Slashdot Mirror
AOL May Open Instant Messaging To Other Servers
Brento writes "MSN is reporting that 'AOL said that it's almost done developing the technology that would allow its messaging services to operate with those offered by other industry players.' The article is light on details, but it sounds like they're going to offer interoperability directly with other servers -- not allow users to log in with new clients. 'It expects to complete an agreement with a leading technology company to conduct a live test between two different servers later this summer.' That would mean good news for competing services like MSN, but it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want."
Of course, since other projects have demonstrated they can do the same things that AIM does, and AOL has repeatedly shut them out of its IM network, it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."
My neice may stop installing multiple distinct chat clients every time she visits us. Apparantley her peep cloud cant settle on a single client.
Have we all forgotten?
Dude, this is Slashdot. You must be mistaking it for a web site where the editors are actaully informed about anything.
Here's a little more detail from The Standard:
Has AOL Gotten the Message?
A year ago, getting instant-messaging systems to talk to one another
was a red-hot topic. Yesterday AOL filed a mandated report with the
FCC, detailing its progress toward opening up its IM to others - and
the press barely noticed.
AOL has been the king of the IM mountain since it invented the service
years ago. The company has always been zealous about keeping other IM
systems from working with its own. Last year a coalition of companies
including Microsoft lobbied hard to get the FCC to force AOL to open
up its messaging community to others, as a condition of approving the
AOL-Time Warner merger. At the time, AOL told the agency, "Don't push
us, we're goin'." In the end, the FCC didn't mandate IM
interoperability; it merely required AOL to file reports every six
months on its progress toward that goal.
CNET's Jim Hu filed a solid backgrounder on the IM wars, noting how
much the landscape has changed since those FCC hearings. "Critics that
lobbied to force AOL's cooperation are now increasingly staking out
their own independent territories," Hu wrote, pointing to Yahoo's
recent introduction of a videoconferencing feature in Yahoo Messenger,
and Microsoft's plan to bundle its IM client with the upcoming Windows
XP.
The Washington Post's Alec Klein reported that AOL's 11-page filing
was short on details - it "did not say when AOL would actually open
its system to rivals" - and long on carping about how technically
difficult it will be to achieve interoperability. Pity the poor media
behemoth's programming woes. - Keith Dawson
it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want.
So let me get this straight - you're complaining that to get full control over how you use IM, you have to set up your own IM server, while if you use one graciously provided by someone else, you have to play by their rules. What's the problem with that? I don't see why you have some sort of god-given right to use AOL's servers. The only legitimate complaint I see is that AIM already has a huge market share, which makes entry into the field have a high barrier, but if they're going to interoperate with other servers, that removes that argument - all you have to do to use IM how you want is to run the server yourself, rather than leeching off theirs.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I simply do not like Jabber. Not one bit.
:)
It hasn't even really hit primetime and it's already, in my oppinion, ruining itself.
I think it is based on a bad idea: basing everything on XML. Yes it is a tradeoff between interoperability and complexity, but I think they chose the wrong one. And yes, I have read all of their explanations, it just doesn't convince me.
This gives me a veyr bad feeling about Jabber, but it's not the only thing. I've been following the Jabber developent since they first went public with their plans to create it years ago. Soon after they started working on it I got a bad vibe from it, and that has only gotten worse.
For one thing, simply looking at the amount of time it took them to release something bodes very badly. What they were seeking to do was NOT that hard and could have reasonably been released in a month of good coding. It was what, over a year and probably closer to two before they released something usable.
They put too much intelligence into the server. They had a basically flawed model, and though it was implemented well it's just a waste of developer time.
It makes me sick to hear about Jabber, and to hear of it as being a great messaging anything. It's a bad project that I wish would have collapsed.
That's my rant on that
Primarily becouse AOL doesn't 'notice' the connections, as they do with Jabber. Since the servers are the gateways in Jabber, when the servers get blocked, that transport is useless.
Not a better nor worse design then Trillian, just different. It is not connecting 'incorrectly' to AIM, it's simply becouse blocked by their servers due to its IP. Don't spread FUD for the sake of apperent dislike of a design decision, you just look foolish.
And Trillain is not server based, and hence, not just 'anyone' can setup a server. Jabber supporting something is as easy as adding a transport, with no changes required by the client. Trillian, on the other hand, requires ever single client be updated to support something new, becouse, in the end, it's justa glorified IRC client with plugins for the interface..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
They are using the software. They paid a company, who in turn, furthers open soruce development..
You've watched the movie AntiTrust ONE to many times.. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yes, Gabber is probrably the most 'feature rich' of the clients on *nix. Jarl is nice, but yer right, a bit heavy on the startup side.. 8-P
So, I'd say, jot something to the foundation, and mention it. Put something up on jabbercentral.com asking why this is so.. 8-P
It's great to actually be heard..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, I hate to disagree, but I must on *ONE* little point. The @sign does mean something in Microsofts systems.. 8-P
As an example, you can setup your own local MSIM system, and have it correctly resolve, thru MS Exchange server..
Ok, so only a LITTLE notch up from AOL, but non the less.. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Actually, it currently uses SRV records first.. 8-P I'm well aware of what it means, thats why I posted it..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Then you haven't checked for a long time..
