61–70 of 80 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's valid. Remote desktop opens up some interesting attack vectors, whether used by the NSA or just some hacker with malicious intent. There's nothing I can see about security mitigations...
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.
Am I the only one who prefers regular gchat to google hangouts? It's super difficult to figure out who on my contact list is online or not. I also mistake old msgs as new ones because of the lack of time-stamps. Maybe I'm missing a check-box or something that could fix all this but I gave up and switched back to gchat almost immediately.
I complained about this for a while, but then I saw someone use Hangouts on mobile. I suddenly realized why Google designed it this way. Of course the designers noticed that it was hard to determine who was offline and who was online. In fact, that's the whole point. Google is incrementally eliminating the distinction between the online and offline world. Pretty soon, the concept of offline won't exist anymore -- eve…
ancient "news" by now. The site is called hacker _NEWS_ :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to carry on the analogy, Google has a debit card that only works at Google and unlike Walmart it won't accept competitors coupons and all the stuff sold in store isn't sold anywhere else. You also can't take it apart, and only people with Google debit cards can see any of it when it leaves the store. Hangouts is becoming a nightmare of a proprietary locked in mess that is destroying decades of progress in…
"They are killing Jingle and XMPP by depreciating Talk..." As of two or three weeks ago, the Hangouts videoconferencing code used WebRTC, Jingle, and a variety of video and audio codecs (among which one could find Opus.). If you run the software on a *nix system, you can verify my claims by checking the contents of /tmp/gtalkplugin.log while you're in a video call with someone. Note that that file seems to be flushed…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.
So, two users behind a proper NAT or firewall won't be able to use this feature?
The best remote desktop software I have used is - http://www.join.me Just have the other person click 'Share', wait a bit for it to load, then have them copy and paste their share URL. It works right in the browser and is free. If Google Hangouts make this easier for me to fix my mother's laptop I'm all for it!
Dang it, I'd been looking for something just like this very recently, and my Google-fu had failed me. Man I wish I'd been able to find this.
And Google continues killing off niche application vendors... WalMart of the Internet.
Screen sharing is a Skype feature. If having a broadly available free tool with deep-pocketed corporate support was going to kill off that "niche", then it's surely been dead for years already. This is just Google achieving feature parity with the existing players. I mean, I'm as much a cynic as anyone, but I swear that these days it seems like Google can't catch a break on this site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's valid. Remote desktop opens up some interesting attack vectors, whether used by the NSA or just some hacker with malicious intent. There's nothing I can see about security mitigations...
"valid" aside from the fact that there's no way in this world or the next that all of that video and remote desktop traffic is going though Google's servers.
Can anyone comment on how a browser plugin gets access to the desktop? (even if hangouts doesn't do it, there's a remote desktop plugin) I'm a curmudgeon, but it seems like it's like designing a washing machine attachment that serves as a home security system and pasta maker. Are there OS or X11 permissions that can restrict userland apps from deviating far from their original use case?