Slashdot Mirror
AOL Blocking Open Source IM Clones ... Again
jeremie asks: "AOL has been attempting to block access to AIM via Jabber, GAIM, and other open source projects based on libfaim. Both Jabber.org and Jabber.com have issued statements, and are welcoming AOL to work together with the community in creating an open server to server interoperability solution that meets their FCC Conditions." This kind of crap makes me glad that I never completely made the move away from IRC. Of course, this isn't the first time AOL has tried to pull this off, and it seems that the supposed FCC intervention that was supposed to open the AIM protocol has fallen thru. With all of this back and forth on the issue from AOL, do we really need to use their system at all?
aol still doesn't seem to be blocking TiK, though. a frienf of mine (a windows 2000 user) does have problems with his client, but i can't even remember what its called. i'd imagine you gaim users aren't having any problems, either.
--
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
...is still working fine and dandy at 2:34am, EST. toc.oscar.aol.com:21 .
...we do need to use their system... with the amount of people already locked up by AOL (AIM, and ICQ users), AOL has us by the balls... I need my ICQ.
AOL needs to be forced to open this up... the FCC failed, the real question is what should be the next course of action.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
If ya can't beat 'em, clone 'em.
No. We do not need to use their system. Then again, they bought ICQ, added banners to it, but that's easily cracked.
And some of us are forced to use AIM as a workplace tool. (scary, I know)
In short, do we need to use AIM? No. Do we want to use it? For most of us, no. Are we stuck using it for lack of alternative? Unfortunately, yes.
That is why this hurts so badly. They are trying to kill off all chance of a reasonable alternative for those of us that loathe AOL but just can't help but like one of the two chat systems they control.
forgive the pun >:). BTW, when I asked aol to let me open source devlop their abandoned java im client they turned me down. I still have the, heh heh, decompiled source files though if anyone is interested.
Not that I have any expertise in this area at all, but would a p2p IM client, let's say based on AOL's protocols, be beyond legal reach, at least in the same scope of *tella or any other p2p software?
As long as the client doesn't have ads, its an improvement. AOL is already ruining ICQ with the damn things.
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
Everyone and there mom has said that if you want to talk to AIM, you do it on AOL's terms and use TOC. It's not that fucking hard. What does libfaim do? It uses Oscar. What were these people expecting?
The conditions for opening AOL's chat services included some sneaky clause, so they don't really have to do it. It was covered on slashdot a while back.
Also, anytime TOC hiccups, the TiK newbies go slightly bonkers, so are people sure that this isn't just a server hiccup? An incredibly extended server hiccup is not likely, but shit happens...
Heh, someone set them up the block. In any case, it could be worse. Pick up Linux AIM from http://www.aol.com/aim/linux.html
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
I'm using a version of caim I've hacked together with some additional features (can't seem to contact the author to get them included) and it uses libfaim, and its working fine.
Who is correct? At this point, it's difficult to tell. Some detractors would argue that open source technology presents an undue intrusion into the existing IM model. Jabber technology is a revolutionary alterance in the existing capacity of message interoperability; it alters the capacity for instant communication in ways that our current economic structure and techonological understanding may not be prepared to accomodate. Perhaps glitches in this untested process may condemn open-source IM programs to a footnote in computing history.
Supporters, on the other hand, say that Jabber is an important step forward for computing and communications. With previous IM platforms, users could not take advantage of the most important technological benefits gained from modern-day information research. Jabber and other open-source IM programs, they say, open the proverbial floodgates by bringing the IM technology out of the laboratories and into the homes of the every-day user.
There is some probably some merit to both viewpoints. Certainly, commerce as a whole will encounter some friction as it shifts to accomodate the power capacity and access provided by open-source instant messaging. However, the end result may be worth the infrastructural shifts; existing IM programs may not be as structurally capable as their newer cousin.
Will Jabber sink or swim? The question is still up in the air; with many unique forces and viewpoints at work, we'll likely see many interesting challenges and confrontations for the pioneers in the IM field. Whatever the final result is, it's sure to give the key players on all sides of the issue a trial by fire.
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
They're a business! Somebody explain to me why thay can't block whomever they want to block from interacting with their servers!?!
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Then again, maybe CmdrTaco and Cliff won't need it after all. ;)
I try to convert them to ICQ, but even I admit ICQ is far worse than it was at the beginning - horribly bloated and adding features no one I know gives a damn about. I have ICQ and MSN Messenger running on my system now since it's what friends of mine use. I have two people on MSN, but have to use it to chat with them. If a good friend was using AOL Messenger, I'm sure I'd add that as well.
We don't need AOL Messenger opened up as much as we need a new standard for everyone to use. If we had to use different mail programs to write to people we would be up in arms, but we put up with this IM isolation because we have to. I've tried alternatives to ICQ a couple years ago and they were all substandard. What will it take until some standards body moves in and gives us a standard that everyone has to adopt to? Maybe it's just a pipe dream, but AOL staying private seems like nothing compared to having different standards in my book.
AOL or Microsoft.
I cant even think of the anwser of a good one, but I think there is a time coming that this needs to be anwsered. Aol at least fights for certian rights, the problem is that its selective about the ones that can make them money. Or keep them from loosing it. And there is Microsoft. I dont even need to say a word about them here...
Fight censors!
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
TiK and other clients that use the TOC protocol are fully supported and allowed by AOL. Those clients that are using libfaim for OSCAR support are violating AOL's terms of service in the same way that MSN Messenger was, and it's fully within their rights to shut them down. On a side note, libfaim clients weren't working this morning, but Gaim and others appear to be working fine now. I think Slashdot jumped the gun slightly, much like the last time this happened.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Fact of the matter is aside from the coding of GAIM, FAIM, and others, these clients all need to connect to AOL's servers which can cost AOL a fortune. Sure those who use the clients (FAIM, GAIM, others) will complain about this, but when AOL created their Instant Messenger, they created it with the intentions of having AOL subscribers use it. After a while they opened it up to outside sources.
Now these outside sources (people who don't use AOL) who download the AOL IM program are subjected to advertisements and other gimmicks which creates revenue for AOL. These open source clients bypass all that gooey crap (which IMO is a good thing) so one should see clearly why AOL would want them banned. I'm hoping this was a sarcastic question.
NCR Codebreakers (Enigma machines)
360 degrees of Karma
As mentioned in the slashdot blurb up top, libfaim based clients are broken again. Take note that libfaim is a hacked library. Clients that use TOC/OSCAR to talk to the AIM servers (like Everybuddy [www.everybuddy.org]) continue to work fine.
Although, in many respects it would be desirable for AIM to open up there protocol, they haven't yet. They don't act out against TOC/OSCAR clients, though, and so that's good enough. TOC/OSCAR does have limitations compared to the full protocol, but it's still more than usable. And rather than go whining about how a library that was just a reverse-engineering job was broken, reverse-engineer it again, or use the library that isn't broken.
