Microsoft, Yahoo Finally Merge IM Networks 299
WinBreak writes "Marketwatch is reporting that, nine months after their announcement, Microsoft and Yahoo! are finally ready to roll out beta IM clients of MSN Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger that will be able to talk to each other." The Windows Live Ideas and Yahoo! Messenger pages have more information; the companies say that the resulting user community will be the world's largest, at around 350 million accounts, and that they'll be using SSL to encrypt the traffic between the systems.
Solution? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gaim user here by the way, I haven't tried to contact an MSN user through my Yahoo account yet, and I wonder if it is (or will be) possible.
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
Re:Solution? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Solution? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
This should slow down the propagation of worms. Suppose MSN and Yahoo have the same number of users. The space being searched has now doubled, so a worm affecting only one of the major clients (the MSN client or the Yahoo client) will need to attack double the number of users just to successfully infect the same number of users as it currently would.
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
Most worms just grab the contact list and send themselves to all contacts, one after the other. There is no 'space' to search.
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
Re:Solution? (Score:2)
You're assuming Yahoo users can be infected by MSN worms, and vice-versa. I'm assuming that can't happen, which means that each worm can only infect 50% of the users it comes into contact with, as opposed to 100% if the networks were to stay separate.
Of course, this is an overly simplified view, since I'm assuming that worms can infect based on which client is being used.
Re:gaim-vv (Score:3, Insightful)
You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:2)
I think the Kopete and Gaim teams should work together on these features personally, but that is just me.
Re:You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:2)
It's unfortunate that you got modded Troll, because I agree with you completely.
If I want to do voice or video chat, I'll open a separate application. I don't want to have my voice/video program running constantly on my PC, at least not given the propensity of th
Re:You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say my major use of IM systems isn't to actually communicate to people via messages but to communicate status: the ability to run my eyes down my buddy list and see exactly who's available and who's not and who's at lunch/in a meeting/whatever has changed how I work. IRC is less about having a fixed list of people and knowing their status all the time, then having a parti
Yeah right. (Score:3, Funny)
What an absurd concept.
Nobody will every put that kind of stupid technology in use...
(besides 2 billion mobile phones sold worldwide and much more landlines than there are internet connected computers. Think again moron)
Re:You Can Have Your Unstable Apps (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:gaim-vv (Score:2)
It's not dead, it's been merged back in with GAIM, which as you can clearly see, hasn't had a new release in just a month shy of a year.
Fortunately GAIM doesn't work under Windows with GTK+ 2.8, so I can't use it at all anymore. (All versions, including the 2.0 betas which haven't seen a new release since March.)
Re:gaim-vv (Score:2)
Re:gaim-vv (Score:2)
Connecting, to anything. It's on the known issues list. You cannot be using WinGaim 2.0beta3 with GTK+ 2.8.18, because it doesn't work - I've tried it. It disconnects almost immediately and fails to stay connected. It's caused by a race condition, so if you're using an exceptionally slow computer, it may be possible to stay connected, but it doesn't work in all but the luckiest cases.
Re:gaim-vv (Score:2)
Besides, the users can CHOOSE to use whatever the fuck they want. the goal of Gaim isn't to control the IM market. It doesn't even have its own protocol!!!
Tom
Re:Solution? (Score:2, Informative)
Gaim File Transfer (Score:2)
Last summer they had a Summer of Code person working on improving file transfer. I'm not sure if that was just for AIM or for MSN as well.
I use Adium daily, which is a Gaim derivative for OS X, and I don't have any problems when using MSN file transfer with people using the stock client on the other end. AIM file transfer seems to be hit or miss; I think there is an issue with firewalls --
Now can we add AIM? (Score:5, Insightful)
dave
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Google is building some sort of stupid AIM functionality into their client.
2. AOL will realize that staying a closed network will cause them to go the way of the dodo, and the best way to keep their users is open up an XMPP (Jabber) gateway. Not a transport mind you, a full-blown gateway that makes it transparent, allowing AOL to use their existing OSCAR protocol in-house while talking to the Jabber network.
If this occurs, and Microsoft
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:2)
so yeah, it's nice that googletalk and AIM might interoperate, but I think the real action will be when msn and aim interoperate.
dave
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:3, Informative)
That's more or less how I used to feel about my Jabber account. But since Google Talk has come along, I've been finding it easier to convince my friends to make the switch.
