
Official AIM for Linux 299
topdown writes "I just noticed that AOL released Instant Messenger Beta for Linux (rpm format for RedHat, SuSE, and Mandrake). Don't know about you, but I'll be sticking with gaim for now." Wow, this is fantastic news. Way to be on the cutting edge, AOL. Sorry, but this release doesn't even warrant a copy of our home game. I still don't forgive you for using the Jetsons theme music in your commercials.
Let me get this straight (Score:4)
"Getting away message" (Score:1)
I found that all too anoying and I misunderstood it initially to mean that the other person was telling me automagically that they were going off-line...
Hmmmm.... (Score:1)
Does it use OSCAR or TOC?
I wish they would've worked with an existing project instead of spinning their own half-ass version. Those screenshots don't look all that impressive.
Heck (Score:1)
Hrmm (Score:2)
Gaim? No thanks... (Score:3)
humm not bad (Score:1)
Linux86. (Score:4)
Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
What advantage does AIM have over ICQ, other than the fact that it's used by millions of AOL users (no comment on that one :)?
Wasn't some group working on a unified messaging protocol? Is any progress being made on that front? The last thing I want to mess with is having multiple messaging apps on my desktop.
Jabber (Score:1)
Of course, OpenProjectsNet on IRC is still my favourite place to chat (my nick is talon, say hi if you see me).
Ad Impressions (Score:1)
Personally, I prefer everybuddy, which offers some cool features my windows friends with the official AIM wish they had (like "Joe Schmoe" showing up rather than joeylooser3456.)
-Pete
Arrgh! RPM! (Score:1)
AIM For Linux- Co-Opting IM Standard? (Score:3)
No ads?? (Score:1)
Shaun
Too little, too late (Score:1)
Good start, but . . . (Score:1)
Now if they'll work on an ICQ client for Linux . . . or either actively contribute to the development of a clone like GnomeICU.
On that note, wonder why they didn't contribute to GAIM? It's not like they haven't released the TOC specs . . .
-------
Use of Jetsons music on AOL commercial (Score:1)
; )
What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:2)
Then there's the aolserver, whatever the advantages of that over apache I haven't a clue.
AOL for Linux might sound like the end of the world, but really, it would set some sort of precident for the software industry. AOL is doing it, why aren't we?
I still wouldn't use it myself, but I know a few people who might give Linux a shot if they could use AOL under Linux.
Hey, it's lightweight at least (Score:1)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:1)
Of all the companies out there, AOL seems most likely to work with an open source program, particularly given their connection to a number of open source projects like Mozilla, but it still raises a lot of issues regarding their technology they may not like to get into.
Still, even though it may not be as impressive as gaim or some other AIM clones out there for Linux, it's never a bad thing, IMO, when a company at least makes an effort to support the system. It may never be as nice as the alternatives, but that doesn't make it a bad thing by any means.
Re:Linux86. (Score:1)
Re:Hrmm (Score:1)
BTW - i'm still interested in getting a "call-screening" plugin going for GAIM, which would basically give an away message to anyone except for the people on your list of exceptions. Kind of like for when you wanna be on GAIM, but don't want to be mean to everyone and ignore them. Some will get an away message, while your best buds will get through and you can talk to them! Like it?
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
IRC will always be better than instant messaging (Score:2)
Long Live IRC!
Re:Linux86. (Score:5)
It's annoying to see XYZ for Linux! when it's really Linux/x86. Years ago, people came up with the word Wintel to describe Windows on Intel. Perhaps we should coin Linux86 to describe Linux on x86 so people understand what platform of Linux you're talking about. Remember - you heard it here first!
Surely it should be Lintel. After all, a lintel is that piece of architecture that goes above your Windows.
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:5)
And it'll have a linux specific name, too: (Score:5)
People who use LAIM will be called LAIMers.
And that one actor on Star Wars episode one will sue when AOL gets the domain name LAIM
-Adam
How are we clapping?
I have no idea...
Re:Linux86. (Score:3)
Nah - All the Windows 9x people would think Linux86 was 14 years old.
------
LICQ Features... (Score:3)
Instant-Messenger alternatives (Score:3)
GAIM [marko.net]
GnomeICU [gdev.net]
LICQ [licq.org]
Considering what AOL did to Mozilla, you're probably better off with an open-source clone.
--
Kiro
angry emmett (Score:2)
Now he/she doesn't have to reboot to windows to talk to their teeny-bopper friends.
Now only if they had Photoshop and hundreds of other apps by the original company making it for Linux. Woohoo!
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:2)
What?!?!?! All the Linux AIM clients I know of use TOC [tufts.edu], which was designed by AOL specifically to allow third-party clients.