Heck, ICQ now has migrated to the OSCAR protocol used by AIM..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
OOhh, you mean big boys like, say Disney?
_ id =994825514
http://www.jabbercentral.org/news/view.php?news
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Actually, Jabber alraedy has a conformant reference transport, we're ready to rock within a week.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Also interesting that it's apparently a 'closed club'. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Jabber does NOT require you have accounts with every other service. Jabber is actually one of the only services besides Microsoft that can actually support the capability right now to deal with external IM systems.
Jabber is not a client, it's an XML messaging architecture that JabberIm is built on. It named based on DNS, and essentially has it's namespace scope limited only by name resolution.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The interesting thing is, of all of the IM systems, Jabber, I can promise, will be the first one to support external access to AIM. It is one of only two IM systems that I know of that has the capability of addressing 'external' namespace out of the box.
If it is also based on the psuedo protocol put forth by the Open IM group, it will be in Jabber within the hour. 8-P
Jabber is entirely based on the idea of, implement it the right way. By doing this, it accepts the idea that other speak other languages to talk to 'things'. Open namespaces allow nearly any 'node' on the network to really be anything. A client, an 'adapter' (Transport), or heck, even a toaster..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yes, that would be nice, and perhaps, in the future, this will be the case. With larger name backers, like Disneys !Go network, this will happpen..
And yes, the !Go Messenger is, you guessed it, Jabber.. 8-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
True, there aren't so many jabber clients available under *inux, becouse many of the developers actually use Gnome, but great news..
*ANYONE* can write one. Several have halfway started some of their owns, but never really gotten one production ready..
Don't write it off becouse of it's lack of a client you like. It's jsut now maturing.. 8-P Check our Jarl if you want an alertantive.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
But you might use their mail server. In the case of Jabber, it's a nice, open, XML based protocol, with several clients out there that are pretty darned good. Even Disney is using it for their !Go Messenger system.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
And while we're at it, we'll just go back to using gopher instead of HTTP. I mean after all, you could just..
Yes, I'm joking.. SMTP, while capable of doing IM, isn't really built for it. The setup and breakdown on connections required for mail deleivery would kill a large scale IM system..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, when one makes so little good decisions, I always find it important to give positive reinforcement with the actualy GOOD ones they have.. 8-P
'Come little Microsoft, let me show you the way.. Why yes, thats a WONDERFUL butterfly..'
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Really now?
I'd love for you to show me the TOC protocol itself? If AOL 'encourages' it's use, where is it?
And tell me, do you also have access to the AIM chatrooms? If you look carefully, you'll notice that TOC maintains it's own, baren, featureless chatrooms.
TOC exists as their test clients 'failover' protocol, and often messages send on it are lost or dropped, servers timeout, change, etc, and your rosters will disappear.
Show me SOMETHING from AOL that recomends TOC as an external interface to the AIM system..
And I'd also put money on the fact that, if enough people actually used TOC, the servers and protocol used would simply vanish into thin air..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Funny, I do the same thing.. And becouse Jabber is based on DNS, I host my own jabber servers, to.. 8-P
Anyway, the point is, an open, free to implement system based on a good, open namespace, wins every time.. And the only system out there that can do this currently IS Jabber..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
You where doing it on such a small scale, that they haven't noticed and decided it's finally time to shut down that legacy based, unsupported system known as TOC.
The only reason they still support TOC is due to it's use by certain larger partners, that incorperate AIM capabilities for a fee. Trust me. Get enough users, and enough publicity, and you'll see those TOC servers thrown onto a VPN and out from under your feet so fast, you won;t have time to cusion your arse from the code, hard ground..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I'm one of the individuals who has, on and off, been working with the rest of the crew to put in time and effort to get it off the ground, and a good system. Many of us here are. You wanna know who I am? I'm the type of person this affects. Other have put in even more time and effort then I have.. (Ok, all I did was occasionally beat a drum on and off for the last few years), but the point is this.
We're the ones making the systems you'll use tommorow..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Well, beyond that, they can send messages to any other JID. The domains of a JID can and DO implement things other then users accounts..
Imagine being able to subscribe to a mailing list that didn't require you to send a mail to do it, but gave you a dynamic form?
How about a stock ticker interface that you could dynamically monitor..
With a Jabber account, you have access to any service Jabber can provide. In some cases, external gateways to other IM systems, ones that don;t require a login to their local namespace, but will trust the servers..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Yep, thats the protocol spec that AOL had posted over 2 years ago now, which was gleefully ripped off of their web site once the higher ups figured out what was going on.
That same protocol will also be gleefully ripped from the servers, and any services based on the protocol are whats going to be 'dicked'.
And the chatrooms themselves aren't linked to any of the other chatrooms for a reason. As an example, try using AIM, then a TOC based client. You will not see eachothers rooms. The TOC system has it's own set of chatrooms, etc..
TOC is only still around becouse of the AIM Express client, which uses it..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
As for your first point, Jabber does exactly that. It uses DNS name resolution for the server scope. It even queries off of the SRV records, so you can setup your server just like email..
As for your second, regarding the use of SMTP for IM, a direct connection between clients would have several limiting factors, beyond the fact that bloat would now be required in the SMTP protocol itself.