Now stop crying and get Everybuddy. Or Netscape 6. Or use AOL's quickbuddy. Or, god no, something other than *nux.
-Andrew
The next course of action is to surplant it with a single standard that everybody can agree on.
A standard to be run by the ISPs in much the same way that E-mail is run.
A standard which is opened, and indisputable (yeah, right), and which no one body can control.
A standard which uses an address convention that is universal to the net, in much the same way email@domain.com is universal.
Perhaps an OLM* standard could pop up that operated similar to current software... had built in anti-spam measures... was opened and free... and was operated at the expense of ISPs (A value added service that would form by it's self if the software was available.)
Just think... maybe name*domain.com or some-such address. The replacement for e-mail.
Someone writes a bunch of opened sourced servers for it, someone writes a bunch of opened sourced clients, and boom... The OLM's replace the IM's with a free alternative that nobody can control.
This is an idea I've been going over in my head for ages -- and I've even considered working on it myself but I'm not sure where to begin.
(OLM = On-Line Message. I hate the term IM... it's stupid AOL induced crap. BBS users remember the term OLM from years back. Even ICQ windows clearly state along the top "online message". It's time we replace the IM's with OLMs I say!)
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I don't know about other people, but I am getting DAMN tired of AOL and their annoying little control games. First they set up their internal browser to force people to use AOL.com as their home page (not a big deal if you use an external browser, but still, Joe Internet User won't think of that, and is helpless). Then they play those games with MSN to squash compatibility there, and here we are with our beloved clones that aren't usable anymore. Does this sound even remotely familiar? I'll give you two hints: Micro, soft.
;-) Now THERE is the way to communicate...
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if AOL didn't control the two most popular IM services. I remember when ICQ was a struggling "beta" service that actually had some quality and usability to it. Now it's laggy, buggy, and filled with security holes beyond belief. And now we have AIM, which is not an altogether powerful system, but it's always worked well for me. Of course, now it doesn't work at all, simply because I'm not willing to use their "official" client. I use Jabber and GAIM, and now I'm cut off from the people I talk to on there on a regular basis.
With the way this is going, I won't be shocked or saddened if I see AOL/Time Warner in an antitrust case by the government, a la Microsoft. In fact, I look forward to it. This BS has gone on long enough, and it's just not acceptable.
P.S. If you ask me, we should all use IRC anyway.
With all of this back and forth on the issue from AOL, do we really need to use their system at all?
..Of course! Think about it, if you don't use it what will happen to AOL? They'll wither up and blow away, just like Yahoo. The economy is in bad enough shape without a bunch of freeloading geeks trying to get something fer nothin. Do your part for a healthy robust economy! Buy lots of stuff! Support the 'new' old new economy! Get crackin'
-
Starsucks
And as long as everyone I know is using AIM and not another system, I'm afraid no matter how cool a competing system is, it's just not useful, since the entire point is to talk to the people I know.
But if you do want to attempt this, please make an easy-to-use and easy-to-install Windows client (easy to create new accounts, little to no setup required [intelligent defaults], etc.) or else you'll never get a big enough userbase to make it useful...
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I'm sick of AOL, just another Microsoft type of company. What really gets me is they can't even give their ISP customers an outgoing SMTP server. I have never liked the AIM or ICQ "thing" myself. I'll stick with good ol' email for now.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
Domain Names for $13
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Has anyone ever tried to use AIM while logged in to AOL? AOL takes all the messages, even though it has an inferior Buddy List and messaging window. I prefer to use AIM, as it contains many features that AOL doesn't contain, such as Talk, Image transmission, and File Sending. In addition, I don't have to have the junk-filled AOL window occupying my entire screen to send messages.
The only successful way for me to use AIM on my computer while logged in to AOL is to use AOL version 5.0, and an older version of AIM, with my AOL Privacy Preferences set to block all messages. This is absolutely ridiculous! I also think that it is ridiculous that AIM has ads for AOL, even when you are logged in as a paying AOL customer - why try to market your customer for something that he or she already has?
While using AOL 6, and the latest version of AIM - the only one AOL 6 allows to run - the only way to use AIM is to log in to AIM under another screen name - that's my only alternative.
So before we begin to worry about AOL opening its messaging networks to other companies and networks, I think that AOL needs to bring unity to their own software.
r. ghaffari
One of the nice aspects about Jabber being open source is that a solution can be worked out quickly. Within an hour of AOL blocking Jabber a solution presented itself, and so long as enough people are interested in Jabber that will continue to be the case. I think it's a positive step for Jabber that they're finally not below AOL's radar screen, it means they're gaining popularity and are now considered a threat by AOL.
For those of you who haven't used Jabber yet, you should check it out, it really is the most convenient IM system out there.
It is their service and they have the right to do this, but we, as observers to stupidity, get to comment on the stupidity.
With the proliferation of many different messenger systems, all those AIMers are going to be cut off from their friends who use MSN/Yahoo/ICQ. The motivation to use AIM diminishes as other messengers take off. So instead of AOL joining the community at large, they are creating a substantial, yet isolated community. It is a stupid mistake in the issue of a greater diverse internet. A smart move in the issue of keeping a captive audience. But in the end, they are just shooting themselves in the foot because if you are using AOL, you really don't need AIM to communicate to other AOLers but you will need another messenger to chat with your friends on MSN.
AOL just has a large enough ego to think these companies are clamoring to gain access to their herd of people. That may be partially true, but I believe it is more about these other applications trying to give their users as much versatility as possible, something AOL should think about.
r. ghaffari
As I don my asbestos trousers...listen people, AIM is not some fundamental human right. You are not going to die if you can't use it. Your freedoms aren't endangered, your rights are not transgressed. AOL is a business, AIM is one of their products, and if they don't want other companies to connect to it then that is their right.
Ok, so perhaps it's a little silly on their part, but they have a right to make their own mistakes. Forcing AOL to allow access is on a par, legally, with Microsoft forcing a rejection of the GPL because they whine hard enough about "needing" to do so.
Use AOL's own software, or stop whinging about it. I mean jeez, if it's that important, dual boot or use the PalmOS version. OR JUST USE AOL'S SOFTWARE.
It was my understanding that the "concession" never happened.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Did I just see someone with a Slashdot UID admit to using AOL as an ISP? What's this world coming to? Pretty soon we'll "Ask Slashdot: Windows ME vs Windows XP?" on the main page..... The world is truly going to hell....
