Messaging Software Wars 154
Mark Spencer wrote in to say that since the AOL vs. Microsoft fiasco has begun, the GAIM team has been told they aren't allowed to use the AOL logo and other various terms in their documentation (with certain exceptions), so they have put out a request for new logo in the form of a contest. This comes after AOL has been blocking Microsoft from letting its MSN users send messages to users of its AIM service, and right before IBM unveils
messaging software of their own, though that looks to be very business-oriented, as opposed to Joe Random Netuser-oriented.
AOL's "open source" AIM clients are gone now too! (Score:1)
Linux-support (Score:1)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:1)
>used it. But I've never used these consumer-based things either. Somebody might want to evaluate it.
Zephyr is used extensively at Carnegie Mellon University. I find it both powerful and easy to use, and I'm not even very experienced with UNIX; from a user perspective, it seems like it could be an adequate replacement. I'll let someone more experienced/knowledgable comment on the implementation side.
Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Basically, it points out that AOL is rabidly in favor of "open access" on cable networks, but refuses to allow an open system for others to communicate with AOL members (Prodigy, Yahoo, MS get screwed here, so do consumers). MS, on the other hand, wants standards for instant messaging but not in the areas where it already has a dominant position.
Re:why do we even need an "IM"? (Score:1)
Re:Quarter? (Score:1)
That's easy to fix with an update to the namespace. Treat it the way you do email: include a domain in the name. Instead of being ICQ# NNNNN, you'd be icq://mirabilis.com/NNNNN. Using URL syntax would allow clients to support more protocols and complex names (instead of just numbers).
I suppose you could even have DNS records for instant messaging servers. Just as you have MX records for domains pointing to mail servers, you could have IM records point to messaging servers.
This is not a terribly hard problem. Someone just has to go do it.
Re:a different perspective... (Score:1)
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:1)
It allows more competition, which spawns development, and advancements. Not just lame buggy features.
Microsoft doesn't want a standard, they just want to have access to AOL's IM users. So they can start pumping the 21 million with MS advertisements.
AOL has not hindered the community in integrating such open source programs such as GAIM. AOL is just defending it's profits and future. That's what businesses do.
I really like open source, and support ALOT of open source ideals, but I don't see it as the be all, end all solution either.
Just my $0.00:)
One last thing, "microsoft haters". What's wrong with disliking Microsoft? A company is only as good as the products and services they offer. I personally dislike them because "I" think there products are poor. Just like I dislike Pepsi. When MicroSoft releases a product that "I" believe is worth a damn I will purchase it. Until then, I like Microsoft as much as I like their products.
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:1)
Re:Security (Score:1)
(zicq is a curses-based ICQ clone, and will give the message "Sparty (7335712) logged off. But they weren't online. (Invisible??)" or similar when that happens.)
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:1)
Perhaps you, and the many others who stereotype Slashdot's readers should take an objective look at the responses.
Yes, Slashdot and the open source community have more than their share of Bill Bashers, but I think you mis-used the word "most". "Most" of the postings have criticized AOL's behavior.
I think that "most" of us appreciate the irony in seeing such tactics applied to Microsoft, but do not approve of them.
THIS IS HACKING PLAIN AND SIMPLE! (Score:2)
So America Online and MicroSoft are fighting over instant messaging. I think AOL is in the right here though. To access the AOL Instant Messenger users, the user must provide his AOL screen name and password to the MicroSoft software. It doesn't take a rocket science to surmise that this could potentially expose sensitive AOL information to MicroSoft. This could also expose other unintended holes to the outside world. I'm willing to bet there will be a cease and desist or a lawsuit filed by the end of the week. To me what MicroSoft is doing is no different than what they accuse the creators of BackOrifice of doing:
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/news/pr1 9990719.html [cultdeadcow.com]
The case for Yahoo! and Prodigy is somewhat different since they used AOL's publicly posted information to gain access to the IM features of AOL. I disagree with what AOL has done to them and do agree that there should be an Instant Messaging standard but it's not MicroSoft's place to enforce it by hacking around AOL's security. What MicroSoft is doing is hacking, plain and simple.
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
Once again... (Score:1)
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Re:AOL's "open source" AIM clients are gone now to (Score:1)
Re:Open Source Instant Messaging (Score:1)
We're still alive, and actively working on it.. Take a gander over..
Re:Open source I.M. Project (Score:1)
I believe it is being developed with the possibility of adding additional modules for other communication systems as they become available.
