Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the the-value-of-non-interoperability dept.
Faceprint writes: "The developers of gaim have posted another article about the blocking of Jabber and gaim by AOL. It answers a lot of questions that repeatedly get asked on slashdot, and explains the situation rather well. Definitely worth a read."
Why shouldn't AOL bitch about this, in any form they choose, when they're paying for bandwith, etc.
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
Of course, no two-year-old wants to take a bath.
Do as SameTime Does, and License It
by
scotpurl
·
· Score: 3
Lotus's product, SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) legally connects to AIM servers because Lotus paid a licensing fee to AOL to allow it to happen. So far they've licensed just the chat module (no file transfer), but it's a start.
GAIM and Jabber could do the same. Free, unless you want to connect to an AIM server, then it's $5/year, or something like that. Then connections are legal, and the GAIM and Jabber teams don't have to spend time re-reverse engineering things every time AOL makes a change.
Same comments again and again
by
flynn_nrg
·
· Score: 3
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
While software can be free (beer) hardware seldom is. Someone has to pay for it, and in this case is the ads in the AIM client. Now imagine: AOL says, ok go and write an open source client. Someone makes it and puts de ad routine in the code, e.g. show_ad_banner();
Nothing can stop me from nuking that code away and remove the banner in the client.
On the other hand you may argue that the number of linux/bsd users compared to Windows users is really small, so AOL might well allow linux/bsd users in their servers. If you ask me I don't think ther resource drain is that big, but as I said before AOL has no obligation at all to provide a service for free. They could allow it if you were inside their network, but how many unix users connect to the net with AOL? Guess not many.
To finish, a quote from the article: "It's not the resources that are the issue; and if it were, TOC would be blocked out"
I don't agree, maybe they want someone using and old client to be able to still use the service.
Despite Toc's "shortcomings" (none important that I can see), it works, and AOL has provided it for everybody to connect to *THEIR* servers.
What is the problem here? I can use everybuddy just fine to talk to people I need to talk to. That's what IM is for. What else do you need?
If you don't like that TOC doesn't do what you want, then don't use AOL servers. Force your friends to use IRC. Run your own IRC server. Just stop Whining!
Re:you're really empty between the ears
by
baptiste
·
· Score: 3
Utility companies are regulated, and since now your comparing apples with oranges anyway so I'll skip the whole rambling.
It IS a valid analogy? Why? Utility companies were regulated because they are... monopolies. Not 100% monopolies, but enough to require regulation.
Now AOL has a VERY sizable chunk of the IM market between AOL, ICQ, etc. They are trying to force people to use their stuff and only their stuff (remember when you had to rent a phone from Ma Bell?) So many people use IM, that AOls insistence in locking down their network is a) a disservice to their users and b) excludes other users who frely choose to use other services.
Normally you'd say - that's business and hte most popular devices wins (think VHS) But in this case you have a company who is flexing its muscle to rule the Internet.
Remember how CNN, TIme Managzine and others always had live chats via their websites with various folks? Notice how those chats are now exclusively on AOL? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this, but it really does exclude many people. I've read TIME maagzine for decades - but I'll never get an AOL account just to use their exclusive online services! Scary part is I'm sure many other people will.
His opening argument, about how AOL giving away TOC negates any argument about third-party clients having no right to use the system, is invalid. It's like arguing that because the bank allows you access to the money in the vault via a teller, you have the right to go in the vault and muck around as you like. Hey, it's less resource intensive, because they don't need this proxy (teller) to service your requests, right?
The fact of the matter is that the general public starts off with absolutely ZERO rights to use AOL's servers. AOL then allows specific forms of access. If they only want to allow certain people certain types of access (via TOC versus OSCAR), it's well within their rights. As much as you would like to think it is, instant messaging is NOT a public accommodation.
-Todd
---
--
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
Slashdot Mirror
OK, did you even read the article? Consider the alternative, TOC. If Jabber, GAIM, and every other AIM client used TOC to connect to AOL's servers (sacrificing some functionality), would AOL be able to bitch about the bandwidth?
That would be like complaining that you left your front door unlocked and put out a sign inviting everyone in to eat your food and drink your drink.