I found a nice IM client called imici which runs on Linux, Windows and FreeBSD (Mac in development) it runs AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo's IM's concurrently. It's a clean interface with no ads (something both aim and icq windows clients force on you). It's not open source but hey it's only an instant messenger. It's a clean client but still new and needs features, most of which I will trade for not having to look at ads. I've only run the Windows client so forgive me if there are inaccuracy's with the Linux or FreeBSD version.
Its called Jabber, uses the convention (user@domain.com) and it did provide connectivity to all 4 of the other networks.
This is half the battle. Isn't it strange as soon as Jabber became usable and Jabber.com started offering support two days later aOL cut off their access.
You can go to www.imunified.org for some early information on it. The members include AT&T, Excite@home, MSN, Odigo, Phone.com, Prodigy, and Yahoo! AOL's been battling this all the way.
As for AOL, I think they should be able to do whatever they want with AIM/ICQ, since it's their product. Knock off the calls for regulation by government members who don't know anything about these technologies. BTW, this doesn't violate anything that they agreed to in order to merge with Time-Warner. The IM thing they agreed to was a very narrow clause about IM and high-speed networks, I believe. Possibly about high-speed wireless, I forget.
Really, though, I know that down the road they're going to want badly to interop with the clients above — they're only going to screw their own users once the other ones get popular, especially since MSN now has more people using their IM than are using AIM. The same thing's going to eventually happen to ICQ if they wall themselves off from everyone else.
Here's the really ironic thing about this particular situation, though. They were just complaining to the DoJ last Friday about the possibility of them being shut out by Microsoft's HailStorm initiative (which right now is planning to interop with IMUnified -- MS wants traffic through their system more than they care about whose client/OS you access it with, hence the recent talk about .NET stuff on other platforms). After AOL started up with this talk, AOL's blocking of non-AIM/ICQ users was brought up, and lo and behold, by Monday they come out with this hilarious rationalization: "AOL suggested that its efforts to open its instant-messaging system to rivals could be affected by Microsoft's attempt to incorporate the messaging service into its Web-based programs." AOL Executive VP Kenneth B. Lerer even says, "We are working toward interoperability with conviction and expect to be in a position to begin testing this summer." This latest move sure clears that up, don't it? :)
Cheers,
For those of you experiencing problems signing on via GAIM using OSCAR, please update to the most recenty CVS copy. There will be a pre8 release of Gaim tomorrow reflecting the changes, as well.
The problem basically lies with AOL trying to block Jabber. This has been going on for several days -- since Monday, I believe. We just sort of caught a stray bullet this time, so to speak.
Good luck to the Jabber guys. I would like to see some communications with AOL as well.
Peace,
Rob
---
Rob Flynn
---
Rob Flynn
Pidgin
I've got two instances of GAIM running right now, connected to two different screen names, and it's working just fine. I even disconnected and reconnected to make sure.
I didn't have any problems the last time this came up on Slashdot either. AOL must like me. Boy do I feel special.
--
But if you do want to attempt this, please make an easy-to-use and easy-to-install Windows client
MSN Messenger.
easy to create new accounts
Just sign up for a Passport at hotmail.com and you have an MSN Messenger account.
little to no setup required [intelligent defaults], etc.) or else you'll never get a big enough userbase to make it useful...
Jabber's MSN transport still works. Isn't MSN almost beating AIM now in user base?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I've used Jabber, and it doesn't quite do what I'm suggesting, at least, it didn't appear to.
Besides, support for the other networks only insures it will never become the standard.
The idea I'm suggesting would work like a hybrid of both current day e-mail and Instant-Crap software.
In a perfect situation...
* Each ISP hosts a server for their customers (and other servers would of course exist, much as it does with E-mail).
* Messaging would of course Peer to Peer, not requiring the servers after Login has taken place. (Login is only there to validate online status and present requesting clients with the last known IP of the user).
* And it WOULDN'T NEED TO SUPPORT OTHER NETWORKS.
* Anti-Spam, Encrytion, and other such features could be designed in from the ground up, rather than horribly shoehorned in later on.
But unfortunately, I know this vision will never be realized.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I wonder how the guys feel who are working at AOL doing development.
People have asked me why I don't move Kit to OSCAR. This is why.
While AOL has gone and changed/broken the TOC standard, it doesn't happen often, and the changes are easily circumvented (since they always keep TiK, TNT, and QuickBuddy working).
AOL never even made a pretense of documenting OSCAR, though, so they can break it whenever they want. And when they break it, we don't have the source to their older OSCAR clients for comparison.
AOL will do what it wants with AIM. Like it, or start moving to Jabber, as I'm doing.
Wrong subject in the earlier post, but you figured that out.
I have been attempting to use Jabber the last year but it was just not good enough.
But Jabber is finally getting to the point were it has replace my ICQ client.
I am using winjab as my client which has been very useful. All my contacts use ICQ and Iactually prefer winjab over the official ICQ client. You can find a full list of clients here
Now I am thinking of telling my contacts about jabber and hoping for them to change
Am I in a position to know about AIM? Read and judge for yourself.
AOL updates its protocol from time to time- this is something that all the IM services do. They occaisionally do this *gasp* without telling people- even companies that they have business agreements with for the use of AIM. Its just how they do business, and it isnt intended to genuinely disrupt other clients, approved or not by the corporate powers that be.
What can be done? What does any programmer do when his favorite protocol changes? He breaks out the old packet sniffer, changes a few lines of code and recompiles.
I dont think aol has declared war on the open source messengers because they are more concerned with world domination, microsoft, their stock, and countless other things that don't involve the open source community for the most part.
AOL doesnt really gain anything from forcing people to use its free client, except maybe theoretical marketing eyes. But the truth is, all their numbers are based off of IM accounts, which exist regardless of the client used. AOL makes most of its money from AIM (what little money it makes right now) from deals with businesses who use it for business purposes. And this doesnt even refer to the "business" of spamming people, or targeting people with ads, just the simple business of communicating on work related topics, or using the AIM network (yeah, the network exists for reasons other than chat) for customer support, etc etc.
As it happens, Jabber already has this capability... or at least, the servers do. Some of the clients don't support all of the features, but you'd expect that from pre-1.0 releases.
- Encryption: PGP/GPG good enough for you?
- Chat looks like IM chat, Messages look like e-mail and can have subjects, CCs
Oh yeah, and if you don't support the existing system and can't push the system onto all your customers, how do you get market share?The problem with proprietary, binary-only clients is that you never know what they're doing behind your back. A lot of clients have been found to collect information on their users for marketing purposes; given that they're paid for by the company and free to you, they have to earn their keep somehow.
How do you know that the 8Mb (or whatever) executable doesn't send back (over its proprietary, no-user-serviceable-parts-inside protocol) information they may be interested in? Like what hardware/software you have, or even what MP3 files are on your system (remember, AOL Time Warner is a big chunk of the recording racket). Or, once UCITA is law in your state, are you so sure that AOLTW's latest client won't take summary action and delete MP3s by Warner artists on your system? The possibilities are limitless.