As far as IRC vs AIM, I believe IRC could easily alienate the average computer user. Sure the network of servers is better than all of the servers being concentrated in AOL, but they don't care about that; what they care about is the simpler interface. And to some extent I have to agree with them. Look and feel is very important.
Re:Open source I.M. Project (Score:1)
So, there ya go - IRC would solve the problem, it just hasn't been heard of.
Quarter? (Score:4)
I'm not of the 'open-source it or it is evil' camp, but it is cases like this where there is obvious merit to the open-source idea.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
Re:New logo (Score:1)
The name of AOL's game is to be the easiest to use at everything it does. Linux is not easy. Therefore Linux is below AOL's radar.
Common enemy is one thing, but their market is another. And the market is not us.
Security (Score:1)
An insecure messaging system used in a business context is less than useless. It's dangerous.
Mickeysoft and the 3 E's (Score:1)
Well, at least AOL has a cluepon when it comes to being able to read Microsoft's intentions nowadays. The whole spat over messaging is a prime example of Microsoft using the 3 E's to get ahead, and AOL knows it, thankfully.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
Bowie
PROPAGANDA [themes.org]
Re:Open source I.M. Project (Score:2)
Sure, but you're talking about the user interface, not the protocol. The UI has exactly nothing to do with whether it's IRC or AIM on the wire underneath.
Don't Jump to Conclusions (Score:2)
AOL responded because... (Score:1)
Re:Quarter? (Score:3)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1)
Security and Privacy (Score:3)
Re:If these things gets worse... (Score:2)
New logo (Score:3)
I guess it doesn't surprize me that AOL would request the removal of the logo from this IM, but what purpose does that really serve? It was developed because there were people that wanted to communicate with others via AOL IM. Having their logo there would've been a plus as far as I see it.
I do have to admit I was proud of AOL for sticking M$ the way they did with their protocol tweaks, but I hope this doesn't mean it's another M$ in the works. Having both ICQ and IM in their corner I don't really see much for M$'s future in the IM market. Maybe AOL should just take it easy. Then again, it is M$ that we're talking about.
Decisions, decisions, decisions... just get me a reliable communbicating tool so I can play StarCraft and Quake with my friends....
Re:Open Protocol? (Score:1)
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:1)
I can't even think of any clients that don't allow scripting. You can do PGP encryption with simple scripts. Hell, with clients like x-chat you could write a module to do it.
What's all the fuss with lame messenger clients like aim and icq? Put everyone on IRC servers.
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
Don't read in things that aren't actually said.
Re:Open Source Instant Messaging (Score:1)
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
To those who say "Maybe they'll actually do right by users this time", I say this: Maybe, but I think it'll probably be a cold day in hell before they do.
PUMP: Personal User Messaging Protocol. (Score:1)
It is secure and will not allow any of many problems that can exist with messaging software, such as spoofing, sniffing, self-authorization, etc.
It will use PGP for authentication and encryption,
and will use digital certificates for contact list authorization.
It doesn't have a central servel, but it works similar to email. (ie user@server.net)
I'm working on it (biggo@netvision.net.il) with another guy (larry@lar.dyndns.org).
Contact me if you wish to help or join the project.
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
Re:Quarter? (Score:2)
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:1)
Logo has been gone for a while (Score:2)
Re:PUMP: Personal User Messaging Protocol. (Score:1)
Do you have a home page where I could get more information?
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
Re:New logo (Score:1)
Compare StarOffice with M$ Office and you see what I mean, free vs $300 or more for nearly the same thing? And StarOffice is XPlatform, what a joke M$ is... and furthermore how they obtained their dominace is really pathetic. Linux distros don't have that ability, and Linux knew that when he licensed the kernel under GPL. People in the Linux world know how things work that's why things are the way they are.
BTW, I use RedHat 6.0, and while it may very well not be the best distro (but I really don't have any good comparisons, Debian is the only other one I have any experience with and that's not too much), they have released EVERYTHING GPL, can you say that about SUSE or Caldera? No.
But I would never knock any Linux distro, they are all great and the fact that you have a choice is what it's all about.
Re:Quarter? (Score:1)
I'm sorry but instant messangers don't impress me. They don't offer any or at least not much more functionality than talk or irc messaging. It's yesterday's technology repackaged and sold to the masses.
why do we even need an "IM"? (Score:1)
How much time and trouble are spent writing little messages back and forth that could actually be used in something productive?
Is this really something that the OS movement would want to be associated with when it really comes down to nothing more than just another email system that sits on your desktop and beeps loudly when you get a new message.