A) Giving our your IP like handy snacks is a bad thing
B) Firewalls. Bleh. No incomming connections there. Granted, could fallback to s2s via the SMTP Server.
Basically, one could go on, but SMTP is 'Simple Mail Transport Protocol'. EMail is different from email, any way you say it. Sure, anything could be made to do anything. SMTP could be used more easily, but it wasn't built for it..
Generalized tools for a more specific purpose due to job well. Generalized tools used to generalize everything just won't work..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I'm not sure if you EVER looked at it, but it's a list of requirements for a protocol, NOT A PROTOCOL itself. IMPP does not exist as a protocol, only the requirements that it should meet. Several protocols where proposed via RFCs submitted, but non actually accepted, and utter chaos to this day.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Err, thats due to the use of JabberCOM, and the fact that, it's very hard to use connection points in a Visual C++, etc, application. But saying 'they can't offer a client besides Delphi of VB' is silly. Anyone who cares to can go ahead and implement one. Even if using VisualC++, by using the existing JabberOO package.
I have NEVER heard of a system being questions becouse of the languages that the end client developers choose to use.
If you want a smaller client, then write one. The clients are NOT that big, unless your comparing them to notepad.. Currently, I'm running WinJab, and it's total memory footprint is 4 Megs. Little big, sure. Could it be smaller? Heck ya, but it's not that bad compared to ICQ, etc, and is most certainly on par with what it takes.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Disney paid for Jabber.com's server and support. They also assisted in a stress test to well over a 100k simo connected users..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Thats the point. The Jabber protocol itself doesn't care. The external systems care, with the exception of MSIM, which, if opened up more, can allow this as well. In the case of MSIM, it does do name resolution, and you CAN setup your own MSIM servers, and NOT have an account on MSIM, but be running off of your own exchange server..
Look it up..
And Thats exactly what my jabber roster looks like:
twolf1973@yahoo.jabber.org
thomas%charron@msn.jabber.org
And anyone can set these up. If AIM or yahoo allowed us to talk direct, we could just as easily be twolf1973@yahoo.com. The only reason for our naming being slightly different, is we need to be able to resolve to a transport.
Depending on the server, as with my home server, transports can be given simple names, such as aim, icq, etc..:
TwOlf1973@aim
123456789@icq
Check out http://www.jabber.org
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
That is becouse currently, none of the external systems have allowed any OTHER external systems to exist as a seperate, connected entity. In the case of a truely open server to server protocol, you would not NEED to have an account on AIM.
It looks and sounds to me like that is what AIM wishes to do. In this case, and external entities would take care of validation, and yes, the messages could just be sent into the ether, just like email currently..
My point is, the jabber protocol itself doesn't care. It simply enforces domains the same way email does. The only reason why transports current require 'logging in' is becouse no other IM system supports the idea of an external server based interface..
Once the external systems can address an entity as ANYTHING but a user, you would no longer have to login..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Beouse of the interest thats been generated in Jabber in this article, I feel the need to point out some resources for more information:
http://www.myjabber.org
http://www.jabbercentral.org
http://www.jabber.com
And of course
http://www.jabber.org
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Hopefully..
In the case of Jabber IM, names are simular to DNS, such as tcharron@jabber.org. The wonderfull thing about this is, in many cases, the thing on the other side can provide many more capabilities then just chatting. The Jabber protocol itself supports a rich set of Info/Query routines, whcih allow other 'things' to happen over the protocol, only limited by the imagination of the developers.
A perfect example is user database and news tickers. No person there, yet you can interact with them with just another address. And not by sending messages, either, by actually registering with them via a form.. 8-)
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Last time I checked, icq was a heavily modified IRC.
it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want
Frankly, that's absolutely, exactly what we should do. Can anyone imagine how half-assed electronic mail would be if every single person on the internet had to send their messages through one giant email.com datacenter? How about if every single web page on the internet was stored on the single petabyte server at "www.com"? Do you complain that your ISP has to run it's own mail server? Well, why shouldn't it run it's own instant messaging server too? Even if you have a clueless ISP, you can get a free jabber account elsewhere for now.
This whole "internet" thing was supposed to be a distributed network, you know. I understand why AOL and Microsoft (everyone@passport.com?) don't like that, but I expect even the average Slashdot reader to be a little more clued in.
This is a very intelligent move on the part of AOL. Keep in mind that Windows XP is about to ship, and it's going to include MSN Instant Messenger. AOL knows that people are going to adopt MSN Instant Messenger because of the path-of-least-resistance factor (witness the dominance of IE due to its bundling with Windows).
... rather than requiring "peering agreements" that only let the big boys play.
Why is this important? Because of the interoperability nature of instant messaging.
Anyone who does IM knows that IM users hang out in packs. You gather together your circle of buddies and you all use the same IM system, because the different systems don't talk to each other. Most groups use AIM, some use ICQ or Yahoo Pager, some use MSN. (I don't use any of them, because all of my buddies hang out on the same BBS and we use the instant messenger built into its software.)
AOL wants to avoid a situation in which an entire group of buddies has to move from AIM to MSN-IM because some or most of them are using MSN-IM. If there's interoperability between systems, AOL gets to keep some of the users.
