AOL To Open AIM Protocol? 213
Vintage was the first person to write with the word from Betanews that AOL will be opening their Instant Messenger Protocol up. The comment from Betanews is that this may be part of an attempt to appease the FTC in regards to the AOL-TimeWarner merger.
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:2)
If I set up a server that uses a proprietary protocol (think trade secret here), what gives you the right to connect to my server with your program?
--
Re:big deal (Score:1)
--
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:2)
It works well. I've been playing with gabber, a gtk jabber client, thats pretty cool too.
AIM Future and Past (Score:1)
Now AIM is basically "Online Stalking in can". You cant prevent anyone from seeing if you're on unless you use a different screen name to stalk them back. ICQ provides a better service for such things. BUT ICQ gets continually bigger and bloated and just really pisses me off, Especially when the features i like (privacy etc) cause me to wait 3 weeks after a format or crash to add contacts and get re authorized. So its a trade off. Privacy for convienience. But Ill take it. The thing i would like to see implemented into AIM and the OpenAIM is password encryption. I think that TOC is clear text, prolly oscar also. Privacy doesn't mean all that much to me as far as messaging clients go, other than password encryption, or maybe 2 way encrypted file transfers. say you're sending a hot steamy love letter to someone and your netadmin ( possibly me ) used a really nice sniffer and captures all the packets and assembles them... blah blah i know e can all dream for total encryption
I like AIM better because of the way i use it. ICQ is nicer some times but behind a firewall, EVEN with the newer versions... It is still a shitload slower than AIM. and it still wont talk to AOL users.
Cluster
Does this mean (Score:1)
Well... Yes... (Score:3)
The interface is just terrible, here's just one example: If you want to do an operation on a user name, you pull up a menu. In most windows programs, using the right mouse button causes a context menu. But not in ICQ. In ICQ you can switch it. Clicking on the other mouse button causes I dialog box asking if you want to switch them (complete with a big bitmap of a mouse).
What the hell is that?? If there's only one single click operation why not just make **BOTH** mouse buttons do it? Instead of having the other one pull up the stupid "would you like to switch mouse buttons" dialog???
The whole thing is chunky, the interface sucks ass... it's just bad software.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Re:Which Simpsons episode was that? (Score:1)
There is some more info on the episode on The Simpsons Archive [snpp.com]
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Re:oscar? or toc? (Score:1)
Anyways, OSCAR has been reverse-engineered, see http://www.auk.cx/faim [www.auk.cx] for details. This is libfaim, which gaim uses if you use oscar rather than toc (./configure --enable-oscar)
AOL's proposal is available (here are the URLs) (Score:3)
Re:Nice! I can write a bot now! (Score:1)
--
Re:placate the feds with chatting ability? (Score:2)
This is just a temporary appeasement by AOL to deflect scrutiny until the merger goes through. "Opening" the protocol isn't functionally any different than having everyone reverse engineer it. Just because it's "open" doesn't mean they can't or won't start mutating it again every 3 days once the merger goes through. My money is on a rapid return to this anti-competitive practice the instant the merger is complete.
Opening it up permanently is WAY too forward-thinking for AOL/TW; I think companies that size are prevented by law from making any decision that sacrifices present monopoly for long-term viability. They're only allowed to consider the current quarter, I think that's an SEC regulation.
TiK development (Score:1)
http://tik.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]
The current release is 0.87.
Also, regarding the ICQ protocol, you can now login with some aim clients (I've personally verified TiK and heard that Gaim worked, too.) Just type in your UIN and password. I have reason to believe that the release of the "aim" protocol will, consequently, contain information for ICQ, as well. I just hope this release will actually occur. . .
Re:eh? (Score:1)
Re:Not necessarily a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Re:More Details On C|Net (Score:2)
Steven E. Ehrbar
It would just be a client... (Score:1)
Not much time for this thee days...it's a shame. Should n't take to long either...