Re:New logo (Score:2)
San Jose Merc's coverage (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
I'm rather curious about where Microsoft's AIM support came from. Did they get support from AOL, or did they reverse engineer it themselves? AOL Legal has been nice enough not to attack the folks who have reverse engineered the AIM and AOL service protocols, but I can't imagine they'd let a giant like Microsoft get away with it..
a different perspective... (Score:5)
Where I come from using software to hammer someone elses computers and reduce their service levels is called a denial of service attack. Releasing over 20,000 copies of software to do that means that the company is knowingly attempting to deny service of registered users of that server access to the resources of the server.
In simple terms, what Microsoft did was attempt to hijack the services of AOLs server, and now they are perfoming no less than a denial of service attack on those servers.
Last time I checked, people go to jail for releasing software designed to damage other peoples servers.
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:1)
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:1)
MS would deserve it. AOL deserves it too- why doesn't it occur?
Eric
God, I love irony.... (Score:1)
You can't buy this kind of entertainment...
No static IP needed... (Score:1)
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Re:Quarter? (Score:1)
MIT's Zephyr is the shit. (Ok, it may not be MIT's originally, I forget, but that's where I saw it.)
It's much more like instant, bursty email. ICQ isnt that hot for chatting, but it's nice to be able to fire off a quick note and know that the other person is there, on their computer, and will see it immediately if they choose to.
Plus, it's much less disruptive to working, since you cna process at your own pace, and don't have to immediately drop something you're doing to avoid missing your opportunity to comment on something. I wish ICQ (or whatever) would support the forum-style messaging (kind of like instant newsgroups).
Jordan
Re:Security (Score:1)
I always wonder what would happen with other tags
;-)
Re:a different perspective... Theft, and sucks (Score:1)
* MS makes money off the OS.
* If MS OS users use MSN Mess, then AOL does not make any money, and for some strange reason, MS still does.
MS pleads, open-source, open-source, but do you see MSN mess source posted anywhere? Do you see MSN mess for other OS's? No MS makes money off the OS.
The yahoo and prodigy made money, but they don't make money from the OS. And at least yahoo's client is not a exact clone of IM 1.0. Hey I tried yahoo's out, and it is really good, and there is a java version for those who want it.
And MSN mess, is a mess. If you install MSN mess, it INTEGRATES ITSELF, by default. Open outlook, and you have opened up MSN mess, without realizing it. Even after you kicked it off the damn taskbar, it still fires up when you fire up outlook. Talk about forcefull.
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:1)
This is pure, unadulterated evil. Make no mistake.
MS is trying to SAVE the world from this kind of monopolistic crap, and you're all too blind to see it. I know. I work for Microsoft! We're the good guys!
GAIM AIM (Score:2)
So yeah.
Note - above page for TiK does not work afaik - ymmv
Jezzball
Re:IBM's software is much more featured... (Score:1)
Re:AOL hypocritical (Score:1)
M$ on the otherhand is outright hijacking AOL's servers and using them to attract customers away from AOL's services. M$ was perfectly free to set up their own servers and negotiate an agreement with AOL to somehow link the two systems. This way AOL doesn't have to pay for maintaing systems that it isn't seeing revenue come out of. What M$ is doing is outright theft of service.
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:2)
Re:Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:2)
No, they want to lock them into AOL. No difference. A closed, proprietary protocol that is changed at the whim of a large corporation to inhibit competition is bad. (It didn't just hurt MS guys- Yahoo's and other clients stopped working too.)
Re:Logo has been gone for a while (Score:2)
Re:a different perspective... (Score:1)
I suppose that slashdot is actually a nestbed for denial of service as well, due to the fact that we release links that tend to bring servers to their knees?
toc (Score:1)
yeah, i think a good RFC is needed, as stated by many above.
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
Microsoft thrives on creating statistics, which become a tool for painting a very positive picture of the company by the Marketing geniuses here, in Redmond.
In fact, the marketing statistics are probably MORE important to Microsoft's success than software sales. Look at the inflated stock prices of Yahoo, Amazon, etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about. Microsoft wants a slice of that. If they can spin statistics to say that Hotmail is taking over 90% of the email market, then - DAMN.
So yeah, go ahead and make some new Hotmail accounts. Who cares if they're ablatible. Make a million throwaway accounts. Our Marketing folks LOVE you for it!
Download IE 5, install it, say it sucks and delete it. It still counts as a stat we can use against Nutscrape in the marketing war.