This is a very smart move. AOL knows it can't keep all of the users. AOL also knows that you just don't get into a market share war with Microsoft when Microsoft is playing the bundling card.
I just hope that the interoperability standard is an open one (like e-mail is, with SMTP) and anyone can write a system that ties in
--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If the contact lists were encrypted with the 128bit key or OpenPGP cert, then neither a nor b would be *as* evil. And I can think of a couple of situations where c isn't very workable either. Namely, any situation involving moving to another system without being able to copy over your contact list (theft, loss, just hapen to be @ someone else's house).
Note that solving a & b, and solving c are not necessarily mutually exclusive. To wit: needing to remember a 128bit key, or carrying around the key or cert with you....might as well carry the contact list around in that event. However, it's still possible to take away some/most of the evilness of a & b (in this case, evilness being defined as "someone else knowing everyone on my contact list"), without resorting to c. You could even go one step further, and, since the contact list would be encrypted anyway, just use the associated encryption as just an "outer envelope".
Does this mean I get 5 pounds from you?
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Sure you do. How could I, an AIM user, talk to someone on MSN or Yahoo? They need an ID to reply to (and for the message to come from, naturally), so I have to have an account on those systems. Nobody is really doing any true interoperable IMing yet, as far as I know (where I put, say, "dcooper@im.msn.com" or "htruman@yahoo.com" into my ICQ or AIM client's buddy list).
I'm still not sure I see where you're going. If I'm logged into AIM, via Jabber, for example -- I've got an AIM account, it's loaded into jabber.org, and I'm using jabber.org's aim-t transport to get onto AIM -- then I can talk to other AIM users. They know who I am 'cause I've got an AIM account, and they address their IMs to that account.
:(
But if I want to talk to someone on Yahoo!, can I do that without having first set up an account on Yahoo? A Yahoo! user couldn't simply talk to tjones@jabber.org, they'd have to have a Yahoo ID to address their IMs to, right? Therefore, I still need a login on Yahoo.
I saw the discussion on JDEV today about MSIM passing stuff through, and that sounds promising, but you're still limited to MSIM protocols, right? Until you can send a message to an arbitrary address (like aim:tjonesor yahoo:tjones) and have your buddy's client be able to talk back to jabber:tjones, then you'll still need multiple logins.
So, yes, the external systems care. But if everyone I knew were all on one system, I wouldn't need jabber. So as long as they're on different systems, those systems care, so my jabber client cares, so I care.
Or am I missing something terribly cool?
I recently switched from mIRC and ICQ over to Trillian. I also get the added benefit of being able to talk to the few people I know on MSN and AIM. Plus, it works through the firewall at work, since each individual transport can get through. And with Trillian, theres no need to create yet another silly IM network. 4 are enough for me (AIM, ICQ, MSN and Yahoo), so why create more? I can chat, chat in groups, and transfer files. What more do I need? I could care less if Jabber is all XML. I could care less that Oldigo(sp?) has some nifty feature. It's another network, with no purpose.
And to the comment above about Trillian being too much like an IRC client, turn off advanced mode to hide the huge interface window and get just the buddylist. It potentially may be renamed to IRC mode in the future to keep "advanced" people from turning it on and getting confused by the non IM client look.
They don't mind letting other servers become part of their network--but they do want to make sure we all use *their* crappy AIM client, so that we view the ads they want us to see in those little ad windows you can't get rid of.
man talk
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
Not entirely true.
EA.COM and AOL share a namespace (i.e. your EA.com login can be your AIM handle). Majestic uses a custom chat-client that hosts both players and game AI. While it looks similar to AIM, it is not AIM.
So so tired of the battle between jabber and aim.
... hrmmm.
Pretty soon we will be able to do User Location Queries over jxta that spread out just like gnutella file searches do. Centralized instant messsaging servers will be a way of the past, just like how gnutella eclipsed napster.
I've been thinking about breaking open a java gnutella client and hacking it to do simple chat rather then a file transfer, replacing file searches and replies with identity search and replies. All that would really need to be added is certificates to verify people are who they say they are.
Maybe a decentralized user location plugin for GAIM would do the trick
There is a chat client I found that already does direct peer-to-peer instant messaging, with full encryption. Identities are OpenPGP certificates. Only the decentralized user location is not there- (okay, kinda a big thing) - oh, and its not for linux either. Raxius Express(windows app)
Feedback on the whole decentralized user lookup is appreciated.
If the uniqueness was found in 128bit keys, or openPGP certificates rather then the domain ... then users wouldn't be attached to a particular server. I don't like losing my contact list when I switch ISPs anyways.
CMIIW, but your suggesetion would require one of the following:
a)Central server holdign everones contact list
b)A whole bunch of servers carrying everyones contact list ( contact lists freely distributed)
c)Client stores contact list
a & b are clearly the work of the devil, and c is what jabber was designed to avoid. The upshot of this:
You are an idiot, and I claim my 5 pounds.
The article appears to be saying that this will be interoperability at the server level which I believe is actually better than having the client know how to talk to multiple different servers.
Clients like jabber are fine if you don't mind having accounts on every service but why should you need to ? You don't need to have a different email account to send mail to some one at AOL if you have Yahoo so why should I need multiple IM accounts.