Re:BSD (Score:2)
The whole Linux/BSD argument is fundamentally flawed. The real 'argument' (if you can call an obvious forgone conclusion an argument) is Windows/Unix.
One more reason why Windows wins the argument is that it presents a unified product range to the user. It's Windows or Windows. The user doesn't have to debate the relative 'merits' of This Linux/That Linux/This BSD/That BSD/Other Unix. Never mind what each one is best for, Windows is a single product which is suitable for everything.
And you wonder why it's so popular...
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Ok, I'll bite... (Score:2)
If you're not impressed, then why are you posting this?
Oh right, I get it, you're trying to beat all of the "this is slashdot, not freshmeat!" crowd to the punch, right?!? (Moderators: Just kidding!)
Seriously though, if AOL is finally getting around to writing their own "official" client for Linux, then that's more Linux software out there, which is good in my book.
Personally, I won't even be using GAIM; I'll be using Jabber [jabber.org] since I don't like the idea of *every* message I write being sent not only plaintext, but across AOL's servers - which gives them the legal right to read my message!
Jabber supports SSL connections (at least on the server side, I haven't seen a client that supports it yet), so at some point I'll even be able to have my conversations encrypted! (Of course, I could just ssh into my friend's box and use talk locally...)
--Cycon
Re:And it'll have a linux specific name, too: (Score:3)
Let me get this straight, too... (Score:3)
Re:Good start, but . . . (Score:2)
---
Rob Flynn
Re:This is not a bad thing!!! (Score:2)
Looks like GTK.
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
Well, I prefer AIM because the user interface is *so* much better. You don't have to keep clicking on all sorts of crap just to hold a conversation. The odd thing is that this has nothing to do with the protocol. ICQ clients could use the AIM interface, but for some reason every client I've seen takes after the horrable crappy original ICQ interface. Anyone know of one that doesn't?
There are several such efforts, but I think the one most likely to catch on is AOL's new open server-to-server protocol. It will unite the already existing services without requiring the users to get new software... well, maybe. AOL actually went through the whole RFC etc. process with this one, which is pretty cool.
------
Re:"Getting away message" (Score:2)
I wouldn't use it... (Score:2)
Second of all, I'm sure that they've added all sorts of stupid banner ads to the program, just like they did on the Windows version. I just don't want to be advertised to. That's reason enough to stick with GAIM, even if the official version had more features.
Thirdly, a question. Do they distribute tarballs? Not everyone can use RPMs. Again, you really can't say that you've got a Linux-compatible piece of software if it comes in a package that isn't universally used.
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Re:Instant-Messenger alternatives (Score:2)
It's the thought that counts. (Score:2)
Re:IRC will always be better than instant messagin (Score:2)
give them a break (Score:2)
--
you must amputate to email me
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Re:What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:2)
AOL Considers Linux? [slashdot.org]
Who knows? I bet if they do bring out a handheld aol linux client they may just do it for regular linux.
I'd personally love it if they did bring it out. It'd be a sad binary-only release, and, if they follow their current pattern there'd be no
"I may not have morals, but I have standards." - Marcin
Re:What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:5)
Gotta stand up for my webserver of choice, here :)
AOLserver is a full multi-threaded webserver that has a built-in TCL interpreter. It's easy to install, and the latest version (3.0) is wicked fast. It also excels at database connectivity.
Due to it's threaded nature, and the pooling of DB connections, it tends to be faster than Apache in dynamically generated web sites. An Apache God could probably match AOLserver with careful tuning, so speed isn't really much of an issue.
I just like AOLserver better than Apache, mainly due to the OpenACS guys [openacs.org] and the work they've done. Great out-of-the-box functionality (and, soon available for Apache as well).
AOLserver 3.0 is also open-sourced (a true GPL, I believe). Be nice to those guys -- they did the right thing with AOLserver; maybe they'll do the same for AIM (errmmm.... maybe).
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:5)
Being able to talk to millions of people is a handy feature at times. Probably about 1/2 to 3/4 of my non-(computer)-geek friends are on AOL, and most of the rest use AIM; while maybe 2 use ICQ. Being able to chat with your friends & family is the whole point of messaging software. It's the old betamax vs VHS thing: one is technically superior while the other is incredibly popular.
The main technical difference between the two protocols is that (IIRC) ICQ messages are delivered peer-to-peer, whereas AIM messages are all routed via their servers. This is a big security advantage because random lusers and script kiddies can't find out your IP address (unless you use the newer features like buddy icons, file x-fer, and voice chat).
If you think that by using ICQ you arn't fuelling the AOL collective, guess again -- AOL assimilated ICQ years ago.