Re:Jabber? (Score:2)
AOL RELEASES AIM RFC: CLICK BELOW FOR LINK (Score:2)
Re:Built into IBM mainframes (Score:1)
It won't let me log in, despite the fact that my account and password are correct. I can't log in as myself, or as any one of three new accounts we created just for kicks, or as guest. It's just fucked, and they (Lotus support) haven't figured it out yet. It's been three weeks now. What gets me is we PAID for this - while all the free ones out there work just fine. (okay, so they don't offer the security Sametime does. . . some security, it's so secure, even valid users can't get in.)
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
Some More related stories (Score:1)
(NOTE: Links blatantly stolen from LinuxToday [linuxtoday.com])
Re:Cool! Now I can figure out how to disable it! (Score:1)
Re:Why dones't the FTC butt out? (Score:1)
Regardless of marketshare.
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is!
Re:About Freakin' Time! (Score:1)
Obligatory link to Jabber (Score:1)
Thank God. (Score:1)
If you can't do it right, let someone else do it for you.
Re:GAIM, etc. (Score:2)
---
Who Cares? (Score:2)
--
I suppose it's too much to hope for... (Score:2)
Re:GAIM, etc. (Score:2)
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:1)
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:2)
MiniTik AOL Instant Messenger Client [sourceforge.net]
___________
Re:Well... Yes... (Score:2)
Interface warts aside, I find it as pleasent to use in Win32 as Licq is in Linux. Although floaty support in ICQ 98 is far, far supperior to the Licq support (QT frontend at least).
---
Re:Probably a stupid question.. (Score:1)
-
Ekapshi
Everybuddy is GPL; add it yourself (Score:2)
If we had such a client, we could run our own IM network
That's easy. Just take some code from a common IRC client and add it to EveryBuddy [everybuddy.com]. Any takers?
IRC in Everybuddy? (Score:2)
In fact, with minimal additions, IRC could be the basis for a global, distributed IM system.
That would be a really good idea. Perhaps somebody could hack something into Everybuddy [everybuddy.com] to send private messages over IRC. Of course, there would have to be a special channel with a bot that manages buddy notification.
Last night... (Score:1)
AOL representatives stated that they didn't want to open the source of AIM because it would most likely let in chain letters and spam, as ICQ suffers from. I have to say, from my experience with GAIM [marko.net], I have recevied hardly any unwanted messages. I remember a coupla years ago, I had ICQ, and it was horrible.
Obligatory plug (Score:1)
I can't resist.. shoot me if you must, moderators! That comment just screams for me to mention my app.
The Kit AIM client [sourceforge.net] already exists, for linux as well as other Unixes, I believe (I have no access to other Unixes, so I can't say for certain how portable it is)
The most recent version is in the kdenetwork package, on the KDE cvs. The first stable version will be released with KDE 2.
Oh, yes.. and there's already Kaim, Gaim, laim, TiK (GPL for Tcl/Tk by AOL), TNT (GPL for emacs by AOL), QuickBuddy (binary-only for Java by AOL).
AOL's proposed standard for Net-wide IM (Score:2)
OpenIM protocol (Score:2)
Note: this means that if you're not on AOL (or using an AOL client), your IM address will be someone@somewhere.xxx. To you, AOL users will be someone@aol.com, unless your IM server sends unknown users to AOL (and then you have the issue of collisions between local usernames and AOL names - but people/servers with small userbases probably wouldn't care much).
This solution appears to open (some) IM (not all features are supported via OpenIM in the draft, and there's no guarantee that AOL will support more advanced features in their OpenIM gateways). However, it also preserves AOL's lock on it's username-space and adds inconvenience for non-AOL-IM users, encouraging them to use AOL's client.
Still, it basically puts IM on the same footing and a similar architecture to email, which is a Good Thing.
Randell
p.s. Note: in a previous life, I was one of 4 or 5 people at a company called PlayNet that wrote what later became AOL, including the original IM design. (This was in '84/85.)
Re:OpenIM (Score:1)
Take a look at Everybuddy [everybuddy.com]. This is a great Unix program that does exactly that. Many bells and whistles, too (like spell checking). No plans for a non-Unix version.
Nice! I can write a bot now! (Score:2)
I did see a page which had some of the AIM protocol reverse engineered, but I figured since the MS/AOL pissing match the page would be out of date.
How about a server-to-server protocol? (Score:5)
Now is the time to do this right.