The only reason I have a hotmail account is to chat to other people that use Microsoft IM if I could do that from AOL or Yahoo or something else of my choice it would be great progress and I might acutally use IM a bit more.
The IETF is already working on it:
h tm l
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.
Kinda like IE and Netscape? Unfortunately, the standards bodies take too long. By the time something is decided, MSN/AIM will have the whole thing even more locked up than it is now.
I agree with the sentiment: open protocols (without proprietary extensions that prevent inter-operability) work best. But only if they are there from the beginning.
As far as the IM issue: I don't use 'em at all. I prefer to talk in person.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
BTDT, have the wedding ring and child to show for it.
Much gas was used, and many homework assignments skipped. And yes, IM was used.
But in the long run, F2F was more important and worth the bucks/time.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
It was only a requirement if the messaging service was extended to other area's like voice messaging or video messaging. Other than that they can keep it as locked up as they want.
--
Aaron Sherman (ajs@ajs.com)
I'm suprized that this has never been brought up, but why not IRC? IRC is a rfc standard, IIRC. IRC has been around for eons and eons. It handls message routing, distributed servers, and it has withstood the test of time. (Although there are some abusers, a la efnet's trouble's)
The only difference between IRC and IM is that IM favors a one-to-one model, and IRC favors a Room-based model. But AOLIM has chat rooms where multiple people can be in. On the other hand, IRC has /query, or /msg user message, etc.
Why on earth hasn't IRC emerged as the chat standard?
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
The IETF completely ignored our Jabber RFC, and is currently in a deadlock between *three* proposals. It's not happening anytime soon...
Not really. That clause only takes effect if AOL starts providing videophone capabilities (like MS Netmeeting can). For the time being, they're free and clear, unless they're about to debut such video capabilities.
The "nightmare" of Jabber is fatly written clients.
Windows 9x is widely used and they can't offer a client besides Delhi or Vbasic language.
http://www.jabbercentral.org/clients/ is a good resource of course. Also can you check the clients resource use?
One of the interesting fact is only Winjabber which is -goodly- written Delphi program can support my language. Also the language I speak about isn't Chinese with 3000 chars, it is a latin based Turkish alphabet (iso-8859-9).
IMHO Jabber needs a compact client which uses 1/10 footprint of those ICQ,MSN and has 10 times more features.
Than you can make windows users care as so that time Industry cares.
As IETF already works on it, MSN, Yahoo and Excite @home are trying to make a standard submission which can be approved by IETF later.
For more info http://www.imunified.org
Interesting that that work is not widely known.
AOL, if anyone wants to read the filing available from the FCC is leaning toward the SIMPLE protocol that has come out of one of the IMPP subgroups (spawned groups?) Not Jabber, but since Jabber has publicly stated that they will support the eventual IMPP protocols (or CPIM) it may all be good. Still a lot of undetermineds, of course. And who is the major player they reference?
Besides, let's face it...instant messaging is becoming ubiquitous. How much longer can AOL hide behind a wall?
BTW, I thought this quote was humorous...
In the FCC filing, AOL said the issue is not as easy as it seems. To make all the services communicate, the companies would need to rely on the public Internet -- something that could slow down the speed of message transmission, AOL said.
Ummm...who's slowing who down?
An OPEN IM standard would be nicer. I've been playing the "What's new" in IM this week, trying to get away from ICQ. Jabber looks really promising, but most of the clients seem to have a ways to go or have bought into Gnome heavily. If you're a WindowMaker or AfterStep fan and have run docked licq, you know what I'm looking for.
The important feature of Jabber is not so much the protocol and it's XML underpinnings, but the fact that the server is open source as well. This allows IM to become a service anyone can offer in addition in to email, web space, etc.
Given AOL's track record, I don't see AIM doing anything other than embracing others IM systems protocol's while defending their own to the hilt. Too many ad dollars at stake.
Anything is possible given time and money.
Jarl was the first I did check out, it actually works fairly well, though a little heavy on startup.
It's just like the browser problem, anyone can write something to parse some HTML, but getting a system as featured as Netscape (WITHOUT the crashing) takes time and effort.
I think jabber will see more use in the future from embedded systems and things of that nature
Time will tell
Anything is possible given time and money.
Gaim logs to AOL, MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, and IRC together. It's one of the sweetest things I have ever seen for linux.
Makes me wonder if the gaim folks got any permitions from all these to clone them.
So, is Disney a paying customer to, or investor in Jabber.com?
Spread it to the windows world too? :)
The "official" jabber client (official meaning the one by the people at jabber.com is released for windows only. Actually, the only reason I prefer Gabber is that it looks prettier (IMO), but I wouldn't count that as a usability issue
One good thing about jabber is that compatibility and "upgrades" for different IM systems can be implemented without the user needing to install a new version of the client software, it is all done on the server. So, if for some reason someone decided to come up with a new IM system (very unlikely :) ot just, stupid...) then the actualy user of that system would not need to install any new software, only add that agent in their jabber client.