The advantage of this, as I see it, is that it helps show the non-geek masses that Linux is a viable alternative to M$ Winblows. Say what you will about their (hideous) software or their (horrible) customer service -- they make getting online about as idiot-proof as is possible. If you have the hardware, a pulse, and one of their coasters, you can get on line.
There are a lot of people need that kind of simplicity. Anyone who's ever worked tech support knows how confused the average windows luser gets when you try and walk them thru setting up dial-up networking and mail settings.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:Linamp? (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I'll bite... (Score:2)
Of course, you realize that despite your ssl connection to the jabber server, your message will still be plaintext as far as the server is concerned right? I mean, sure, nobody ELSE will be able to read it by sniffing your connection, but the server still can. (It has to! how else could it route your message?). Talk about false sense of security...
Of course, if you instead mean pgp/gpg encryption, sure that'll work, but you don't need jabber to do it either.
That said, I think jabber rocks and hope to see more people start using it instead of proprietary protocols.
Re:And it'll have a linux specific name, too: (Score:2)
>I have no idea...
Gerry, fire up the "wall-minator!"
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
Well, I prefer AIM because the user interface is *so* much better. You don't have to keep clicking on all sorts of crap just to hold a conversation.
Odd, another of my friends made the same comment. Of course, this can go the other way too. I really don't like windows just popping out of midair interrupting me as I work. I realize that aim now has an away window that queue's messages, but it nevertheless takes up screen space. Also, I have no way of responding to just one person (or even pulling their message from the queue) without dropping my away status. It's a bit of a pain. Don't get me wrong, I see a benefit to BOTH interfaces, and would prefer if the clients used a mix between them. Say, if I have no chat window onscreen, it has to be "picked up" from the list to be read (configurable, of course). But if there is already a window, then it goes there. Also, just because I'm away doesn't mean I might not want to send a few messages anyway.
The odd thing is that this has nothing to do with the protocol. ICQ clients could use the AIM interface, but for some reason every client I've seen takes after the horrable crappy original ICQ interface. Anyone know of one that doesn't?
ICQ 2000 does this. <shudder> I realize icq's big and bloated and evil and.... but the feature is there. It's not enabled by default, but it shows up as an extra button on the recieved message box.
HTH
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
Yep. Big plus. Huge plus. I wouldn't have met my wife if it was not for AIM. She IMed me out of the blue one day about 2 years ago because the thought my profile was humerous. The rest is history :-)
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Re:And it'll have a linux specific name, too: (Score:2)
TiK supports emoticons :-) (Score:2)
'nuff said.
Re:And it'll have a linux specific name, too: (Score:2)
Actually I've been longing for a Kick button, or maybe Punt. Ahh, if only they hadn't fixed the ̂ bug in AIM for Windows....
--
better alternative than Everybuddy (Score:2)
Use Jabber [jabber.org]. It's an open protocol, and the server handles the ICQ/IM/MSN issues. Also, it has encryption and much better authentication than the other systems.
I was an Everybuddy user, until I found Jabber -- this is _much_ better.
America Online for Linux (Score:2)
--
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd never considered Mirabilis to be less annoying than AOL, so I've certainly not chosen clients based on the company's reputation.
I guess I've always liked ICQ better because, well, it was there. AIM always was always bizarrely anti-elitist. The great unwashed masses were happily wallowing away, while technophiles used ICQ as the only viable option.
Do you really suppose that your average AOLer will have a different opinion of *NIX just because an AIM client is available?
RPM (Score:2)
--
Re:What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:3)
GAIM, Everybuddy, TiK, et al don't have ads in them, so AOL doesn't consider them threats. The fact that they don't run out of the box on Windows or MacOS, the OS's that most of their customers use, makes them that much less of a threat.
Re: Good start, but . . . (Score:2)
-------
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
--temas
Jabber ROCKS! [jabber.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
I never really got into ICQ. I started using AIM instead because I know many people who use AIM or AOL, and very few people who use ICQ, and I have yet to meet someone I want to talk to who uses ICQ and doesn't also use AIM. So yes, those millions of users really are a good reason. Well, some of the millions anyway.
I've heard about a LOT of security issues with ICQ. Everything's client-to-client, so you can get everyone's IP address. With AIM, messages are send client-to-server, so there's no way for someone to get your IP address if you don't want them to have it. They recently added file transfers, voice chats and IM images, which are all client-to-client, but it asks you before accepting a connection, so if you don't want them getting your IP, you can just say no.
Wasn't some group working on a unified messaging protocol? Is any progress being made on that front? The last thing I want to mess with is having multiple messaging apps on my desktop.
