The America Online Protocol Revealed 468
Gods Misfit writes "The America Online protocol(Connecting, Logging In, Joining Chats, etc..) has remained a mystery for most of its life. The only way one could log into their AOL account was via the AOL software. A few months ago, some people set out to break down the AOL protocol and open the door for alternative America Online software. This document is the result: The AOL Protocol.
A sign on example for Visual Basic programmers has been written and is available here." I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time. A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.
Illegal Activities? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
This'll last... (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering AOL wasn't exactly thrilled with "Unauthorized" versions of their messaging software (Jabber [jabber.org]) I wonder how long it will take them to have a stroke over this.
AOL / Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not AOL that's keeping me from trying Linux on the desktop - it's that my fiancee needs to use the PC as well, and she has enough trouble with Windows... (okay, that and the games)
Well, that seals it (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, I don't know why whenever something gets posted on /., the sentiment "Finally! Now the average user will use Linux!" has to be used. The simple fact is that the average user isn't savvy enough to use it, and there is a large group of users who ARE savvy enough to use it, but find setting it up to be a big headache.
America Online isn't going to be Linux's killer app.
(ducks behind asbestos wall)
AOL Runs on Linux also. (Score:4, Insightful)
But I would go as far to say that the type of people who like computers very simple, and very task oriented wouldn't want to install Linux on their desktop for more than one reason.
1) maybe AOL
2) their computer likely came with windows and installing a new OS is beyond their skills
3) linux desktops are still not dumbed down enough. Come on, TiVo is easy to use, my playstation 2 is easy to use, why is my computer so hard?
Joseph Elwell.
this should be interesting (Score:1, Insightful)
maybe a return of punters, which currently only work on aim
who knows, the abilities for scripts as well as exploits have suddenly become endless and easy based on the availability of the protocol
Why a shame? (Score:2, Insightful)
This reminds me of the same sort of complaint found in a recent Slashdot article on Microsoft [slashdot.org]. Do you really think AOL/Time Warner wants this type of information spread around so they can lose subscribers?
It's not a shame, it's good business sense.
They'll never allow OSS clients! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why?
WHen you use their client, they control eveything you see. What you can do. Think - they could force commercials or ads down yoru throat (and they will). If its opened up, you know people will just chose not to accept them.
The protocol will change very soon. :)
Not a big user group overlap.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, the reason that AOL and Linux don't mesh isn't because there's no AOL-Linux interface. It's because people who use AOL use it for a reason - it's got a happy, friendly, push big rainbow colored buttons, don't-cut-yourself safety-scissors interface. Love 'em or hate 'em, it's what they do well - an interface so simple that even grandma can use the demon box.
Linux is still, even in its most user-friendly form, a system that requires you to get some dirt under your fingernails while you use it. It's still a power-user OS.
There just simply isn't a big overlap between the types of people who use AOL and the types of people who traditionally run Linux.
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cat and mouse games (Score:3, Insightful)
If you've ever used AOL you'll realize while they probably won't "let it slide" AOL is much more than an ISP and the client is about 80% of that. Whether they take legal action depends on their lawyers, but it would be trivial for them to get around this technically. Since the AOL client automatically every time it connects they could simple change some small bit of the protocol every week (or day) that would break the non-AOL clients until someone patched them. AOL could probaly automate this fairly easily to the point that they could just do it forever or until the non-AOL folks just give up.
I imagine you'll see cease-and-desist letters followed by engineering changes, followed by lawsuits.
Sweet! Oh wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
Other than hacking into AOL for the fun of it, this is pretty useless. It's a good blow for the cause of open protocols and file formats.
I suppose there might be a market for a simple AOL client, for those who use it for portable internet access.
AOL has one good feature (Score:4, Insightful)
Even now, most ISPs will give you a couple of POP mailboxes for $15-$20/month, but few if any provide the ease and convenience of creating new "screen names" that AOL provides. Try telling a 12-16 year old girl that she can't change her screen name to avoid some pre-pubescent geek who's harrasing her via email.
This doesnt solve the problem . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Some old coverage of this [zdnet.com] can be found at ZD. Theyve got a whole site called "InstantMess" that talks about how AOL refuses to discuss an open format because they want to lock users into their app.
Recently Trillian (www.trillian.cc) [trillian.cc] has succesfully done it. I think they got around it by using whatever method the JAVA aol clients (AIM express, Quickbuddy) [aol.com].
Id love to see an open standard, but without AOL on board its useless. Its sad really - that the unwashed masses are dictating the standard for the rest of us.
Re:Congratulations! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Silly Rabbit! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look:
There is nothing wrong with a cool hack, made by hackers, that is solely of interest to other hackers, and that maybe even impresses your hacker friends.
This is all Just For Fun, people... never lose sight of that!
Re:AOL Runs on Linux also. (Score:2, Insightful)
Because your computer is not a single purpose machine. Arguably, PS2 isn't either, but it's main purpose is not as a DVD player or computer -- notwithstanding sony's "lets pretend it is so we can avoid UK taxes" strategy. Your computer is designed (at least PCs) to do any variety of things. Apple's machines are meant to do a few specific things -- if your machine isn't designed to, you can't easily open them up and switch much around to make it into a game machine, a music studio, a word processor, a programming station, a server, a tv/digital recorder without voiding your warranty; Apple has seen the desire people have for these functions and (mostly) built them into it's design. A PC is as flexible as it is because the parts are (mostly,) off-the-shelf stuff.