The key point is that proprietary software doesn't serve you but its creator; you benefit where your interests align with theirs, but where they don't, you know who will prevail.
I gave up on aol, I use sonork now. It's encrypted and has great simplicity and functionality. but if you have to talk with aol, everybuddy works fine.
nerdsonice
Well, it doesn't surprise me that AOL is doing this. They are a business. They need as many 'Official' aim clients out there, so that they can change the protocol at will to include things like advertising. It makes good business sense to ensure that the users of it's IM service are running a client that AOL can manipulate, to sell the 'eyeballs'. If they can't be sure that all x number of people will see the adverts, then they can't make as much money. Simple business decision. It sucks for consumers, but it's the best thing AOL can do for itself.
This is good for AOL, but bad for the internet. The problem with the internet at the moment is that it has major applications that do not have simple, open, commodity protocols accepted by the majority of users of that service.
What lets email work so well is RFC821 and PFC822, defining the transport and the format of email so that clients and servers need not be tied to each other.
Now instant messaging in it's current state is horrible. We have a disjoint set of non-structured namespaces (BigMan200 anybody?), We have a single centralised server. And the protocol is closed.
Of course, most IM issues were solved by email years ago. Unless I'm being very dense, it wouldn't be too hard to make IM id's similar to email addresses (I have a sneaking suspicion that Jabber does this, but I haven't looked at it close enough).
I think AIM needs to be confiscated from AOL. While I think they do have a right to make a very nice looking client, and a server that can deal with huge loads, and use them to make a profit, they should not be allowed to lock up the protocol between the two. This is the major strength of the internet, the openness, simplicity and strict focus of the protocols employed by most internet clients. For all but a few protocols, the communication can be done by a clueful individual with a telnet client. (I have done this, and it is a lot of fun. EHLO everyone!) If the AIM protocol remains closed and binary, it will stay linked with AOL. We don't need another propriety protocol polluting pathways with packets parsable by 'proper' programs.
So, what I'm saying is: The client can stay AOL's. The server can stay AOL's. But the protocol should be open and hacker friendly. Please AOL, let the Internet do the right thing. It may be bad for your monopoly on the technology, but it will be good for avoiding the scrutiny of the anti-trust lawyers in years to come. Write some RFCs. Asciify your protocol. Amaze people with your Clue.
Now remember, this is an opinion. Yours may be different, and I like to change mine if I see one that looks good.
James,
As it happens, I'v used a few Jabber clients and I'm not impressed. I'll admit the newest version of JabberIM isn't too bad, and it has potential -- but somehow I can't help but feel the fact that (as of right now) I have to use jabber.com's server puts me in the same boat as I'm in just sticking with ICQ or AIM. On that note, if it didn't support the other networks it would be useless to me since nobody else I know uses Jabber. For that reason, I simply stick with ICQ and AIM.
It's a vicious circle.
Oh yeah, and if you don't support the existing system and can't push the system onto all your customers, how do you get market share?
Offer a superior service with all of the best features in an opened standard. Push it hard. Convince ISP's that investing in Message servers along side their Mail servers is a service that they will need to seriously consider because if it starts to get popular their competition might already be there and winning customers.
I will commend Jabber for coming this far, and it does look like it could go places.
But in order for Jabber to get where I think a message system needs to be it should be AS OPENED AS E-MAIL and it's not quiet there yet.
If it were, I wouldn't be using JABBER.COM as the server I have to log into unless there were some good reason for me to do so, and not having a choice isn't a good reason.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Taco, what the HELL are you talking about!? "This kind of crap"? "tried to pull this off"? IT'S THEIR NETWORK! I use GAIM myself, and I did find myself shut out this afternoon, but I don't blame AOL. It's their network, and they can do as they please with it.
You act like you have some sort of right to use stuff other people maintain, and you expect to have it free. What the hell? Yes, AOL makes money through those banner ads, and they use them to support the service. If the ads aren't showing up on your screen, then they aren't making money off of you, and THEY DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING!
That whole thing was exaggerated. I work at an IM company (none you've ever heard of), and while I'm not clear on the details, I have been told that the FCC thing does not apply to AIM itself, or the OSCAR protocol. You still aren't allowed to use it without AOL's permission.
If you don't like their system, don't use it! I don't understand... You complain about something you get for free. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU GET FOR FREE! If you don't like it, don't fucking use it.
OTOH, you could always do what I did: Switch to TOC. Voila, GAIM works again. You can't check people's away messages, but it works.
------
That seemed like such a Taco-esque statement. Doh. Well, call me stupid.
------
The legal conditions put on the AIM service after AOL bought Time Warner are only to prevent AOLTW from leveraging the AIM service to send broadband media. Video, videoconferencing, etc. Yellow journalism is getting really old.
ahhh to be 12 again and in charge of the world.
Also for more amusement, try loading www.aol.com in Mozilla - it tells you to upgrade to Internet Explorer !!
Ever hear of MaxxChat? A complete AIM, MSN, IRC, ICQ client. Created by one lone person who I am sure would love to help get a *nix version going as well. Did I mention no ads?
I checked out version 2000 and dismissed it at once because of the bloat. I keep all programs I find usefull on a Archive CD: the day my PC goes down I only need an afternoon to have a fully usable/surfable computer with all my settings. ICQ 99b is part of that collection. The annoying thing with this approach is that more and more software comes out with those stupid stub-installers... I once wanted to installe IE4 for the Active Desktop (a client of me wanted it) and heck, no way to install it using the stubs...no more servers had it. *sigh*
Sorry for the rant....
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
There are other servers, like jabber.org which support some, any or possibly none of the services available. Just because you, like I did, thought of finding a jabber service by typing www.jabber.com into your browser doesn't mean you have to stick with it. Alternative servers are linked to at http://jabberview.com, and that may not be all of them, of course.
Also, if you push Jabber to your friends, with the selling point that they can still talk to other AIM/ICQ users, then maybe, just maybe, they may convert. My friends and I are trying to do this, although with a grand total of one conversion so far, we may not be doing too well... but every little helps.
The Jabber protocol is open, the server is open source and the clients can be open source, closed source freeware, commercial or whatever you want to licence them under.
Under development is JabberZilla which is going to be a cross platform mozilla based client that will offer similar functionality to the AIM with Netscape 6. Opera currently supports ICQ in their version 5 windows browser, there are people who want them to change to Jabber support. Voice your views in the opera.wishlist newsgroup (on news.opera.no).
they've created, on a network developed primarily by the US, a system that has become a massive public communication system. As a communication network that supports millions of users, they have some social obligations. yes, they have a legal right to just stop all of AIM service to everyone. and everyone who owns central routers could just decide to stop routing. but there needs to be a way for other people to at least supplement the network. if a telephone company decides to call it quits another one can take up the slack with little difference to the end user. if AOL decides to stop, their protocol disappears, and while those people could move to irc, having a company be able to substantially disrupt a communications network isn't right. fine, they don't want to support the free clients, make it so we *can* set up alternatives. let us setup our own servers, and have them talk to aol's.