To begin with, I had been urging my AIM-using friends to switch to the GAIM/Adium clients for a couple of years now, which was easy because the official AIM client is such a kludge. Since many of my friends use GMail anyway, once they were using a multi-protocol IM client it was easy to get them to take the extra step of signing onto
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:4, Informative)
Since they've built the chat features into GMail, I know a lot of people who use it, particularly from work. Quite a few people I know just leave their GMail open at work in the background in a browser window, and this means that they're signed on to GTalk.
I guess this may not apply if your friends all don't use GMail for their personal email, but a lot of mine do. The person that uses Hotmail or Yahoo Mail is the exception rather than the rule, and I think this is only going to grow since I've seen a lot of recent college grads signing up for GMail (even non-techie ones), while previously they might have gone for Hotmail or Yahoo. (I think the major selling point of Gmail is actually that the namespace for email addresses isn't as exhausted as Hotmail's or Yahoo's are, meaning you have a shot of getting your real name, plus it doesn't have quite the "Internet ghetto" reputation that a Hotmail address does. Even my mother knows that a Hotmail address is the shitty basement apartment of the virtual world.)
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:2)
Great! More cross-IM malware to come ! Spammers and others won't have to spam multiple IM networks. They would only need to infect one, probably the weakest link...
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:2)
isn't the weakest link typically the users?
dave
Re:Now can we add AIM? (Score:4, Funny)
YOU are the weakest link. Goodbye.
"AIM and ICQ interconnected" (Score:3, Interesting)
ICQ's popularity was ramping up at such a speed its IM implementation looked like it might overshadow AOL's which was losing customers due to dis-satisfaction with the AIM client environment.
ICQ still exists and was rolled into AIM. However, shortly after the buyout the dev teams were slashed (Mac team eliminated) and updates seem to have slowed to a snails pace. Most ICQ users I interacted with have all used the
Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Or Google's Jabber client. I have a Jabber server, but I never use it. Does anyone use Jabber?
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be nice to see there be some official standards of a chat protocol. The thing that is in the way of us achieving of truly open chat is the fact that the account providers think they "own" the users -- which is why they are possesive about them. Not sure how to get around that either.
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice to see there be some official standards of a chat protocol.
There is: http://www.jabber.org/ [jabber.org]
The thing that is in the way of us achieving of truly open chat is the fact that the account providers think they "own" the users -- which is why they are possesive about them.
Yes, that is the problem. It has nothing to do with technology or standards availability.
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
Another problem I encountered is that when I set up my own server, it had trouble communicating with some of the main open jabber servers (jabber.com or jabber.org, I forgot which); with the problem appearing
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
Yes. About 70% of the people on my contact list have a Jabber account, 30% use ICQ/AIM and 60% use MSN. Note: Some people have more than one, which is why the numbers do not add up to 100%.
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
I really believe that Jabber is the best thing that happened to the IM world ever. It's only a shame that inertia alone keeps people holding on to services like AIM, MSN or even ICQ. I mean, the protocol is extremelly well thought out and the developing community is
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
I have a Jabber server, but I never use it. Does anyone use Jabber?
Yes. I've seen quite a few more people using it because of Google's efforts. What I''d like to see is AOL move completely to Jabber and partner with IBM, Apple, and other players to make it the built in protocol in all their offerings.
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
Well of course the silly answer is, Yes. The slightly less silly answer is that I too have a jabber server, and have been happily running it for several years, and using it essentially every day. Right now, I'm using it to read the commentary on a cricket match.
Sure I have accounts on a couple of the commercial IM networks, and it's true that sometimes one does have to resort to using them, but only for the
Re:Wow, I would have never expected that to happen (Score:2)
I wonder what it means for Gaim and Trillian.
GAIM will still have an audience with Linux users, Mac users (via Adium), and any Windows users who have multiple IM accounts, like OSS, or just IMing without ads. Sounds like the same audience they had two days ago.
Or Google's Jabber client. I have a Jabber server, but I never use it. Does anyone use Jabber?
Lots of people have gmail, and each of them basically have a Jabber account already. Even if you don't use Google's client, they have it built into Gm
Jabber (Score:2)
Also, Google Chat is Jabber based.