AOL actually submitted a proposal for how to send IMs back and forth between different providers (AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, AT&T, etc.). I look forward to seeing it implemented; their proposal seems sound. Of course, everyone seems to see AOL as a bully in this issue, but really, what have they actually done that they shouldn't have? I won't say I particularly like them (and the AOL service itself certainly sucks), but I have to defend them on this.
--
It's in Beta, baby! (Score:2)
Re:AOL's AOL (Score:2)
Did you look at the page? The AIM Linux client currently does not show ads.
Re:jabber (Score:2)
Eric
--
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
ICQ2000a has moved more towards the AOL 'one window per conversation' model. I still like the normal ICQ interface. If I have 13 conversations, i don't need all the windows open at once.
Re:Jabber (Score:2)
Jabber's own protocol is based on streaming XML, meaning that the protocol can be used for more than just simple IM. Look for new and exciting developments along these lines, coming soon.
Eric
--
Re:Instant-Messenger alternatives (Score:3)
Jabber.org [jabber.org]
Jabber.com [jabber.com]
Jabber Central [jabbercentral.com]
Eric
--
Re:What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:2)
It looks like they're even using it on www.aol.com:
$ lynx -head http://www.aol.com
Server: NaviServer/2.0 AOLserver/2.3.3
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:2)
Feh. If making an AIM client without ads is illegal, then junkbuster is illegal as well. See anyone complaining about junkbuster's legality?
Re:Releasing not to have to release protocol (Score:2)
--temas
Jabber ROCKS! [jabber.org]
The reason AOL is doing this... (Score:2)
What's sad is that Linux distributions will likely package AOL's official client instead of Gaim (or others) merely because it is "official."
Feh, I bet it'll probably use motif too.
Re:IRC will always be better than instant messagin (Score:2)
They can't use GAIM, because GAIM is GPL'ed (Score:2)
Now that AOL's getting into the net appliance business and gearing up to offer AOL service to Linux devices, Linux is a platform they care about because it will eventually be the platform of a big chunk of their user base. So they need an AIM client that they control, that they can serve ads to that can't be disabled, among other things.
GAIM, swell as it is, can't be the basis for AOL's official Linux AIM client. Why? Because GAIM is GPL'ed, not even issued under a dual license. So anything they do with the GAIM code would have to be released as open source. Which would mean that folks would be able to make adless versions of it.
Once a good 3-4% of AIM users are using Linux, or AOL starts offering its paid services via Linux devices, you should expect to see GAIM, TiK and the other OSS AIM clients get blocked out just as agressively as MSN Instant Messenger has been.
And once AOL works out contracts with Microsoft, Yahoo, et al. that guarantee free flow and full reporting of AOL's ads, you'll see MSN Messenger, etc. suddenly gain access to AOL's network. Not so the OSS stuff, because it would imply discriminatory business practices.
If GAIM were under a BSD-style or MPL-style license, you can bet AOL would make use of their code. My hunch is that the GAIM developers have no interest in a license that allows closed-source forks in the code, though. Good for them. But honestly, the GPL doesn't leave much room to work out a deal by which the GAIM developers could offer up AOL's ad stream in exchange for continued access to the AIM servers from an "official" GAIM release.
The moral of the story? The GAIM team should start thinking about exit strategies. Do they modularize it and release each module separately under the GPL so they can be used as plugins by AOL's official client? Do they go to a dual-license model so AOL can use all their hard work? Do they find new projects to work on and leave it out to dry so none of the code gets used by AOL?
Compromise: GNU Lesser GPL. (Score:2)
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
That's Why Open Source is sooo good. (Score:3)
For years people have proclaimed "now you have the code, you can make changes if you want." Well, guess what, 99.5% of the people who use software don't know how to make changes!
So again I'd like to point out, "Now that you have the code, you can OPTIMIZE it for your system." And, yes, that does really matter. And, no, you don't need to know how to program to do it.
Take the example of Mandrake, maybe you think Mandrake is all hype, it's not. I started using Mandrake about a year ago after getting sick of recompiling everything by hand. I have done tests to prove to myself that Mandrake benchmark scores [current.nu] are higher than other Linux distributions like Gentus Benchmark Results [current.nu] on the exact same system (NOTE 1).
And that's not the end of it... that's just Pentium optimized, I could throw a few more flags in for kicks and tweak the scores more.
So, when I can get a gain of almost 40% using FREE software, try to compare the costs of doing it with hardware. A system that would be 40% faster (using hardware alone) would cost significantly more. Or, your going to get better preformance even on better hardware with optimized flags... so....
I'm a little supprised that this benifit to Open Source (that applies to all hardware types, not just x86) is soo overlooked, and "the ability to change the code" is so bragged about.