They may be a moonopoly or proto monopoly but they have been one of the nicer monopolies we go up against daily. Its hard to hate them when they allow things like mozilla to continue working in concert with AOL/netscape and they haven't screwed ICQ from what I can tell (i don't use ICQ). and they haven't gotten around to shutting me out of IM even though I use gaim (or whatever they have to call themselves today) and there is always the possibility that they will produce AOL/Linux someday which would be a boon for us in the battle against MS. I know all of this can be argues and if any of my past posts are a guide they will be but, AOL could be quite a bit more evil.
mind you I stopped using aol waaaay back when they still didn't have web access and the user count was a measly 500,000. That was like 93-94 or therabouts. But i happily use IM and wouldn't give one whit if they put a postage stamp ad on my 1280x1024 screen.
-
Now that Microsoft is about to release XP with MS Messanger integrated, AOL decides it's time to open up.
They sure are cutting it close, though. XP will likely not ship with any compatibility for ICQ and AIM, and they might end up walking away with the users.
Anyway, who the hell cares? Two lame proprietary technologies duking it out. Let them fight. I'll wait for the IETF standard. Until then, IRC and E-mail will get me by.
Personally, I think all ISPs shoud host a Jabber server and give away a custom Jabber client to their subscribers. Why this is not a part of every ISP's "internet connection kit" is beyond me. You put the CD in, it dials to the ISP, installs a browser, mail client and Jabber client and you already have a working account on your ISP's server just like POP3.
I think it should happen soon enough. Last I heard (and I can't remember the source), AOL quietly switched ICQ over to using the same OSCAR protocol that AIM has used since its inception.
It's a Catch-22. I can't use Jabber in favor of AIM until all of my contacts on AIM also use it. And they can't start using Jabber until all of their contacts (for example, me) stop using AIM.
I'm making an incremental switch. Now that I found an obscure Jabber aim-t that AOL is not noticing enough to bother to block, Jabber is starting to work better for me (on Windows, non-the-less)
I'd love to see everyone use Jabber too, but not everyone wants to either take the trouble to do what I've done or give up on their AIM-only contacts all together.
As I said in my original post, AOL tends to block the major Jabber servers' aim-t's (AIM transports). Because of that, I'm forced to find obscure servers whose aim-t's are less likely to be blocked. All-in-all, it makes using AIM throuh Jabber a painful experience -- just anothe rbarrier to keep AIM'ers from switching.
The new game, Majestic, uses AIM. Perhaps that is going to be AOL's example of interoperability. While the game sounds cool I certainly no one hopes to say that will count as being non-monopolistic.
While AOL may or may not have plans to expand the service at the moment, they probably want to keep their options open. By adding interoperability now, they can add new features to their service at any time.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Use Trillian...
AIM clients and AOL clients can interact with it (provided you have an AOL/AIM screenname); in fact, MSN, Yahoo! and ICQ users can interact with it, too (again, provided you have said accounts). And it works as a IRC client, also...
Again, that's http://www.trillian.cc
First winter rain-
even the monkey
seems to want a raincoat.
-Basho
We could all just start using (and supporting via registering) Trillian @ http://www.trillian.cc/, completely ignore this 'Jabber' crap, and get on with our lives.
Trillian crashes less, is faster, takes less memory, and just provides an all around level of service superior to Jabber. And, unlike Jabber, Trillian connects to AIM properly, so they don't get booted.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Monkey sense
What someone should do is create a standard, so anyone could use whatever software conforms to the standard with whatever server is ready for it.
I'd rather prefer the IETF working on that kind of things than the oh-so-powerful AOL deciding who (MSN?) do they allow to be compatible.
Still, even if it is not what I'd prefer, it is nice to see I will not need MSN + ICQ to be able to chat with my friends on the two sides in the close future.
Really Fast Messaging, aka RFM. That would be a confusingly funny acronym.
Yes.
(That story is titled, "MS, CNET On 7-Day Messenger Outage.")
Of course, if something like that never happens again, then maybe people won't switch, but if MSN locks out people from their chat like that again, people will hunt for alternatives.
(Not to mention that IM already has a captive userbase. I got an IM account to keep in touch with people at the college I go to, as well as people from highschool, and my family members. If everyone else uses IM, why use anything else?)
(And a sidenote to Jabber fans: I tried to get people to switch to it for a while, but finally gave up after two months. Yeah, I know, I like Jabber too, but if I can't get my contacts to switch, I can't switch. So it's AIM I use - because that's the IM service that anyone I'd instant message uses.)
--
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I think the main thing would be to use existing email addresses for routing which is half the battle with IM. username@domain is about the simplest you can get without having some monolithic messging system like AOL.
As for there being too much overhead with SMTP itself, then why not just have the clients make direct connections once the initial messages are sent back and forth whcih could contain direct address information. Then the switch could be made to a lighter persistent protocol.
Why is everyone trying to use AOL's IM? It is just email with a different interface. So.....just create a different interface for emails that are flagged as "IM_AN_INSTANT_MESSAGE", so the messages aren't saved and the text is just displayed in a window.
We don't need another damn marketing protocol...
Probably with a similar scheme to email - eg Fred@ICQ and Fred@MSN. Maybe we'll see the same kinda cybersquatting happening with IM as domain names... That's a nasty thought.
I hope this isn't the case with this new promise of theirs...
With an address like
mymsnaddy:msn
unsurprisingly close to
myemail@mydomain.com
hence, it uses the same system of unique ids (DNS) already in place.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
For *n*x users and *BSD users, Trillian is NOT yet available. So far only M$ OSs are supported. From their website:
"Trillian is currently available for Windows 9X/NT/2000/ME machines only! A linux port is in the works, and we're hoping to progress from there."