Re:universities could offer students Jabber accoun (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was in school most recently, the de facto standard was AIM. I think there were some people around who used MSN, but they were thought to be fairly odd. ("What's that? It looks funny...")
Although I really like the concept of Jabber and of lots of servers networked together and inter
Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Interesting)
It may occasionally be useful as an option, but it seems like overkill for the other 99.9% of conversations.
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation to American English (Score:5, Insightful)
Americanized:
I don't care that there used to be legal protections keeping the government from tapping my phone without a court order.
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
And do you see the point here? Not everything legal is moral, not everything illegal is immoral. E.g., trade secrets are usually neither illegal nor immoral. Do you want your mom's secret cookie recipe to fall into the wrong hands?
And AFIAC absolutely none of it is the government's or anyone else's business. I'd like to see encryption built into every IM and email client, even if I didn't need to use it myself. Your processor cycles and memory are being
Re:Encryption (Score:5, Interesting)
Always.
Here's the thing: if you pass plaintext traffic 99.9% of the time, it's going to look awfully suspicious when you encrypt that remaining 0.1%. Maybe you're only asking your coworker what kind of beer to buy for that party you're having and don't want the nosy network admin reading about it (or insert other innocent use here), but suddenly your messages stick out like a sore thumb.
Encrypt your traffic whenever possible even if you don't need it. If and when you actually do need it, you'll be glad you did.
To make is useful occasionally, you gotta use it (Score:4, Insightful)
For better security, just encrypt everything. From your flight plans for next week to the grocery list of last week. As soon as there is more to be searched than can be searched in reasonable time, snooping becomes as informative as not snooping.
You can't keep your government out of your conversation. They can muscle in, invade into your privacy and should someone cry out against it he's gonna be a commu... I mean terrorist (sorry, I'm still living in the past). So instead of withholding information, which you can't do, flood them with it.
Re:Encryption (Score:2)
The first client that comes to mind is Psi, which has a great support for OpenPGP encryption. The jabber standards require SSL/TSL encryption to start a XML stream and the client itself is capable of encrypting your messages without a problem. So, as it is easy to see, there is absolutely no need for a new protocol. I guess the only barrier here is the phobia of open-ness, which makes all those companies cringe at open stand
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Insightful)
MS might possibly switch to using Jabber, but that'd cost them a lot to change things over, and then they'd want to enhance the protocol to handle some things that the MSN protocol allowed but Jabber doesn't, and then the open source community would start to shout how MS is em
Re:Encryption (Score:3, Informative)
YAY! That means less engineering... (Score:2, Insightful)
aMSN in Linux? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can aMSN be used for video chat between 2 yahoo users now?
Re:aMSN in Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah Trillian! (Score:3, Informative)
The merging of networks does have its advantages for the developers of consolidated IM clients since they can now use the same protocol for two networks.
Re:Ah Trillian! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ah Trillian! (Score:2)
Re:Ah Trillian! (Score:2)
Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:2)
Those are the companies' numbers, but according to a survey done by another firm in June (mentioned in this Reuters article [reuters.co.uk]), the estimated unduplicated audience of Windows Live and Yahoo messengers was 43.5 million U.S. users. Perhaps Yahoo and MS are counting all Yahoo and Passport accounts? Personally I have several Yahoo accounts and only use one for IM, and I'm sure many other accounts aren't
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:2)
Or perhaps the world is something more than the U.S.? I know it sounds incredible to some of you, but it may be true!
Re:Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Score:2)
And by the way I'm not American, so I do know that other parts of the world exist
Amerikkkaaa. (Score:2)
In fact, it only a very small part. less than 5% of the world population.
And even there they have 45 million users.
So those numbers _might_ not be as inflated as they seem at first.
350 million? (Score:5, Funny)
On a more serious note, I wonder what rules they used to deal with dupes (AFAIK, you can register for MSN with any e-mail... what about yahoo accounts? maybe I'm misinformed)
Re:350 million? (Score:2)
Why should they deal with dupes? If you open two accounts with each service you have 4 accounts and you will be counted four times. Nothing to deal with.
Re:350 million? (Score:2)
Betcha the Mac client will lag by several years... (Score:2)
dude, Adium (Score:5, Informative)
Adium: http://adiumx.com/ [adiumx.com]
Re:Betcha the Mac client will lag by several years (Score:2)
It makes me wonder if that's tied in to this whole MSN/Yahoo intercompatibility thing - because MSN *does* have a very nice, current Mac OS X client.