--
well, AOL played right into M$'s hands (Score:2)
GAIM, etc. (Score:2)
Colin Winters
Mozilla (Score:2)
--
More like crowbarred open... (Score:2)
Still, it's a good thing that they did this, since even though it's possible to reverse engineer these protocols, doesn't mean it's fun, quick, or easy.
Re:oscar? or toc? (Score:4)
---
Re:How about a server-to-server protocol? (Score:2)
Mmmmmm, total world domination, mmmmmm
More Details On C|Net (Score:4)
Re:How about a server-to-server protocol? (Score:2)
AOL IM fundamentally flawed (Score:5)
IM should either be a server-side service like SMTP, provided by your ISP, a peer to peer system like Gnutella, or an open distributed system like IRC. In fact, with minimal additions, IRC could be the basis for a global, distributed IM system.
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:2)
How about a good ole command line client? Messages (or notices of messages) could just pop up on the command line. Enter a command or two to look through the list of messages. Enter another command to set up a "talk"-like chat.
Re:oscar? or toc? (Score:2)
Re:Jabber? (Score:2)
plus, the protocol agents run independently of the main jabber server, so you can update one at a time, plus completely GPL'd.
Re:Probably a stupid question.. (Score:2)
---
There already is a client which uses aim and icq (Score:3)
Check out Everybuddy [everybuddy.com]
It currently uses the TOC protocol, which is the Used-to-be-open protocol that gaim [marko.net] and tik and every other aim clone uses. It doesn't have all the features that OSCAR has, like file transfer and all that. If the OSCAR protocol is opened up then all the clones will increase in quality across the board. If they are just "re-opening" TOC, then nothing will change really.
But if people are looking for something that uses multiple services in one client, check out Everybuddy.
Ben Rigas
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:2)
--
Re:GAIM, etc. (Score:4)
AIM is tap-tacular. (Score:4)
All double-talk about open standards and consumer interest aside, the feds *want* to see AIM become *the* messaging standard for chat traffic for one simple reason - it's centralized. All message traffic transits AOL servers for easy monitoring and collection by the boys in blue (or men in black, for that matter).
These pressures from the FTC are meant to drive wider adoption of AIM (the standard), whether or not the "AOL" is necessarily part of it.
Just my take on the situation, of course
-Isaac
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:2)
does this mean they are opening the servers too? (Score:2)
I mean just cause you know the FTP protocol doesn't mean you can use my FTP server!
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:2)
Second, given the syntactical structure of English, the subclause following the comma refers to the AOL policy. "[T]o reflexively block anyone who implements the protocol and tries to talk to their servers without their permission" is a prepositional phrase describing the policy, so the sentence is equivalent to saying "What likely happened here is that AOL has/had a policy which is arguably llegal."
But I do apologize if I misunderstood the author's intent. I did not intend to accidentally flame someone because of his grammar, given my tendency to make similar errors.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:big deal (Score:2)
They're constantly working on adding more chat types into it. It does requires accounts for each of the services, but that's not too hard to handle.
I forget the site, but try searching on freshmeat for it.
Re:GAIM, etc. (Score:3)
Not sure how well it works, but the support is there
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:2)
---
Re:How about a server-to-server protocol? (Score:3)
Re:Why dones't the FTC butt out? (Score:2)
There are no end of entrients in the IM market... MS, Yahoo, Tribal Voice all come to mind without thinking about it very hard.
Besides, Mr. Anti trust lawyer, there is nothing magical that says a) if you have over 50% market share you are a monopoly and b) there is nothing illegal about being a monopoly per se.
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:2)
Didn't AOL purchase ICQ?
Re:How long... (Score:2)
The very popular mIRC has a lot of scripting abilities in it. Older versions had "default scripts," and, if you had DCC autoget enabled, someone could replace your default scripts rather easily, and you would start sending out the virus yourself. I've also seen a newer version of that which relies on .bat files of some kind.
Also, the much older ircii had numerous "warscripts," "botscripts," and so forth that, at the very least, were often useful-but-trojaned, allowing remote users to control IRC clients. Worse yet, ircii even had an "/exec" command, allowing you to execute commands right onto your shell. As you might imagine, getting newbies to "/exec rm [fileglob of your choice]" was considered high sport.
