ICQ status
Well since Dr Snuggles has added his post re ICQ (and since he seems to be insisting on continuing to use this piece of instant messaging software) I've added ICQ status indicators for our profiles. Well, at least I have added an indicator for my profile and two that I think might be him. I'm not entirely sure what number he actually uses now. If Paul starts actually using ICQ again too, I'll add him on as well. Also, after DrS's comments on his stolen ID, I've added his old ID to see when the cad that stole it is online, although said cad seems to not have show when I'm online set on his web page so it might not work, grrrrrrr.......... Anyway here's hoping that DrS gets his old number back.
Also, since I have added my ICQ status onto the page, it would seem to make sense to start using it again. So I might just reinstall ICQ again which will mean I will be running 3 IMers, kind of. I am currently running Skype with the idea that eventually I will be calling people round the world on their landlines from the internet. Well, one day. I also have Eyeball Chat installed, once more without actually using it properly yet. But that one will be for tele conferencing with Australia, so hopefully that one will actually be useful.
posted by Xavier at 1:09 pm
4 Comments:
You make it sound like ICQ is no good. I admit it's changed since the old days (when I had my old number), that was just as ICQ spamming and hijacking was coming in and ruining ICQ. Now that AOL own ICQ I guess it's lost a little of it's attraction but it's still the only IM I really recommend.
The ICQ indicators work, I'm the second one, no idea who the first one is. One other suggestion; why not put the status indicators directly after our names in the first section, no need for scrolling then.
10:20 pm
DrS is right, I did sound a bit down on ICQ there. I will agree that as far as IM goes, ICQ is one of the better ones. I just tend to think that all the different systems suck a bit. They all seem too bloated, too filled with advertising in some form or another and none of them blend in with the desktop enough for my liking (not that I could actually explain what that would be, but I'm sure I'll know when I see it).
Anyway, in the mean time I really think that everyone should go back to using who, finger and talk. Not as convinient (though I'm sure a few shell scripts and cron jobs would help) but much less bloated. ;-)
10:56 am
Oh and also, I didn't put the ICQ status on the list of contributors, because that part of the page is auto generated by the template, so I could have just hard coded that bit, but then if the contributors change, I'd need to edit that by hand, and I'm just too lazy for that. ;-)
10:59 am
I think the fact that finger, who and talk are regarded as a security risk(especially finger) and no one in their right mind would run a port/daemon for it on the internet I think ICQ will have to do.
3:43 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home