Re:toc (Score:1)
The Free clients (GAIM, FAIM, etc.) are using TOC, which is fully documented, and you are encouraged to create clients that are compatible with it.
Microsoft chose to reverse engineer OSC because they felt that OSC users get better service and better features.
It's too bad they couldn't have gone the TOC protocol method... it would have saved them alot of bad publicity.
Re:"Re:a different perspective..." or "TOC vs. OSC (Score:1)
The Free clients (GAIM, FAIM, etc.) are using TOC, which is fully documented, and you are encouraged to create clients that are compatible with it.
Microsoft chose to reverse engineer OSC because they felt that OSC users get better service (since they are using AOL technology and are viewing the AOL ads that are paying for it) and better features.
It's too bad they couldn't have gone the TOC protocol method... it would have saved them alot of bad publicity.
Re:Open Source Instant Messaging (Score:1)
---
Re:AOL hypocritical (Score:1)
---
At least AOL allows them to continue (Score:2)
not to use their trademarks. At least the AOL
people allow them to continue to develop GAIM so that we finally have a decent AOL IM clone for Linux. I remember back when the only thing available was their JAVA client... It sucked.
Greetings to Rob and Jim and the others too.
Re:Security (Score:3)
The protocol is also TRIVIALLY easy to spoof - LICQ even comes with the feature to send messages from any UIN. While I've not looked at the source I bet the code that does this is pretty simple. There were plenty of other examples of how bad the protocol was. No doubt some of the ICQ clone developers can go into far greater detail than I have (and maybe correct any boneheaded misconceptions on my part
Re:At least AOL allows them to continue (Score:1)
Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:2)
The free software community needs to produce it's own, secure messaging software. Including strong encryption would be a great "selling" point (of course that leaves you with those nice little US encryption laws...).
Re:New logo (Score:1)
Open Source Instant Messaging (Score:1)
An OS IM would mean anyone could have a client and anyone could integrate the IM into other OS applications. It would be nice. I say we find that IM OS Project and start to push it instead of clinging to ICQ or AIM.
Re:Quarter? (Score:4)
Evolution of an open source messaging service? (Score:1)
2) After a while, the servers become bogged down, and either go down, or lose connection with another server or group of servers, essentially splitting the people up depending on what server they're connected to.
3) A few people get sick of the bad service and decide to set up their own servers and connect them together, possibly modifying the server software to give additional features.
4) Eventually, everybody and their brother is running a network of messaging servers, and many people have accounts on multiple networks.
For those of you who haven't been on IRC for six years or so, this is basically what has happened to it. With the exception of unique logins/passwords, IRC is pretty close to an open source messaging service. A few of the IRC networks have set up bots to do the login/password work so that people can reserve nicknames, keep channels in order, etc. I'm not certain whether or not I'd want to see the possible open source messaging service end up like IRC, but I'm leaning towards nay.
- coug_
Re:Why? *MS -is- giving away the protocol!!!* (Score:1)
Re:Let's get this over with! (Score:1)
But if you want everyone to use it, you should/must port it to many different OS's. Linux, Be (please?), mac, Windows (yes, yes, I know.)
Good luck, if I could code in anything but C & pascal(woohoo) (and both badly), I'd help . . .
hasta la pasta
Re:AOL's "open source" AIM clients are gone now to (Score:1)
"Re:a different perspective..." or "TOC vs. OSCAR" (Score:1)
Brandon
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:1)
Re:New logo (Score:2)
Trademark law is a funny thing. If they want to maintain their trademark on this or that, they have to pursue all ``violations'' of it. If someone can show that they haven't enforced their trademark rights, they can lose the mark.
Of course there's no reason AOL couldn't grant particular projects a royalty-free license to use their marks, if they wanted, but they would only do that if they had a good reason to.
Re:Quarter? (Score:2)
I've seen a couple of posts like this...
I'm not sure what your point is. Its like saying gtk is stupid because its yesterdays technology (athena widgets) repackaged, or. I'd much rather use an instant messaging service than talk or irc, especially talk. Not only that, whenever someone says this they are also assuming that its pointless to talk online to anyone who isnt a computer geek. I being a college student a couple of hours away from home occasionally talk to my family online, which is a whole hell of a lot cheaper than long distance rates...and they certainly dont know or care how to use something as archaic as talk, or something as involved and annoying as irc. I consider ease of use, and ease of getting other people to use it part of functionality, and programs such as AIM, ICQ, and hopefully Jabber, provide this in amounts several orders of magnitude greater than talk and irc.