Re:Betcha the Mac client will lag by several years (Score:2)
encrypted traffic and homeland security.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If they don't encrypt the traffic between users then they will have plausible deniability about participating in e-tapping users for things like homeland security or marketing data mining.
On the other hand, if they encrypt the communications they could be asked to actively provide access to the communications of others- opening them up to lawsuits galore.
Lastly, if the communication between clients were open then logs of them could be processed, useful data harvested, and sold to marketers. But if the data were encrypted then the marketees would have a pretty good idea where their data was compromised.
It's not personal, just business.
This explains my Gaim login errors this morning. (Score:2)
Not to mention weird connectivity issues last night with the horribly archaic Y!M for OS X.
Re:This explains my Gaim login errors this morning (Score:2)
Re:This explains my Gaim login errors this morning (Score:2)
I had no idea there was a beta. Of course it is not available from their web site (or at least, I could not find it), but VersionTracker seems to know about it [versiontracker.com]. Is that correct?
Re:This explains my Gaim login errors this morning (Score:2, Informative)
How's it work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it as simple as adding "@yahoo" or "msn:" to your buddy names, and from there all traffic is magically routed at the server side? That is, you'd use a Yahoo protocol with your yahoo client to send a message to the yahoo server, where it'll see that the destination buddy's name starts with "msn:" and so routes it to the MSN server, where it's then sent to yoru buddy?
'cause if it's *that* simple, then it'd be no time at all before this works its way into the other clients.
Re:How's it work? (Score:2)
How do they deal with the issue of duplicate names on the MSN and Yahoo networks, as well? There must be some commonly-used names that exist on both systems, and if you have one in your buddy list and want to add the other one (on the other network), you'll have to add something that identifies it as being foreign.
What's interesting to me is that this could lead to people who have abandoning one or the other, in favor of whichever client is perceived as best. Right now if
Re:How's it work? (Score:3, Informative)
In Jabber clients, your IM name looks a lot like an email address, so that the server knows what server to send a particular message to. So for example, if you have a jabber.org IM account, and you want to talk to someone on a Google Talk account, you can just add username@gmail.com to your buddy list (or in reverse, you can add username@jabber.org to your GTalk buddy list).
My business runs a Jabber
anyone know how to actually use this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong discussion (Score:2)
GoogleTalk, Jabber, Gizmo and others (Score:2, Insightful)
Google Talk, Gizmo, and Jabber all communicate using the conveniently open XMPP [wikipedia.org] protocol (yes, like ATM machine, I know).
This means new networks can connect to Google Talk (and the others I believe) without having to go through the absurd process of forging inter-company relationships and the like. It also means that new networks that appear using XMPP can
Damn Encryption (Score:3, Funny)
interface: eth1 (10.10.10.0/255.255.255.0)
filter: ip and ( port 1863 )
match: MSG
###############
T 207.46.26.138:1863 -> 10.20.20.176:1319 [AP]
MSG strathcona@hotmail.com FunFun 141..MIME-Version: 1.0..Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8..X-MMS-IM-Format: FN=Arial; EF=; CO=0....I sure hope they don't start encrypting MSN traffic... what would I do at work during the down times
Re:So it looks like (Score:4, Informative)
http://webmessenger.msn.com/ [msn.com]. Or Google [Yahoo Web Messenger [google.com]].
Re:So it looks like (Score:3, Informative)
Re:annnnndddddd GAIM (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like the 6th post I've seen saying "What about GAIM?". What about it?
Here's my "what about GAIM" (Score:3, Interesting)
So... what about GAIM? In other words, when will GAIM be able to use the MSN protocol to talk to Yahoo users?
Re:annnnndddddd GAIM (Score:2)
I really wonder how well it will help that for many current users. If you stop using your MSN account in favor of Yahoo, how do you
Re:Offline Messages? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Offline Messages? (Score:2)
Re:Offline Messages? (Score:2)
Really. Everyone who never tried Jabber+Psi doesn't know what they are missing and trust me, they are missing a lot.
Re:Ask Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ask Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Accounts != Users (Score:2)
Re:Accounts != Users (Score:2)
Re:Accounts != Users (Score:2)