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."
I already can. I set up a Jabber server with AIM, MSN, ICQ, and Yahoo support. When I log on I can get messages from any of the services in a single client right now. Jabber rules!
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
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..
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.
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
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.
The IETF is already working on it:
h tm l
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.
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.
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.
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.
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
Oh but it is, my friend, it is. You see, Jabber tried to use OSCAR, which AOL has said repeatedly is an internal to AOL protocol. Meanwhile Trillian uses TOC, which is the publicly documented protocol that AOL encourages everyone to use. You'll notice that Trillian, TiK, Net::AIM, and others never have a problem, because AOL is glad that they follow the rules and content to leave them alone.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
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.
Yeah, jabber would be nice if it actually worked consistantly... Unfortunatly it's hit or miss as to which services it will decide to connect to on any given day.
-Dorsey
-Dorsey
If you can't beat them, exploit them. *Then* beat them... -Milk & Cheese
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/
Probably not the Good Thing© that MSN (the always objective mouthpiece of the Peoples Republic of Redmond) would have you believe. Particularly after the recent battles with AOL over desktop space. Look for Microsoft to say something along these lines, down the road: "Aw, gee, gosh. It's not really all that great so we decided that for the good of people everywhere (who will really want this anyway, since we know what's best for them and they trust us) we'll just circumvent it and establish the Microsoft Standard Immediate Messenger©, complete with Shared Source©"
I suggest we build the missiles Bush wants and aim (no pun intended) them at Herndon VA and Redmond WA.
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Obviously you don't seem to have a problem with the fact that ICQ, MSN, and AIM are all closed systems with a central server. You can throw Odigo in there while you're at it. Each of these systems are against the original spirit of core Internet protocols, which is to be open and distributed.
Jabber is has created an open _decentralized_ standard, something you will never see coming from any of these other companies. Maybe you don't care that all of your conversation and personal data goes through these central systems? Maybe you don't mind the single point of failure in these systems? Will you be using MS Passport too?
It's all a matter of what you care about. A lot of people are content with "what works." For others, that's not enough.
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.
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.
Why not just base it on your email address? I mean, everyone already has a unique identifier which is their email address. You still need some sort of DNS-like system to connect email addresses to clients, but that shouldn't be so hard to pull off. Jabber seemed to attempt something like this, but it makes the assumption that the domain you have an email address at has a jabber server.