It's not their network for the most part. it's the tax payers in most countries. we do have some rights, and it's reasonable to expect some satisfaction from companies.
---
I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age, nerds are in.
They're still in, aren't they?
---
I'm not ashamed. It's the computer age, nerds are in.
They're still in, aren't they?
I've used GAIM a little -- it's a lot better than this piece of junk they're trying to get Linux users to use.
They should embrace GAIM -- and possibly even work together with the developers to make their own software better. Easier for them, better for the users.
They should embrace Jabber -- they own ICQ and AIM, why not put out a melding of ICQ and AIM based on Jabber? I mean, it is open source. Again, easier for them, better for the users.
But the above will never happen. We are talking about AOL. Instant messaging has been around as "MSG" since the IRC days, or even the "write" or "talk" commands on *nix. AOL is simply losing the best selling point of its service -- "instant messaging." This makes them angry.
Do you like German cars?
For the NAT part you are completely right: I have a small network at home (5 computers) with a NAT server. About 9/10 times file transfers fail. I don't really care, because mostly it's for pics and I really do not need to know how random people look like ;-) Besides, they should just make a homepage, it's not that hard.
Sometimes it helps to turn of the firewall part in my NAT, but that's more the exception than the rule. Hey, if anyone knows a fix to the NAT trouble feel free to post it!
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Congratulations to Jabber.org on reaching this milestone.
I'd be more than happy to drop AIM and start using Jabber (what with various clients with PGP support, etc.). Unfortunately, a lot of people I know still use AIM and with AOL blocking Jabber, Jabber has hardly any use for me. Furthermore, at work, they refuse to open the firewall to allow Jabber connections through.
Perhaps someone actually requires an instant message type service. So where are the open source solutions? Of course, I understand they probably exist, but they haven't propogated as well as the commercial ones have.
:)
:)
Here's the answer. We create such a system. Don't make ANY effort to be compatible with the AOL systems. This is designed to replace, not to coexist with those systems. Create it to be bug free and cross platform, of course. Then... add THE feature. Whatever feature will draw in the 90% of the users for whom it is a challenge locating the start button, like most MCSE's.
Now...here's the trick. If this system were to become extremely popular, such that it actually rivaled the other services, they would probably add in support for it (being an open protocol, they certainly could). The trick would be forcing open their system as well in the process, although I don't think the GPL can reach THAT far.
Wishful thinking, yes yes I know.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
There is one easy solution: Don't use AOL.
If they're doing filtering, or in other ways are sabotageing your netconnection, move to another provider...
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
OSCAR is AOL's low level protocol, which they do not support for 3rd part clients. TOC is a different high level protocol that sits on top of OSCAR and provides a slightly limited subset of the functionality. AOL *DO* support use of TOC - they even (used?) to provide source of a Java-based TOC client, as well as the Tk/Tcl Tik-TOC client.
If you want Jabber or some other open source IM protocol to be able to interoperate with AOL clients, that requires that you use AOL servers to talk to them.
Assuming AOL is willing to consider this as a business case, how much are YOU as a user willing to pay for this use of AOL's servers?
If your answer is zero, then shut the fuck up.
crikey. I didn't realise it was so bad whereever-you-are. The mindcontrol people, the armed mobs, the large men with sticks who must be standing around forcing you to use AIM. the massive policestate needed to ensure everyone uses AOL as an ISP.
We must stop the repression! How dare AOL stop people who aren't AOL subscribers from using their services? What Nazis! Not wanting you to use their servers because you refuse to use their client? What scum!
Fight back people! We shall have a revolution! (someone call Katz)
We run our own internal Jabber server simply so as to prevent confidential material passing through an untrusted third party's server; it works fine for us. In principle if we wanted to jabber with people outside the company we could open it up, but so far we haven't wanted to.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
It's THEIR system, they paid money to develop it, so why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to control who gets access to it?
The government has NO business intervening here, and no one has a god-given right to their code.
BilldaCat
I just logged in...
The problem is all our non-geek friends don't know how to use IRC and don't care to learn, most of mine say even ICQ is too hard to learn and cling to their familiar AOL IM. The only way to beat this is for someone to make a client that is as easy to use as AOL IM but uses an open protocol and then convince everyone to use it instead. Like I said unfortunatly I guess we do have to use Aim.
> but I have been sticking to version 99b since,
... I once wanted to installe IE4 for the Active Desktop
Me too. I tried 2000 and 2001 but they added everything but the kitchen sink in the new versions. I quickly uninstalled and went back to the old version. (How does one export/import the address book in the new version)
> The version name doesn't imply it won't work on W2K or so, it works very fine.
I haven't had any problems either on Win2K. Been using it on W2K since last august.
> The annoying thing with this approach is that more and more software comes out with those stupid stub-installers...
I hear you ! Forced obsolence of older programs sucks! M$ pulls this crap with DirectX as well.
> I keep all programs I find usefull on a Archive CD:
Same here. I install programs onto drive P:, my data on Drive D:, cdrom R: cd-burner W:, virtual cdrom V:. When I get a system crash, I only need to restore drive D, since the rest can be restored via installs.
>
I think I have a copy of the older IEs laying around, let me check...
I use TAC, which I believe came from AOl some where along the lines, and it seems to function fine :)
You may not like it, but the fact is that is how it is. Contribute to Jabber or something to make a viable alternative. Don't just cry foul when a company doesn't give everything away for free.
-- null
Why not go back to ytalk? :) but seriously, it is not like there are no alternatives.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
First off, it's just OSCAR-based clients that are broken. TOC-based clients work fine. And frankly, everyone should be using TOC, since that's the protocol that AOL "opened" for clone clients.
However, the major point of this post is that I honestly don't understand why everyone gets so worked up about what AOL does with AIM. Let's look at this logically. While we've always had things like talk/ntalk, AOL really pioneered the instant messaging field with AIM and ICQ (yes, I count ICQ as AOL's because they bought it, so any innovations by Mirabilis belong to AOL now). It's their servers, their network, their software, and their innovations. So basically, why can't they do whatever they want with it?
You don't like it? Write your own. Lots of people have, and there are open standards projects. If the open standards are good enough and enough people adopt them, then AOL will have to join or fade away. But noone really has a place to tell AOL what to do or not to do with AIM. It's theirs, completely. And if they don't want to let MSN or Yahoo play in their sandbox, it's their decision. And if they want to keep the OSCAR protocol for the "official" clients and only let everyone else use TOC, it's their choice as well.