I guess all I'm saying is that I think instant messanging programs have a purpose, and whether they are to some degree of old technology doesn't matter, since they are presented in a form that is useful. Quite a bit of technology is old technology repackaged with some superficial change such as a nicer interface.
Re:Open source I.M. Project (Score:4)
Sorry if I've misunderstood what Jabber is all about; but if I've gotten it wrong, you should probably try and clarify this on the web site, because it's really hard to tell what your architecture and goals are, and why.
I also don't understand why anyone would use AIM instead of IRC, except for the reasons of ``my new computer came with AIM and not IRC'' or ``my friends all use AIM and not IRC.'' The latter of which a multi-protocol client solves nicely.
Re:a different perspective... (Score:2)
The other company has decided that they will subvert the serer owners attempted security and has hacked the server a second and a third time.
Wouldn't you state that AOL has indicated that they do not wish to have Microsoft using their servers in this manner? Haven't they been rather clear in their desire to retain their resources for themselves?
Wouldn't you say that Microsofts refusal to accept that it's AOLs servers and their system (unlike Yahoo!) is akin to a consistant pattern of behavior to attempt to steal services (and if they can not steal the services, to cause a degredation of the services for the rightful owners through a DoS attack)?
Such a stink was made when SATAN was released and all it did was probe servers for vunerabilities. This is a concerted effort to obtain services that were denied by the massive release of software designed to take those services that belong to another company.
How would Microsoft feel if every second 20,000 people on the net started issuing pings or finger request to the MSN servers?
It's wrong! It's theft. It's a denial of service attack on their only major threat in the Internet space.
Re:why do we even need an "IM"? (Score:1)
Well, no, not really. But it's different. Over Zephyr (to pick an IM system completely at random), you can have a conversation between individuals, or a discussion within a group. It's kind of like the difference between talking to someone on the phone (or having a conference call) and writing them a letter (or trying to resolve something via the opinion page of your local paper).
What? Internet? Productive? Huh? :-)
Re:a different perspective... (Score:1)
Kris
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/ [kriston.net]
Re:"Re:a different perspective..." or "TOC vs. OSC (Score:1)
GAIM *does* use TOC.
Kris
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/ [kriston.net]
Open Protocol? (Score:1)
Open source I.M. Project (Score:2)
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:2)
Messaging integration (Score:1)
It's Microsoft's pattern, and I'm so glad that Microsoft finally attempted to go against the only company, at this time, who has the power to fight back.
Re:Security (Score:1)
Could we please be consistant in our positions? (Score:2)
Closed, proprietary protocols that are changed at a whim by a large corporation to stifle competition are
Does MS deserve it? Sure. Doesn't make it right though. If you truly believe (1), and I would argue any Open Source believer would, then what AOL is doing is simply wrong.
Eric
Re:Need Free Messaging Software! (Score:1)
-awc
Re:Messaging integration (Score:2)
I'm only happy if this sort of war allows a proper solution to sneak up on them, which I doubt.
Microsoft's pattern is just as reprehensable when AOL is using it. It's not the company, it's the tactics of screwing the user for profit.
Re:Security (Score:2)
That's actually why we developed our own messaging and data system (ez-eXchange). It is focussed for our the financial market, but it is completely secure and authenticated.
www.ez-exchange.com [ez-exchange.com]
Kevin Osborn
Software Engineer
Eze Castle Consulting, Inc.
www.ezecastle.com [ezecastle.com]
AOL hypocritical (Score:2)
In other news, AOL is in court to win the right to use AT&T's cable networks.
The stories aren't completely analogous, but I think AOL is playing both sides of the closed access argument. With AT&T, they are demanding the right to use a network that was built completely with AT&T money. They are willing to pay, but not too much. In this recent battle, they are closing their "network". For this network, AOL has written the software, distributed it, but has not built the bulk of the physical network that it runs on.
While I don't agree with MS for just hijacking a protocol that wasn't open and using AOL servers without permission, I also don't agree with AOL's reaction. If theft is what MS is guilty of, then AOL should be suing/pressing charges and asking for a cease and desist order to keep MS from further distribution until the court decides. This reaction just weakens AOL's position in the AT&T case.
IBM's software is much more featured... (Score:2)
is responsible for Sametime. For fairness sake,
I just wanted to point out that the AIM/MSN
Messenger functionality is a very small subset
of Sametime. I'd try to explain everything
that Sametime does, but I suppose Lotus's
own literature would give you a better idea
than any attempt I could make. FYI.