If anything, the metaphor for using OSCAR changes to some extra people coming in through your backdoor and using your toilet too.
So, yes, it is using AOLs resources, but so is TOC -- and TOC is sanctioned. The argument can't be about resources then. It has to be about whether or not its a use sanctioned by thw owner of those resources.
Now if this doesn't sound like performing an illegal action ... then I don't know what is.
Having standby methods does not maqking something illegal. It is no more illegal than their present solution to steal, as you put it, AOL's resources. Here's another example of something that sound illegal that really isn't:
Covering your two-year-old kid in vast quantities of dihydrogen monoxide as he screams bloody murder.
Of course, no two-year-old wants to take a bath.
Lotus's product, SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) legally connects to AIM servers because Lotus paid a licensing fee to AOL to allow it to happen. So far they've licensed just the chat module (no file transfer), but it's a start.
GAIM and Jabber could do the same. Free, unless you want to connect to an AIM server, then it's $5/year, or something like that. Then connections are legal, and the GAIM and Jabber teams don't have to spend time re-reverse engineering things every time AOL makes a change.
Every time there's and AOL vs GAIM article the same comments arise. Mod this down if you want but AOL has no oligation of playing nice with the OSS community.
While software can be free (beer) hardware seldom is. Someone has to pay for it, and in this case is the ads in the AIM client. Now imagine: AOL says, ok go and write an open source client. Someone makes it and puts de ad routine in the code, e.g. show_ad_banner();
Nothing can stop me from nuking that code away and remove the banner in the client.
On the other hand you may argue that the number of linux/bsd users compared to Windows users is really small, so AOL might well allow linux/bsd users in their servers. If you ask me I don't think ther resource drain is that big, but as I said before AOL has no obligation at all to provide a service for free. They could allow it if you were inside their network, but how many unix users connect to the net with AOL? Guess not many.
To finish, a quote from the article: "It's not the resources that are the issue; and if it were, TOC would be blocked out"
I don't agree, maybe they want someone using and old client to be able to still use the service.
Just my 2c
What is the problem here? I can use everybuddy just fine to talk to people I need to talk to. That's what IM is for. What else do you need?
If you don't like that TOC doesn't do what you want, then don't use AOL servers. Force your friends to use IRC. Run your own IRC server. Just stop Whining!
It IS a valid analogy? Why? Utility companies were regulated because they are... monopolies. Not 100% monopolies, but enough to require regulation.
Now AOL has a VERY sizable chunk of the IM market between AOL, ICQ, etc. They are trying to force people to use their stuff and only their stuff (remember when you had to rent a phone from Ma Bell?) So many people use IM, that AOls insistence in locking down their network is a) a disservice to their users and b) excludes other users who frely choose to use other services.
Normally you'd say - that's business and hte most popular devices wins (think VHS) But in this case you have a company who is flexing its muscle to rule the Internet.
Remember how CNN, TIme Managzine and others always had live chats via their websites with various folks? Notice how those chats are now exclusively on AOL? I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do this, but it really does exclude many people. I've read TIME maagzine for decades - but I'll never get an AOL account just to use their exclusive online services! Scary part is I'm sure many other people will.
--
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
His opening argument, about how AOL giving away TOC negates any argument about third-party clients having no right to use the system, is invalid. It's like arguing that because the bank allows you access to the money in the vault via a teller, you have the right to go in the vault and muck around as you like. Hey, it's less resource intensive, because they don't need this proxy (teller) to service your requests, right?
The fact of the matter is that the general public starts off with absolutely ZERO rights to use AOL's servers. AOL then allows specific forms of access. If they only want to allow certain people certain types of access (via TOC versus OSCAR), it's well within their rights. As much as you would like to think it is, instant messaging is NOT a public accommodation.
-Todd
---
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
From Unauthorized Use
DULLES, VA
America Online announced today that, in keeping with its recent instant messaging policy, it will no longer allow outside users to send email to any address within the @aol.com domain.
A corporate spokesperson said, "We run these mail servers. It costs us money to do so. Why should we allow outsiders, non-customers, to send mail to our servers?"
Another plan, to disallow any TCP/IP packets to pass through AOL's routers if the source or destination are not both AOL customers, was in the works....
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again