Computers (and operating systems,) are dumbed down for the hoi polloi -- this is what gets you stuff like Win ME, or the anti-command line stance that Apple has(had). It's a "make it unbelievably easy for every idiot to use". Most people these days don't use their computer's full capabilities because they don't need it; they'll do a little word processing and surf the net, maybe play a game or two and if they're really stretching it, use a couple of other extra apps -- geneaology programs, tax and accounting software, etc. Most people don't have a LAN at home -- most people don't have more than one computer at home. AOL is simpler than Win9x in many way, and way simpler than 2000/NT variants.
Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly Rabbit! (Score:5, Insightful)
# sync
# sync
#
If they could just click on a pretty AOL icon on the linux desktop, a lot of linux-users might drop their windows partition entirely.
Re:What about mail? (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine. I also bitched about the lack of a Linux client and the support person told me that they thought one was going to be released, but I haven't seen that, either. I figure it's either vaporware or someone changed their mind.
AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.
AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics. Another reason for AOL accounts is their great worldwide POP network. We keep several AOL accounts for traveling salespeople and executives because we know they can find a local POP to dial into from just about anywhere they happen to be: London, Munich, Mexico City, and almost anywhere in the US. It beats the heck out of paying ruinous hotel long distance charges, or the '800' AOL line surcharge. And really beats the crap out of talking a marketing manager through whatever weird TCP/IP setup a local provider in Back Woods, Ontario needs for a local ISP connection over the phone on Sunday evening.
Finally, you no longer need the AOL mail client to send/receive AOL e-mail, you can use practically any web browser. Just point to www.aol.com and sign in to your AOL account, then click the mail icon. Presto, you're there. It's all web-r-ized. Webbified. Whatever.
AOL users discouraged from switching? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's just one problem. How many AOL users are even aware of the mere EXISTANCE of Linux/BSD? The people who use AOL when there are other options available are the same types of people who use Windows simply because that is what is loaded onto their computer when they bought it. The vast majority of AOL users aren't going to bother to find out whether other OSes would be good for them, considering that they haven't bothered to see whether ISPs are better.
-Jenn
AOL now sucks less (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a big user group overlap.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything you say is true (I did't quote your entire post, but I mostly agree with all of it). There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt. What will thousands of Linux users do when their always-on, high-speed ISP goes away and is replaced by AOL? Switch to Windows? Perhaps so, either that or go back to a dial-up ISP. If I were faced with that choice, I'd prefer to figure out how to make AOL work with Linux. Or rather, figure out how to make Linux work with AOL. There may not be much overlap between Linux users and AOL subscribers now, but in the near future there may well be quite a bit of overlap as the "types who traditionally run Linux" are given few alternatives.
Unless you think it might be easer to get MSN to play with Linux.
Re:AOL / Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
Considering the amount of work I've had to done to get my parents up to their current level of usability with Windows, I'd rather not start all over again. If I were starting from scratch, I wouldn't be as concerned about using KDE or Gnome.
For way too many people, learning to use "the computer" means learning how to use specific Microsoft products.
Re:AOL-Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
The discussions I have about AOL with users I support all seem to be about what AOL actually does. They don't have any proprietary content worth speaking of--all of the good content is actually a website which non-AOL users can get to as well. AOL doesn't want their users to be aware of this, of course.
The only argument I have seen for using AOL is parental control. In one case, someone pays for ADSL, but also pays for BYOA AOL so that his kids can access only the clean stuff. Now that the ADSL provider [zoomtown.com] has this service, his situation may change.
However, I have converted two other users (families) from AOL to standard ISP broadband (using Win/IE), and have introduced two users to the Internet with a standard ISP. All are very happy.
Re:A Text File woudl be nice (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, if you were to take actual binary from Windows 3.1, it would still run, even on Windows XP. Gotta love backwards compatibility.
Don't get too excited... (Score:1, Insightful)
--AC (three guesses why I am posting this as AC, and the first two don't count)
AOL version 2.5? (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, this document must be eons old as well. Who claims this is a new document? Why would anyone bother with deciphering AOL version 2.5 at this point? This is ancient info.
I loved Q-Link (Score:3, Insightful)
I've expended a lot of thought about what led to this type of community, free of trolls and the seedy quality of most chatrooms. I think it came from a couple things:
1. It was new to those participating. We hadn't learned to abuse anonymity.
2. The size was right. IRC channels are too small, while the scale of IRC servers or AOL itself is too large.
3. We paid a buttload for the service. At $3.60/hour the bills racked up quick. No one would pay that today, but it sure kept the idiots out.
It would be nice if someone started an AOL type community that required an application to join, capped its membership numbers (~5000), did not provide anonymity and charged a fee. I doubt it could be profitable, but it might be very refreshing.
Re:Excellent! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because I'm trading one piece of proprietary software for another. Let's say AOL does something to break eNetBot (like they did to MSN Messenger several times)...well I will be SOL if eNetBot Inc. can't fix it in a timely fashion.
Contrary to what you may think, I don't have a problem with someone making money off this piece of software. But can't I still be allowed to lament the fact that the underlying information isn't available? Compare this eNetBot thing to what the original article was about.
Original article is a document explaining how the AOL protocol is formatted, as well as some basic functions to demonstrate usage. Five out of five stars. eNetBot doesn't explain anything but offers me an alternative to the piggish AOL client for e-mail. Nice, but still only four out of five stars. Thus, my pity comment.
I'd much prefer a website that went something like "here's how to write your own interface to access your AOL Mail via the website...oh by way if you're interested I've already written one and you can have it for $X".
- JoeShmoe