Let's remember, folks, having a monopoly on something is not illegal. It's how you use that monopoly. AOL isn't trying to squash the open standards projects for IMs, and they're not trying to run MSN and Yahoo and the rest of the people who have developed IM clients out of business. They're just running their own IM system as best they can, getting new signups, and trying to enforce their rules about how the system is used. Which is all perfectly legal, and well within their rights.
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
Man, screw this, it was just the Jabber AIM transport that allows Jabber users to chat with AIM users. What does this have to do with clients based off the libfaim libary? Slashdot's people need to take some CLASSES IN JOURNALISM, if they are going to refer to themselves as journalists. This is the type of reactionary, hype journalism that I would expect from the National Enquirer. What good is this story going to do besides plant false ideas in 100 of thousands of technically inclined people heads? AOL is providing a service, off of their servers, they have every right to choose who does, and who doesn't use this service. This is perfectly ethical, and legal. We don't really need to see the product of your investigations until you have hard evidence. I don't really care about your editorial comments unless you have verified facts.
I fell for it, too, but I expect more from my sources of information. THEY should check THEIR sources, I shouldn't have to do it for them! I appreciate a lot of the news that I get on slashdot, but over and over again it just seems like a standard conspiracy theory rag. More and more frequently I see that "Update" section under stories to correct the fact that they followed a false lead. That "Update" funcationality shouldn't be used after the fact to correct misinformation, it should be used to get late breaking additions to the story that's already been verified.
Is this the new Slashdot? Where you post a story that some evil company is doing something evil, then I have to research it to find out, there is actually no story. Most of the time it's just companies acting in their best interests, on a perfectly ethical and legal level. Sometimes they aren't, but most of the time they are! I've read a few editorials where the writer refered to themselves and slashdot as a journalistic institution. If you are going to do that, at least have the decency to follow a lead, and verify it before posting it! Seriously... If you are aren't going to follow the most basic ethos of journalism please stop acting in a journalistic fashion. If you aren't going to have the decency to study and understand the journalistic process, get off your soap box and post "Just the facts". Or better yet, spend some of that moola and hire a real journalist to do it for you...
Thanks
Luckily I'm not a big gamer, but last time I played a game it had DirectX bundeled on the CD. Don't they do that anymore? Besides, it's not only Microsoft that is guilty on those stubs-installers: you get them about everywhere now (Netscape, Quicktime,...) with no alternative or a hard to find alternative. ;-)
I still do not understand why anyone would prefer to install directly from the internet. I have FTP to download, and then I install. I guess I'm just too old for those new fancy 'stub' thingies
I install programs onto drive P:, my data on Drive D:, cdrom R: cd-burner W:, virtual cdrom V:. When I get a system crash, I only need to restore drive D, since the rest can be restored via installs.
Well not exactly in that drive order, but technically I do the same. You learn such things pretty fast if you had some nice data-losses due to system crashes. And with hacking the registry, it is very easy to move those annoying things like "My Documents" to an better suited drive. (It isn't even called "My Documents" anymore on my systems) Actually I use C: for "operating-system-only", that is: WinNT + drivers. I alread had it crash upon me and except other microsoft products, most applics on my applic disk still worked after a clean install. (Eudora, Netscape, Halflife, Unreal and others) I had just to create the shortcut in the start-menu/desktop.
Feel free to give me a link where I can download IE4 (and or IE5). I don't use IE (except at work...company policy), but it could be usefull for helping other people. (Think older machine with 95 + IE 4 and/or IE 5 )
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
You people are insane... AOL is providing a free service, at thier expense. PLUS, They opened the TOC protocol so everybody can use it... I'm using GAIM right now for crying out loud! Even if they didn't, they still provide an AIM client for linux, I think that's pretty generous in it's own right. This is complete hype journalism... Remember these are AOL's servers, they are fair, they are free and most importantly they should have the freedom to govern it as they choose so they can keep being able to afford to GIVE YOU SELFISH BASTARDS THIS SERVICE.
I can't believe this is even an issue. You paranoid, conspiracy types go way to far, way to often.
All I have to say is that Rob rules. Every time I've had a question about gaim he's answered me right away. Everyone should give him mad props for making (IMHO) the best message client software out there.
Keep on keeping on.
Big thanks to the whole gaim team.
--
--
Need ecommerce that doesn't suck? FoxyCart is for you.
AIM isn't just a "protocol", kids. It's a bunch of servers owned, run and paid for by AOL. AOL spends millions of dollars on Sybase licenses and support contracts alone to run AIM. Do you think it's peer-to-peer? That they track connection status in real time for millions of concurrent users without big, expensive databases running on big, expensive hardware?
Even if the Jabber team ever comes out with a stable, robust release, it's not going to be able to support even half as many users as Yahoo instant messaging without someone footing the bill for millions of dollars in servers and fiber-channel storage arrays, commercial database software, and tens of thousands of dollars a month in hosting and connectivity services.
Do you really think a multi-million concurrent-user instant messaging system can run on one rack of Postgres servers on a T1? Phooey.
You want free communication without ads or service charges? Buy a CB radio and talk to your neighbors. That's peer-to-peer.
I'd like to see a show of hands: how many of the people here calling for free access to AIM servers aren't (a) MSN and Yahoo employees or (b) people who have never had a job besides maybe cleaning trays in a dorm cafeteria?
For five years, through high school and my freshman year of college, I did feel the need to use their system simply because people that I thought mattered used it. Through most of that time, I considered AIM to be one of my critical pieces of software. A new, convenient way to communicate? Why not? After a year at college, however, far away from most of my AIM associates, I realized instant messaging was giving me jack. I reviewed my logs and found that 99% of my conversations consisted of aimless, barely enjoyable, totally disposable chit-chat--a few words here, a few words there. (The other 1% were protracted debates about philosophy, religion, perfect pitch, and other topics with an acquaintance at another college. While those were moderately stimulating, I realized there were better things I could do with my time.) I found that snail mail, e-mail, and the phone were far, far better ways to communicate, for two reasons: they're much more personal, and they inevitably filter out people who don't really matter. I would go as far as to say that instant messaging can play a role in superficializing relationships; when your friend or acquaintance is readily available to communicate with at the click of a button, and then all you see of them is bland text, what room is there for you to miss them? Absence really does make the heart grow fonder. I'm actually slightly embarrassed to make that statement because a good friend of mine came to roughly the same conclusion two years ago (his revelation can be found at http://web.dodds.net/~tycho ). My current status? I use e-mail to write meaningful messages to people that actually matter--not "matter" in the superficial, soon-forgotten high-school senes. By a stroke of luck, the aforementioned friend, as well as one other, attend my college; real-life contact abounds. When we all graduate, the phone will probably overtake e-mail as my primary means of long-distance communication. It'll cost a bit and be absolutely worth it. There are no instant messaging clients installed on my system, and I've never been happier.