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
Of course, since other projects have demonstrated they can do the same things that AIM does, and AOL has repeatedly shut them out of its IM network, it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."
/. are so tense about this - it's AOL's bandwidth/hardware that you're using. Any thoughts?
Well, they're interested in controlling the interoperability. I'm not sure why most people on
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Well maybe anyway? We can only hope that they will extend this to all those which wish to co-operate. My guess is its more likely to be those that wish to pay for access, or for some kind of technology exchange. I can only hope that Open source clients will, and open source servers will be allowed to play, but Imagine, that AOL is going to be heavy on writing the rules of interopeability. I can also imagine that those rules will be heavily in their favor.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I can't tell you why you're wrong because I really don't understand your point. :)
It is AOL itself that is the monopoly threat in the internet arena, not Microsoft-- and Microsoft has been trying their hardest... they even broke the law from the sound of it. Yet AOL has an insane number of subscribers, has been around since before the whole internet/web, and has recently bought themselves a fairly huge media empire-- including a major cable provider. Playing the two against each other is never really going to be in the public best interest (and it hasn't really impeded either one to this point). This isn't a healthy competitive market, it's Godzilla vs. King Kong -- we're more likely to get caught in the crossfire than anything else. At least that's my thought on it.
I do not have a signature
This might be a move to appease the FCC. Another of the deals of the merger was to make AOLTW's cable lines available to competitors to use for cable access. So, they give the FCC one thing they want (IM interoperability), so they can drag their feet introducing more competitor-friendly cable lines.
Ok so Im a dork for replying to my own post but heres more clarification on the mandatory opening of AOL's unified IM system:
So it looks like we may be heading for an RFC on this after all, but the timline is at best vague. AOL will of course keep itself closed as long as possible, especially since XP will integrate the MSN client into the desktop (sigh) and draw most of us deeper into Bills Clutches. The info was gleaned from CNET, which lists ALL of the provisions of the merger if you're interested:
http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-442 75 68.html
That the opening of their Instant Messenging servers/protocol was a condition of the merger?
Later this point became a REQUIREMENT of the merger.
The original story on CNNfn can be found here:
http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/12/14/deals/aoltimewar ne r/
As an AIM user since version 2, I have run across this error messege many times, while using the AIM software. This seems to occur when I am using too much bandwith, and has nothing to do with gAIM, but AOL's servers or your lack of bandwith. Expect the worst and you'll never be dissapointed - Me
uhh, use the AIM transport... Then you can talk to AIM people.
-- [ta]
Ever heard of Jabber?, it does this already.
Al Sutton
Their installed base and proprietary nature was a good weapon against MS. Now that all IM's will work together you can as well use MM, or any other client. Why use AOL? Just use whatever came with XP. No reason for AOL to get advertising revenue since the number of AIM clients may drop. Can anybody give a reason why I'm wrong?
I don't use the program myself, but a couple of my SMS-addicted friends do, and from what they told me, it sounds like it will already work with AIM, MSN Messenger, ICQ and Yahoochat (and possibly a few others?).
it's interesting to see a sudden interest in "interoperability."
This isn't a sudden interest. In fact, it's not an interest at all. For those who don't recall, this interoperability is a requirement of AOL's merger with Time-Warner. The FTC made it a requirement, supposedly to help prevent abuse of monopoly in the future.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
I'm always suprised how little support the Jabber project is getting. They've done some fantastic things there.
The Jabber system can communicate with almost every IM system out there (ICQ, MSN, etc.) There's even IRC support.
Also, the whole thing is completely cross-platform. There are even clients for handhelds (http://www.jabbercentral.org/clients/).
And do I have to mention it's entirily GPL?
It's not GPL. It use it's own Jabber Open Source License. At least it's approved by the Open Source Initiative.
You're right...I should have pointed that out. But, don't throw up your hands just yet. From Scott Werndorfer, one of their two founders, on their discussion forum:
yup, there are plans to port to as many OSes as possible, with linux being a big priority. once the win32 version reaches a certain plateau, we'll start some ports. we'd like to get group chats / file transfers squared away first. - scott
Remember, although remarkably stable, Trillian has not even reached version 1.0 yet.
Did I mention it's an IRC client?
No, but I did orginally. Yes, it is taking them awhile, as an IRC client is no small undertaking for just two developers (yes, I'm sure they could benefit from open source). I don't know about you, but I have yet to be convinced that IRC connectivity is something I want in a chat client.
'AOL said that it's almost done developing the technology that would allow its messaging services to operate with those offered by other industry players.'
.ini file so as to not use the .dll for that service...decreasing the already low memory usage of the application. And the multitude of skins kick ass.
Well, maybe they don't know it, but they must already be done, because Trillian connects to their servers. It's not open source, but it does connect w/ AIM, Yahoo, MSN, ICQ, and IRC. Additionally, whatever services you don't use, you can modifiy an
I tried Jabber, but didn't find any projects that were currently connecting to AIM or that were as far along as Trillian for that matter.