Basically, they had roughly the same susceptibility to attacks as does the oft-maligned-and-deserving-it Microsoft Outlook.
Re:AOL is right to have kept this closed (Score:2)
I don't see why Microsoft OS inc. couldn't, however, license the 'amazing' new 'IntelliActiveDirectMessageX' application from 'Microsoft Apps, inc.', and then include it anyway.
Quite simply, I think it'll take proliferation of an open standard/protocol to fix any monopolization of this 'market', just as with so many others.
Joe Sixpack is dead!
Re:Nice! I can write a bot now! (Score:2)
Personally, when I read the title of your post, the first thing I thought was "OmiGawd - IM spam! There are certainly enough addresses in harvestable form out there. Spammers don't seem to care who they annoy for that
Take it a step further - a bot that 'listens' for certain keyphrases, and interjects product recommendations.
DaveThomas: What sort of POS terminals do you think we buy for our 5000 retail outlets?
FrankPerdue: We use distributors, and don't do POS
JSmith@PhoneyOutfit: For price, reliability, and service, you can't beat CrapCo. An industy secret! Best in the business!
The mind boggles at the possibilities. Especially since opening up the protocol increases the possibility that a spammer, using a custom spam program, could fake being a (e.g. an older) AIM client
Disclaimer: I haven't used AIM in a year, and only used it for limited purposes, like instant communication when collaborating on projects. I may not recall its specific capabilities entirely correctly.
Re:aim4linux coming soon (Score:3)
---
Re:oscar? or toc? (Score:2)
The official AOL documentation for TOC is included in the GAIM distrobution. I doubt that they are just re-releasing that, but I suppose it is possible.
Several days ago, the TOC server went down for some time. I re-compiled GAIM to use the "experimental" OSCAR support, and I've been online ever since.
Ah, the joys of open source software. My GAIM conversation windows have a big toggle button on the bottom marked "Sveedish Cheff". Turn it on, and everything I say gets converted before being sent. Bork Bork Bork!
------
too late! (Score:2)
-reemul
Thats already going on with ICQ (Score:3)
So its quite easy to have multiple people on your list with the exact same name, in fact I have two of them right now. Its not really a problem because when they message you, its usually pretty easy to tell which one is which by their email addy and what they're actually saying.
It might get more difficult if you have like six of them that way, but you can rename people in ICQ on your list to whatever you want, so its a non issue. Besides, its easier to keep track of that then of Bob_1, Bob102, Bob5, 2343Bob, and the other assorted myriad of idiotic names the AOL system conjures up.
Jabber? (Score:4)
Anyway, if AOL is opening their Oscar protocol (as opposed to the TOC protocol) this could be a great help to Jabber, if they incorporate it. Let's make this thing more widespread people! If you work at an ISP, set up a jabber server and provide your customers with clients and instructions for setting it up. Same thing if you manage a University computing center or, possibly, a business. This is our chance to make a decentralized worldwide free instant messing network. And the software is _already here_.
--
grappler
Re:Jabber? (Score:2)
--
grappler
Re:Probably a stupid question.. (Score:2)
I like the way Everybuddy [everybuddy.com] does it - each user on your contact list can have an arbitrary number of user IDs for any of the supported IM systems associated with it. If the user comes online on any of the accounts it shows the user as online. I think there's a way to set a preferred protocol to use if the user is online using more than one system.
Also see the poster who mentioned Jabber [jabber.org].
Article is totally wrong. (Score:3)
1: The FTC does not care about AOL opening up the protocol because it is a free service.
2: Furthermore the article states "We are planning to put out to the industry a way we think that can be done in terms of commitment to interoperability. (The industry) will hear something from us soon,"
The SOON means whenever AOL get's around it. They will probably say WE are the standard in their proposal. And it will get drafted to death by Microsoft and others which will delay the process. There is and won't be a universal chat client for a long time.
Culpability Flowchart (Score:5)
The decision to open the protocol is surprising as just this week a rival program entitled Odigo debuted its latest version with connectivity to AOL and ICQ, making it universal. In a not-so-surprising move, AOL blocked that access like it had in the past to Odigo, Microsoft, and Yahoo chat programs.
