It never went away. If you want experience similar to Google Reader - there are several clients (but better ones require paid subscription). RSS feeds are still there.
Well, it's up to the feed author what they want to include, and that's fine. To me, the point isn't "show all published content" in the feed, it's to notify me that new content is available. I don't mind clicking through if the content is worthwhile (which it is, because why else am I subscribed?).
> And so heavily truncated, spoiling the point in many (but not all) cases of having an RSS feed entirely.
I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, as a reader it's convenient to have the full text and images of the articles/posts so that I can look at them all in one place without much effort.
On the other hand, as a webmaster, I might have months or years worth of content on my site that I want visitors to look at, and if they never visit my site again after finding and subscribing to the RSS feed, odds are that they'll never see any of it. So truncating the entries is a good way to nudge readers into visiting my site if there's something that looks interesting rather than downloading full text and images for a bunch of articles that they might not even read, which would be a waste of bandwidth.
