaldi but... seems pretty unrealistic to me. A good IM is a whole project as Vivaldi browser is. Complicated. Not simple.
-
You could say the same with Mail actually. And maybe they can implement them in a way that Opera's Unite apps and plugins were made back then. The so-called Out-of-process plugins, which I think does not directly affect the browser in terms of processing and instances, meaning they're run in a separate process.
Either they choose IRC or IM, both are still very challenging to develop. Including the incoming integrated Mail feature.
-
users which use mail on the internet: 99%
users which use IM (beside installed skype and FB chat on FB.com): far lower.So mail is for everyone and it's kinda "simple" to make something better than gmal.com (when you have to visit it. log in, can't use more accounts in 1 session etc…) but how to beat miranda, QIP and other well known IM?
look at it from that perspective. From my point of view IM is not that good feature to implement even I use IM daily. Maybe another feature poll will show how much the "IM" is wanted from the community.
and speaking about IRC or IM. I think that if they develop one of these the second one is just about supporting protocol. No need to draw another UI since IRC and IM is kinda the same.
-
Would it be possible to have instant messaging in the left sidebar? Maybe even if it's just a wrapper for pidgin or similar which you'd have to install as well, it would be very convenient on laptop-sized screens.
A wrapper on another software is a really stupid idea, just use this other software if you need it so bad.
An implementation of xmpp + otr would be good.
users which use mail on the internet: 99%
users which use IM (beside installed skype and FB chat on FB.com): far lower.This argument goes against the wind. I don't have FB, I don't have skype and I will never have either of those. What draws me to vivaldi is that it doesn't cater to the largest number of users but answers to the need of a minority.
So mail is for everyone and it's kinda "simple" to make something better than gmal.com (when you have to visit it. log in, can't use more accounts in 1 session etc…) but how to beat miranda, QIP and other well known IM?
gmail.com is not an email client so there is no comparison here, but as someone who tries hard to stay away from the tentacles of google I should point out that to be better than gmail is easy: just don't be google and that's it it's better already for not being the largest surveillance provider of the whole internet.
As a linux user, allow me to say that beating QIP is very easy: don't be windows only, don't be closed source, done. And beating Miranda NG seems harder but it's not: don't be windows only, done. See something that works on my OS beats something that does not, each time and every time.
See this is not so hard, just put out something that allows to instant chat cross-platform with other people using open standards and end to end encryption, nothing more is required to beat the competition.
-
faglagla
As a linux user, allow me to say that beating QIP is very easy: don't be windows only, don't be closed source, done. And beating Miranda NG seems harder but it's not: don't be windows only, done. See something that works on my OS beats something that does not, each time and every time.
I have to admit that I'm not aware which IM works and which not under linux. But you mentioned "don't be closed source" - Vivaldi's IM (if it happens) WILL be closed source since it will be integrated in closed source project (browser). Not to be moron - I understand that. Another person who tells some kind of reasons and not just wishes is always welcome, faglagla.
And about target group: email is used more commonly than IM like FB/skype/ICQ (you confirmed it by saying that you do not use them as well).
So there is a reason to develop mail client beside that it was Opera's feature as well and people want old Opera's features. But I'm not sure how many people use Miranda/QIP (or other IM supporting more protocols) and are aware of Vivaldi and are willing to lose history and setting etc. just to put trust in potential Vivaldi IM (since email use IMAP it's easy to port it. IM usually does not count with history porting - and that's another problem while migrating).
=> I can't see any market share to gain by IM. But I might be wrong.But 100 users 100 opinions. We will see users preferences in next feature poll. That's all from me to this topic
-
I mentioned don't be closed source as a a secondary issue, because in post snowden era only opensource can offer the basis for secure communication, but the first issue I mentioned was cross platform, vivaldi being cross platform makes it mandatory that the messaging part be cross platform too. If it is closed source but allows for OTR (Off The Record) it's good enough until caliopen replaces all messaging.
I don't have FB because it limits itself to only FB, I don't have skype because it is notorious for being impossible to secure, I used to use icq in the 90's. But that does not mean I don't use instant messaging, I use xmpp (aka jabber) because it is an open standard that lacks artificial limits and I can self host, and IRC because IRC. I may soon use tox.im too.
I also use email twice daily but I don't clutter my email with communication that belong to instant messaging. I did that in the past and won't do this mistake again, when you deal with 20 years of mail archives as I do, you save a lot of time by not putting in your mailbox pile of stuff that doesn't belong here that need to be sorted out later.To me IM in vivaldi is not a necessity nor a priority.
-
@Fagla although open sourcing is something I am in favor of please understand that it is not the end all be all. There can be large security vulnerabilities even if the application was open-sourced. Ex Heartbleed!
-
In an Instant Messaging system I would like to see the ability to update sent messages. Wherein the recipient would be able to view a time-line of changes to an edited message.
The reason for this feature is to allow post submission:
[ol]- spell checking
- Rephrasing a badly worded statement
- Resend the entire message with changes
- Using a regular expression statements to correct errors
[/ol]
-
I would like to offer my opinion about why I think Instant Messaging is a draw for a product like Vivaldi.
This is that Vivaldi is a communication tool in the market where Instant Messaging in one form or another is another view on to the utility which Vivaldi wants to offer. A well known productivity software and operating system company sells its own Instant Messaging system in to office environments because it is that important.
This is in effect no different to the Twitter Smart Phone app offering an embedded browser.
Even with a fast turn around time email can not compete with Instant Messaging in terms of short message convenience and speed.
I would suggest one reason for the uptake of email as opposed to Skype or FB is simply that which every email provider you use your contacts are still accessible and can receive your messages.
Maybe, Tox or CaliOpen are the way to go. The best solution will be the one which offers you your contacts.