I don't use jabber (all my friends are on aol im, and ive been forced into it.) But if aol hooks up with msn's servers could jabber get to aol through msn?
It's the Associated Press.
--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Now if we can just get them to open up the cable networks like they promised to.....
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
There has got to be a half dozen programs out there that offer a variety of different services. I use ICQ (unfortunately now owned by AOL (*sigh*)) because I consider it to be a more powerful client. Like it or not, AOL is the industry leader. If AOL can develop a protocol that everyone else can follow, that's a good thing. AOL is worried about lag time over the net, but I don't see this as a problem...IM will go from "Instant" to "Really Fast." There is also the worry about Spam. If AOL makes this a standard, then people should be able to modify the standard to resist any type of spamming problems.
The thing that makes me breath a little easier is that AOL has to do it right, because this is something AOL customers want the ability to do. AOL would like to get everyone else using AOL products, but now that that is an impossibility due to the limits the FCC placed on AOL, and AOL will have to make a product that AOL customers will be able to interact with (I hope). I do not understand AOL's apprehension to a unified standard...AOL has benefited from open email as much as anyone, and if AOL offers a superior product, people will want to use their IM client.
We shall see if this AOL offering becomes everything I know the community wants it to become.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Somebody should tell the Jabber community to stop dreaming about an integrated instant messaging solution... now the BIG guys... the GOOD guys... just invented it and are going to do us the favor of releasing it OPEN?
Im so glad, i also hope they put a shared source license with it like the one dady microsoft made...
NO SIG
Instead of letting msn and yahoo set up their own clients, aol is setting up a new system where ONLY the server end can be distributed and NOT the client. That is one smart move by Aol.
Seriously, if you think about it, the only reason M$ wants in is so they can hijack the client, stick their own ads, and then embrace and "extend" their little extensions, eventually kidnapping the entire IM market away from aol.
So instead of letting M$ do that, Aol has found a way to both comply with the courts and still protect its own interests. They're now going to distribute instead the server.
And you can bet in their agreement clause to other isp's such as M$ they'll be using DMCA to put a handcuff on M$'s sneaky little hands.
When all is said and done, Aol will still have total control of future IM apps as well as keeping out the antitrust courts.
Damn Steve Case is one smart MF and I'm all in favor of him. The last thing I want is for M$ to slaughter them too (like they did with Netscape), because then M$ will really have ruled the world.
---------
Did you just fart? Or do you always smell like that?
eTrade SUCKS
I hope they don't leave out ICQ. I actually kind of suprised that support for it has not been added since AOL bought Mirabilis. I would think that AOL would want to incorporate the large community of ICQ users into their AIM pool for bragging / advertising purposes. I am glad they are finally working on it though, because running 3-4 different IM clients is getting to be rather of an annoyance.
-----
Bow before my sig, for it is good.
Does this mean that now my buddy list is going to have a whole bunch of names proceeded by AOL, MSN, ICQ, etc? Take my nick for instance, will it be AIM-Uttles rather than just Uttles?
I think this is really cool if they ever get it to work, but I do wonder exactly why AOL is suddenly interested in this, and I wonder if Yahoo, MSN, and others will share the interest.
On the other hand, it's about time "chatting" was standardized just like internet browsing, file transfer, telnet, email, etc. When you think about it, the single "backbone" and multiple client scheme is the way most things on the internet should operate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
If it was like IRC, it wouldn't matter who or what client you had, you'd just connect. But with IRC there's a billion different networks.
ICQ was great, but who wanted to be 11782391231?
AIM is fine. Why bother using the rest of the IM clones?
ICQ is a good client... MSN better, imho... but both are just such memory hogs supporting crappy organizations. *cough*evil*cough*
Clients like Odigo already communicate on all the current IM servers, and it's nice to see they'll stay.
Icq... 30 MB memory... bitch...
Screw 3...
anything to do with this article but... Upon getting home and cracking open gAIM I recieved a small pop up window that said "AOL error" "Your connection may be lost." My connection was NOT lost...yet.
Anyway, I got a packet sniffer checking all incomming connections to my computer from the AIM server and I don't see anything fishy... Might this be part of AOL's "opening up to other servers" or just my bad installation?
---
------
Sig
...but who cares? Everyone should use Jabber I think. Spread it to the Windows world too! Why let huge corporations like AOL or M$ control our messaging
Find nice cocktail recipes @ www.spitzy.net
How can two pre-existing chat systems interact without a common user directory?
For example, there is already a username "Fred" on ICQ and MSN, for two different people.
How can you contact people on the other system without misdirecting?
"Enough of this wretched, whining monkey life." -- Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_, Book 9, 37
"...but it would mean we might have to set up our own Jabber servers to really get the level of service we want." Hmmm.. I remember AOL trying to get rid of jabber... and to some extent being successful... asfar as interoprability with AIM
Sweet! Does this mean that I will be able to use my AIM Client through a freenet server? Or maybe I don't want an extra 15 minutes between my messages and responses, it's already long enough as it is...
import sig.my.*;
my brother has an idea that might solve this peer-to-peer instant message problem. http://www.netwindows.org if you read the coverpage for this site you can think of the ways to create an instant message system with a simple plug-in (the project is open source so if you know DHTML then make one your self)
Careful what you say around me.. I will assume you mean it.