The coolest voice ever.
Remember MessengerA2Z (http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/02/1540205.sht ml)? I wrote to them asking to see the source, seeing as it was based on GPLed code. They replied on 7th Jan indicating that it would be available in aproximately 10 days at http://sourceforge.net/projects/messengera2z/. It looks like v0.1 finally appeared 8th March.
So is Jabber Aim Transport based on libfaim??
Bullshit, all they had to do was go to the link that they provided... Where is says:
It began Monday, when the IPs of some of the larger Jabber servers offering the AIM Transport as a feature (such as jabber.org and jabber.com) found their IP addresses firewalled from the AIM login servers. After discovering this, it took only minutes to move aim.jabber.org to another IP, but then it seemed that something had changed at the protocol level and AIM logins were being disconnected abruptly. The AIM Transport was quickly updated to correct the login block and service was restored. This happened again Tuesday and Wednesday, with more relocations and updates to fix new incompatibilities as they appeared.
Where does it say anything about libfaim? I'm assuming, though I don't really care enough to check. That Jabber uses the OSCAR protocol instead of TOC. OSCAR is constantly changing, and never really worked anyway. If you want to use AIM services, just use TOC... I just find it irritating the tone of the comment that AOL is doing something wrong. They don't have any obligation to spend the extra money in there development cycle to support or service third party clients. Jabber is doing something strange, like transporting clients from there domain to AOL, if AOL doesn't like what they are doing what's so wrong with them DENY'ing them. I'd do the same thing, as a good admin, to block some alien party sending packets to my systems that I have no control over. It's a liability to them... But now it's being made into a crusade. I just think that's wrong on the part of Jabber and on the part of the Slashdot staff.
Fine if Jabber wants to incorporate TOC into there clients, and do negotiations between the client and AOL that could probably get away with it. It's shady, but it works, and it's not going to hurt AOL. But insisting that AOL publish and spend money to cooperate with Jabber to set up a trust between Jabbers network, and AOL's network, and release the specs to a relateively experimental protocol, that changes often and that they probably spend a lot of money on to develop. I can see AOL's stance on this, they are trying to minimize the cost of support and hassle caused by a community that is not thier INTENDED audience. This whole thing is about misconstrueing the facts and making it a fanatical issue among the technical community to force AOL to comply, and it's just downright wrong.
Didn't AOL have to open up their messaging system in order to merge with Time-Warner? I guess AOL was just blowing smoke up the Feds ass to push the merger through. What do you think the chances of seeing David Boies asking a Judge to breakup AOL-Time-Warner-Turner-CNN-Castlerock-New Line etc. in the future?
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41161
In a world that is Free and Open, who needs Windows and Gates?
Okay, here's how I did it:
First of all make sure you set up all your computers to have static ip addresses, dynamic won't work. You'll need to set the gateway and DNS on each computer yourself since DHCP won't be doing it for you anymore but it's not that hard.
Now, say you've given your computers the ip addresses: 192.168.0.10 -> 192.186.0.13 (keep the gateway computer on 192.168.0.1)
In your firewall settings simply tell it that any traffic coming in on ports say, 30000-30019 gets automatically sent to 192.168.0.10, 30020-30039 goes to 192.168.0.11 and so on.
Now in icq in the connection settings tell it you're not using a proxy, but you are using a firewall and it should use ports 300xx-300yy for incoming events.
That fix file transfers and allow people to read your away/dnd/etc messages again
Hope this helps!
Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949
Your ICQ number is serially generated. Spammer W writes a script to send spam to all ICQ clients in range X-Y.
"Classic UFO's
Just FYI Netscape 3.x and below didn't have AIM bundled, 4.0 didn't either but the AIM bundling did come before the AOL takeover of Netscape. I think version 4.05 was the first to have it. Anyway the whole purpose of jabber is that you can talk to people on other networks almost transparently and therefore you can still receive messages off other users. Most people I know are on the ICQ list so I've not suffered the problems with AIM that others have. However I don't give a fuck whether AOL block their service or not. I'll let people on my contact list know why they can't contact me and they can always just use email, there's no way I'm going to have a separate client for each messaging system that people happen to use. Jabber is providing an open solution that is very extensible. Remember how MS was pushing for such a thing? Microsoft should really be supporting the efforts of jabber and using it as the base for the next MSN messenger.
This is why halfway through yesterday, Fire (the sole *real* method for i, a Mac OS X user, to connect to AIM and thus contact quite a few people i want to talk to..) and Gaim were still blocked from AOL, but Jabber peoples could connect just fine-- only, though, if they were on the jabber.org server, because that was the only one that had been fixed with the entry hack. That's the good thing about this approach, you have one small client and it can adapt to whatever happens. THe problem with this, of course, is that AOL can IP-block the jabber server, meaning everyone is simply screwed.. not sure how to get around that.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Coolio. This is a perfect example of why closed source IM is not a good idea, because you can run your own private IM server. We do so as well and it works great.
"Classic UFO's
because i have many friends who are less-than-technical who love the damned thing.
-
Let us examine your handwriting: YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU GET FOR FREE!
Ah! An AOL user, that explains it.
Test 1 2 3 4
I remember two years ago, they published the protocol specs. Why? Why bother to publish your specs when you have no intent to let anyone else use them to connect to your network? What was the purpose? All that it accomplished was to create AIM workalikes, and then make AOL look stupid by blocking them. They could have saved all the money they put into blocking these clients had they just NOT PUBLISHED the specs to begin with. Can someone explain their actions to me?
--
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
My non-technical friends trust my advice. I advise against using a program that knocks your computer off of every other network you might want to connect to. AOL does not allow you to be on a LAN, WAN, or any other kind of network. It only allows you to use AOL's network. It strips out all other networks everytime you boot up your computer. My friends don't use AOL's crap and they enjoy using @Home, MSN, or Bowienet... No body needs the grief you get from AOL
What's the point anyways? How do clones like GAIM hurt them? Damn the Man!
AOL has the right to do what it wants, afterall, it is THEIR server. However, they should realize how much better being open is. Their practices are more and more taking after Microsoft. I guess not only is Microsoft trying to take over the world with its products, but also by replacing current business practicies with it own method and ethics. Both industry and Academics...SCARY!
God first, wife second, math third, and physics fourth. Wait
God first, wife second, math third, and physics fourth. Wait
God first, food second, wife third...
I've been waiting to hear this "You ungrateful bastards/you must be viewing ads to use AIM" argument...AOL alomst certainly loses money on AIM and those ads, mostly because they don't SELL any!
