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?
...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
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.
Theoretically, AOL should never block TIK or TNT (the Emacs client for AIM), because they were the originators of both programs. While both are licensed under the GPL and have been taken up by the open source community since AOL decided to stop their development, the code is still copyright AOL corp. It would be an interesting precendent to say the least if AOL were to start blocking access by its own alternative software.
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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Because so many moderators are massively retarded beyond comprehension (+3!?), I'm going to expend as little energy as possible, and just say this.
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....
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
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
------
Also for more amusement, try loading www.aol.com in Mozilla - it tells you to upgrade to Internet Explorer !!
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).
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
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
The worst part of what happened to ICQ is what they have done to the servers. If you logon with 2000b, then logoff, and log on with another program (IE Licq), it wont let you log on. You have to play server swap bingo, and put an actual IP address in the server list, and hope it hasnt locked you into icq 2000b (The LICQ homepage has info on it). The ads suck, but complete reconfiguration on AOL's whim sucks even more
"My head hurts, My feet stink, and I dont love Jesus." -Jimmy Buffett
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..."
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?
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.
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
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
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...
And does that mean they don't make money from them? Of course they do.
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.
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;
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.