What likely happened here is that AOL has/had a policy to reflexively block anyone who implements the protocol and tries to talk to their servers without their permission, which is arguably illegal and definitely inappropriate, or at least impolite.
However, opening it up actually does show some benefit; First of all, this gives still more benefit to AOL users, allowing them to trade messages with people who won't use AIM (because it sucks.) Second, they can stop fighting legal battles over it. Third, they will slaughter all the other messaging services except for ICQ, and even ICQ is going to hurt a little. Having the biggest installed base counts for more than having the broadest featureset.
In any case, this will put an end to anyone who has implemented their own messaging service. It's over, folks. Change your messager to support AIM and put an ad in it, and move on to the next software development project. You missed the boat.
split it up and simplify it (Score:2)
I think it would be nicest if the whole system was simplified.
At the moment the main model (commercial/propriety or not) is that the one system does everything. It registers people's online state, stores undelivered messages, stores people's personal details, performs searches, etc etc.
Some systems use client-to-client protocols to lower the load on the server and that's great, but IMHO it'd be even better if the services were completely separate. All that the main system would ever need to do is register whether people were online or not, and dictate who was allowed to know about who else was on.
Having different servers implementing standardised protocols for every service and letting the clients decide which ones they're going to use would make the whole thing much easier to extend. (Even if the services were all provided by the same provider.)
Splitting them up and modulising would also give providers and users the freedom to choose what services they wanted, and it'd generally make it easier for each module to be developed separately. If the original system didn't support server-server communication, someone could quite easily write a new one that did.
Re:GAIM, etc. (Score:4)
AOL Actually has 2 protocols. One is the toc protocol, which is a much simpler string-based protocol that only has one server, toc.aol.com. It does not allow fine grained control such as changing passwords and such, but only provides the basic communications. OSCAR, the main AIM protocol is proprietary. Altough several attempts at reverse-engineering the protocol are in affect.
Matt
Re:eh? (Score:2)
The idea doesn?t bother you? Don't get me wrong, I like AOL as much as everyone else (*cough*), but doesn?t the idea of one company having so much power disturb you? AOL has constantly been disruptive force online. And their policies about things like free speech are not anywhere near the policies laid out in the US constitution.
When I had an AOL account, back in the day, the provided free web space. And they still do, it's just, you need to have a huge add plastered up on your site. I find that disgusting. Profiting of other peoples work (when they are already paying for the service). AOL is commoditizing its user base in more ways than I can imagine (this is a company that used to sell mailing lists of its users). I don't think AOL owing one of the largest 'old media' companies in the US (and the world) doesn't exactly warm my heart.
It used to be the dream that the Internet would break down the barriers of nation and the world. And in some ways, it has. The other day I got an ICQ message from someone in Iran. But in that world it isn't the individual that's being empowered, it?s the corporation.
I hope the FTC cuts this merger like a dead rat.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
OpenIM (Score:4)
The TOC protocol has always been open since they released the specifications for the Java TIC and Tcl/Tk TiK clients some time ago.
Then you have Jabber, which offers free open source clients and servers that bridge between their own open source XML protocol, AOL's [TOC probably] and AOL's/Mirabilis ICQ. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be incredibly popular.
Why not marshall all the protocols together on the client end? MSN, Yahoo!, AIM... whatever.
I've been working on an open source prototype using this idea for a bit now. Its Win32 and written in VB6, but the final product is planned to be compiled in Delphi 5.0: elysium.systemcrash.org.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Probably a stupid question.. (Score:2)
Re:big deal (Score:3)
It's worth the download, IMO. Hopefully it'll only get better over time.
Start using Jabber (Score:5)
People need to start using Jabber. The have a few clients up already and are working on more, it seems this projects only problem is a shortage of users and testers.
Re:Thank God. (Score:2)
--
BetaNews quotes eFront, eFront Quotes BetaNews (Score:4)
Here is the article on eFront [efront.com]. And here [theregister.co.uk] is the Register article about FTC's request.