NOTE 1: Gentus is completely based on Red Hat, and Mandrake has it's roots in Red Hat software optimizations. Gentus is Red Hat with specific additions for Abit hardware, thus the better disk access times with Gentus (I can use ATA100) that with Mandrake (using only UDMA 66).
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Re:Linux86. (Score:2)
Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity
MSN Messenger had the right idea... (Score:2)
Okay to clearify, MSN Messenger had the right idea when they attempted to make thier software log on to the AOL servers and chat with thier users. They just went about it the wrong way. And since MS has a reputation of of taking over every market that did not help either.
There should be a way for AOL users to talk with MSN users,,,or ICQ users..or Yahoo...or whatever, maybe if there was a central server that could recognize the type of APP being used, and have it as easy as just adding a server or a plugin/TC to give the functionality, it would be a big hit. Though I don't know anyone with the bandwidth and the programming skills to pull off such a project.
To be perfectly honest I didn't understand why AOL had such a problem with MS connecting to thier servers and allowing people to talk with other AOL users, other than the fact that they didn't ask and it had alot to do with finding a way into the servers that was almost to the point where people were calling it 'hacking'.
But I see no problem with routing messages and getting them sent to other Instant Messaging programs. Sounds like it might be a good open source project. All we need is the bandwidth.
Re:TiK supports emoticons :-) (Score:2)
i think that, since aol used to support TiK, everyone should submit a bugreport saying that aol should again support it, again opensource. and through their ideas/input/programming, both gaim and TiK would benefit. also, they wouldn't be dumb-goats (this is rated G, btw) by starting over again on an AIM client.
ta ta for now
stall open source efforts (Score:2)
Until they release the source code for this thing, I would simply view it as an attempt to reduce the incentive for open source clients to get created.
And I think we are going to see a lot more of that corporate strategy: companies will be releasing "free" binary only or encumbered software for Linux to kill off true open source efforts, which in the long run threaten their business interests.
No Code == No Root (Score:2)
Re:Jabber (Score:2)
Eric
--
Re:better alternative than Everybuddy (Score:2)
One important advantage Jabber has over Everybuddy is that its support for "foreign" IM protocols (such as AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, MSN) are implemented as "transports" that run on the server, instead of as part of the client. That way, if AOL mucks around with their protocol, or someone implements a new IM system, the server administrator can install the necessary transport, and it is immediately usable by all Jabber clients. No update to the client is required, it just works.
Our open protocol is implemented using streaming XML, which is easy to understand and easy to extend for new purposes. I've even heard of a simple Jabber client being implemented using a combination of shell scripts, sed, and awk (though how it works I've no idea...)
Eric
--
*hehe* (Score:2)
AIM for Java (Score:2)
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, set the way-back machine to 1997 and go to the AIM download page at AOL. They used to have Windows, Macintosh and :gasp: Java versions available for download. I used to run it all the time on my Sun box. One day it just disappeared.
I will say that AIM now has a lot of cool features and GAIM just isn't keeping up.
--
Re:Ok, I'll bite... (Score:2)
>I'm not so sure about this. I know that a good sysadmin will never read people's email. I don't know if this is the law, or just ethics.
Generally speaking, yes you're right - a good sysadmin would never read people's mail. However, that means that if I'm going to use IM based on that assumption, I have to trust that all of AOL's sysadmins are trustworthy.
One could even argue that there is such a constant inundation of information passing through their servers that it's unlikely that anyone would ever pick out my messages. However, when you really think about it, all that's going through is text, which compresses easily and isn't hard to store...
Which leads me to my final point, which is that if IM messages *are* logged by the servers, then your conversations can be requested by federal authorities for the purposes of crime investigation (refer to the Microsoft trial if necessary). I'd prefer to keep my converstations going through my own servers, thank you very much.
--Cycon
Re:What's Next, AOL for Linux? (Score:2)
You know, even if you don't run Linux, you could still visit the AIM web site to see screen shots of the Linux beta. And you will see, very clearly, that the client does not display ads. (Yet.)
Re:Jabber (Score:2)
It's likely that this is a problem specific to the MSN transport itself, rather than WinJab. The MSN transport is relatively new code.
We can't necessarily find them either--Jabber servers aren't required to advertise :-). There are also Jabber servers at jabbercentral.com and hotjabber.com that I know of. Don't forget, though, that the server you're on doesn't really matter, as you can communicate with Jabber users on other servers; just add their Jabber ID (username@server.domain) to your roster, and the Jabber servers handle the details of communicating between themselves.
Eric
--
Re:Instead of ICQ? (Score:2)