All the ads are for AOL services or AOL-owned companies !!
AOL puts the service out to lure people into subscribing to AOL, not to make money off ads. And no one can say that AOL is hurting for customers right now...they are still the largest ISP in the world.
So, yes, we can complain, especially when we depend on features AOL clients don't supply -- interoperability, alternate platforms, logging, etc...
All the ads are for AOL services or AOL-owned companies .
The FCC agreement i beleive says that AOL only needs to open it up once they start offering Broadband(video i believe) type services... This a program and network they created initially for thier customers on their network, and then made it available for non-subscribers to talk to each other as well, Its a great program these days as well, especially the price.. free.. Can someone explain to me with ACTUAL GOOD reasons why they should not block companies who try to hack the protocol to communicate with them should not be blocked? No where does it say the RIGHT TO IM FELLOW AIM USERS SHOULD NOT BE ABRIDGED...... if you don't like it.. use another product or network and get your friends to do the same.. both yahoo and MSN have close to same amount of user base as AIM does these days and AOL customers can use them too.....
Probably flamebait.. but its the truth...
Hello, I'm the author of the AIM Transport for Jabber (the piece of Jabber that is being discussed). I would like to point out that I 100% agree with you. OSCAR is their protocol, and they have every right to defend it and stop our use of it. However, suggesting that they will let us on TOC is doubtful. According to recent articles in the press the order to stop Jabber came from the head of the AIM group. This didn't say stop Jabber from using OSCAR, it said stop using period. Personally, I feel I might have to move to TOC for a short while, and that makes me feel bad, because I do not want to ruin the TOC experience for all the people already using it. The other, and primary reason, to not move to TOC is the lack of full power and potential. TOC is a dead protocol, and it's servers have experienced many problems. Outages for days at a time, and it has even lost features. Compared to TOC which continues to grow, I think there is an obvious choice there.
--temas
JID/EMAIL: temas@jabber.org
P.S. - These are my views, and mine alone.
All joking aside, it's pretty obvious that the federales want an IM monopoly (or at worst, an oligopoly with AOL and MSN), for one excellent reason - every "buddy list" is available at a central location. Even if the messages don't transit AOL's servers themselves, it's the buddy list that's important anyhow.
I've brought this example up before, but here goes: say one of your AIM buddies, unknown to you, commits or comes under suspicion of having committed some hot-button computer crime (DoS, whatever). At roughly the same time, you were online, with this user in your buddy list (or vice versa).
Now, you're drawn into the investigation. All your electronics are confiscated as potential evidence. At best, you might get them back in a year. At worst, the investigation of your friend will go to trial, and it could be several years. Or perhaps that copy of Office97 isn't licensed to you, or you've got napster installed, and the feds start pressuring you to testify, using this as leverage. "You were online at the same time, and on his buddy list! What do you mean you don't know anything?! C'mon, just spill it and we'll forget about this whole copyright infringement thing."
IMs have their place, but we shouldn't be naive about how these technologies will be (ab)used by authorities.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Have you people considered that maybe AOL just made some minor changes to their protocol, and this was just a result? Everyone is (as usual) assuming that AOL is an evil villian without even contacting them to see what they have say about it.
That's not to say that this probably isn't the case, but as far as the "journalistic" integrity goes.. Did anyone at Slashdot even consider contacting AOL for a comment, like a real news site would?
Interesting how folks cheer when MSN messenger service is banned from AIM, but bitch just a loudly when Jabber is cut off.
If AOL is only cutting off servers that connect to their network, they are being consistant.
Their beef with MSN Messenger (and I'm assuming now with jabber) is that the servers have access to the passwords being sent through them, which is a security risk.
I'm not defending them, nor agreeing with them, but I can see their point.
They've never given me any grief with clients that connect directly to the AIM servers.
Please send all UCE to scally@devolution.com so I can f
Temas,
I just want to clarify, my argument wasn't against you, because I believe that AOL should open up it's protocols, and users should have the freedom to use the software they want, but on the same token I see all these people bashing AOL like they are doing something wrong, when it's really there choice. And that I don't know the real story because it's been biasly portrayed, nothing against your or the rest of your team. I, like most people don't have the time to verify all the information and dig up everything to make an informed decision. So when something like this get's posted it's so easy for people to say "AOL sucks!", instead of being able to make an informed decision based on all the angles. I hope you didn't take offense to what I was saying, because I applaud your efforts for the sake of software freedom, and my lack of understanding about the issue only points back to my main argument about Journalism, and Slashdot. It does matter, because there are a lot of people that care about these issues, I just wish they were given all the information not lead by one person at Slashdot's haphazardly prepared opinion. Well, I wouldn't even call it prepared because they are just posting it without looking into it at all.
Later bro
So why doesn't the open source community create an open IM protocol? If they do so, they run the risk of creating a protocol that other open source efforts would write clients for, and in the end, AOL would at least make AIM compatible with the open protocol?
Why do we want AOL's protocol anyway?
Ranting and raving is one thing. Keep your First Amendment. But making intelligent arguments is a whole different ballgame.
This reminds me a lot of the AOL vs. MSN Messenger battle. Why does AOL feel like it has to prosecute everyone?
OK, first of all, you people who want the government to force AOL to open their system are communists. They OWN it and can do whatever they want with it. Would you want the government to force other people to share your underpants? What if those people were incontinent? OK, so shut up about how they should be forced to open it... By the way, I'm logged onto that system with TiK right now.
This is AOL's proposal for an open architecture that allows competing IM services to exchange instant messages. If implemented, this would allow AIM users to communicate with users of Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger, Jabber et al.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Is this the same AOL that complained to the FCC that certain cable companies wouldn't give AOL access to their cable lines so they could sell Internet access over them? Is this the same AOL that argued that no matter what cable services you have, you should still be able to buy AOL Internet access?
Of course, the cable companies replied that they invested in the cable infrastructure, including upgrades to support IP and that they were entitled to reap the financial benefits of those upgrades. And, of course, AOL argues that they invested in the IM infrastructure and therefore should be entitled to reap the benefits of it.
They don't HAVE an official client for AOL (Not that I want that service from them) or for ICQ proper (which I DO want). Free access in my case is in the sense of asking them to support my OS- to either help out with someone under Linux to provide support or to release that nifty official client they made for their appliance device to the community in varying flavors for the different machine architechtures.
And don't tell me to run Windows. I don't do Windows.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The 'right' way to solve this problem is to put a Jabber server on your corporate extranet, allow only inside users to connect to the server on 5222/5223, and allow outbound connections to other jabber servers (and dialback from them on 5269).
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Maybe if companies are still so insecure about using opensource material, we should not use them. In my point of view they have proven to be obsolete and living in the past