And here are some additional background links from c|net: 1 [cnet.com] and 2 [cnet.com]. Each of those is extensively linked to additional information about AOL's previous runins with Tribal Voice and MS.
oscar? or toc? (Score:5)
TOC is what AOL had all the docs for, and what thier TiK client used. It's also what gaim uses to communicate with.TOC basicly being a "front-end" so to speak for the real protocol
Oscar is their closed protocol they use for their own official clients. Probably better then TOC, I'm not sure on the specifics, hopefully others will post. This has NEVER been open, and subject to change. I'm sure all gaim users remember a couple weeks ago, when they changed to login sequence and we couldn't get in for a few days until the gaim guys figured out how they changed it.
If it's just TOC they are re-releasing, then it's not much more then all the info that's already out there. If it's Oscar, then it should let all clents such as gaim, and even the un-offical icq clients, like licq and gnomeicq, to intergrate AIM support.
But I have a feeling it's TOC, and not Oscar they are going to open up. Hopefully others will post and set all the technical details straight.
Probably a stupid question.. (Score:3)
AIM List
Randomguy
lalala
mr.nobody
ICQ List
Randomguy
YetAnotherInstantMessenger
lalala
pete
Might be a little weird if a bunch more IM programs begin showing up/getting popular.. hmm.
AOL is right to have kept this closed (Score:5)
As much inconvenience as it's caused and most posts here to the contrary, I completely understand AOL's past position on this, at least from a business standpoint.
Microsoft's IM client will become an integrated part of all future releases of their OSes, and they'll annex the man-share of new subscribers. After that, the only ones signing up for AIM will be AOL subscribers who become AIM users by default.
AOL users (of which I doubt there are many on /.) can expect this experience:
This type of experience is just going to get worse and worse. [SARCASM]But take comfort. At least more and more of your Windows desktop will be displaying ads you can't get rid of.[/SARCASM]
Re:Cool! Now I can figure out how to disable it! (Score:2)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/software/Microsoft/Windows/Cur
HKEY_CURRENT_USER/software/Microsoft/Windows/Curr
As well as like runOnce and every thing like that in the same directorys.
Btw, a good way to find something in the registry is to do a search for something like the program file name.
Amber Yuan 2k A.D
Re:oscar? or toc? (Score:2)
Buddy Icon - Although it is pretty fun to play with it is not that useful.
Chat - Hmmmm You can do that with the TOC server...
Get File - I can think of a lot better ways to send a file than over AIM. When I went from modem to DSL it stopped working for me. They I went to cable and it works again. But I still prefer IRC, Email or what not.
Talk - I have tried the talk feature on AIM and I find that you can get free third part utilities that work better for low bandwidth solutions.
New and Stock Ticker - Well I spend my money before I earn it so I haven't found too much of a use for this one either, put their are a million other better programs that will give you the stock and news ticker for free(ex: www.yahoo.com)
BTW, if I ever get off by butt I might just put it on my web site.
Re:Culpability Flowchart (Score:2)
Now, that gets the Dumb Statment of the Day award.
AOL owns the servers, so AOL is allowed to set conditions on their use. Otherwise every person who used the RBL, which deny some others access to the users' servers, would be acting illegally.
It's not only legal for them to deny permission, but using their servers without their permission is illegal under current law. When MS bypassed AOL's restrictions, they were cracking the AOL servers, and opened themselves to criminal charges.
For all the bullshit about openess you heard from the likes of MS, nobody asked a simple question -- why didn't they set up their own open servers? AIM can be targeted at non-AOL servers, after all; but MS didn't even set up a single AIM-accessible server.
No, what MS wanted was free access to an infrastructure and community AOL built. Why the hell should MS have free access to something AOL paid for?
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Probably a stupid question.. (Score:2)
Say, for some reason, you have two identically named people, one on AIM and one on ICQ. In order to send a message to the person on AIM, you would address your Jabber message as: JoeBlow@aim. ICQ would be: JoeBlow@icq. (Notwithstanding that you can't have somebody on ICQ named JoeBlow, because ICQ identifiers are numbers...)
The Jabber service simply checks the "domain" of the message (aim, icq, msn, etc.) and then routes the message through the appropriate service.
Re:About Freakin' Time! (Score:2)
Built into IBM mainframes (Score:2)
Why dones't the FTC butt out? (Score:3)