The America Online Protocol Revealed

Gods Misfit writes "The America Online protocol(Connecting, Logging In, Joining Chats, etc..) has remained a mystery for most of its life. The only way one could log into their AOL account was via the AOL software. A few months ago, some people set out to break down the AOL protocol and open the door for alternative America Online software. This document is the result: The AOL Protocol. A sign on example for Visual Basic programmers has been written and is available here." I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time. A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.

Comments

Erm...hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who use AOL aren't SMART enough to use any OS other than WIndows...

Re:Erm...hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderated by a true AOL user!

Re:Erm...hrmm...

[Assmasher]

You're an idiot for thinking that smart and learned are the same thing.

Re:Erm...hrmm...

[jmccay]

I know I am replying to Flaimbait, but you can use wine to run AOL in Linux and get extra security while keeping the internet conneciton simple for those users that are not capable of understanding it. I seem to remember doing that a while back using Red Hat 6.2 (and installing wine {and the machine was a dual boot machine}) BUT I never got Wine cofigured properly so you couldn't do everything. Then I crashed my linux while compiling a Kernel (I didn't bother to make it a second Kernel). Now I might try it again sometime when I can get RH7.1 runnign properly with my graphics card.

Re:Erm...hrmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

you really sound like an AOL user yourself...

Re:Erm...hrmm...

[jimbolaya]

How 'bout, those who use an OS other than Windows are too smart to use AOL?

Seriously, though, I'm not convinced that the reason people aren't switching to Linux or *BSD has anything to do with AOL.

A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everyone can read .wri, a .txt and/or .pdf would be nice.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[hether]

Can't you just open it with some sort of text reader? I know I did.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Railroader]

Konqueror opened it for me. Didn't word wrap, and there were some strange bits, but it was readable.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

The AOL Protocol

When you hear the phrase "The AOL Protocol", I bet most of you immediately think of FDO, right? Although FDO is a part of the AOL protocol, it in no way encompasses the big picture. When I use the term "The AOL protocol", I refer to how the AOL client and server interact with each other, how data is prepared, how it is sent, and how it can be manipulated.

There currently exists no formal documentation of the AOL protocol, or at least one that is publicly available. For this reason, I have taken it upon myself to strip the bits of information from my feeble mind and write a document with at least basic information about the AOL protocol. The information included in this document is what I have learned, from exploration, help from others, and just stumbling upon it. I in no way guarantee the accuracy of the information contained herein. That said, here is what I know.

Table of Contents

1) Establishing a connection
A. Servers
B. The handshake
C. Sending the screenname and password
D. Completing the login
2) The packet
A. The first byte
B. The second and third bytes(CRC)
C. The fourth byte
D. The fifth byte
E. The sixth and seventh bytes
F. The eighth byte
G. The ninth and tenth bytes
3) Logging AOL's Data Packets
4) Forming Data Packets
5) Pings
6) About FDO Decompression
7) Putting it all together
8) Using Common Sense

1) Establishing a connection

A. Servers - America Online Servers generally run on port 5190. The server that the clients connect to is randomly chosen via the DNS Round Robin 'AmericaOnline.aol.com'. There are literally hundreds of America Online servers linked together. It makes you wonder how they avoid the common IRC occurrence of "Net Splits". To connect to an AOL server, all one has to do is connect to 'AmericaOnline.aol.com' on port 5190. I'm sure all of you can do this, you can even test it in Telnet. AOL servers that people generally connect to are called "berps". An example AOL server is 'berp-cr01.dial.aol.com'.

B. The handshake - Upon connecting to America Online, the client first sends an identification packet that includes the version of the AOL client being used. On success, the server will send back go ahead packet(SD) and the client will then send Screenname/Password. On failure, the AOL server will send an XS and the client will disconnect. AOL uses this in order to disable older clients from connecting and force people to upgrade. If the server gives no response, the packet wasn't formed correctly.

Client: 5A413800347F7FA3036B0100F5000000050F00002152CBCA07 0A1000080400000000035F0000010004000300080000000000 000000000000020D
Client: ZA8Å4£kÅõÅÅÅÅÅ!RËÊÅÅÅÅÅ_ÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅ

Server: 5AB71100037F7F240D5A88E9000B107F20534454D1F68B0000 0D
Server: Z-Å$ZéÅ SDTÑöÅÅ

C. Sending the screenname and password - After the server accepts the initial handshake, the screennname and password are sent. If the screenname and password match, the server then sends the Master Tool disabling information, and also sends the Welcome Window FDO. If the screenname and password do not match, the server will ask for the password once more, if it fails twice, the server sends the XS and the client is disconnected.

Client: 5A243F00431010A044640015000100010A0400000001010B04 0000000103010A686F6C797461626C6520011D00011D00010A 0400000002030108736174616E363636011D000002000D
Client: Z$?ÅCDdÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅÅholytable ÅÅÅÅÅsatan666ÅÅÅ

D. After receiving the Welcome Window FDO, the client sends the 'ya' token. This causes AOL to tell you if you have mail, assign you an IP address, and, if you have configured it, show your buddy list. Once you are assigned an IP address you are completely logged in and can now send other commands to the AOL service.

Client: 5A4EBA00031018A40D5AC6910008111CA079610701010D5A5C 340022121CA0746C00170001000A0F04007BB5E80A10041DA6 DDF20A4504000000070002000D5A6F4A000D131CA053430150 001000002000D
Client: ZNÅZÆ'Å-yaZ\4Å" tlÅÅÅÅ{è¦ÝòEÅÅÅÅÅZoJÅSCÅÅÅÅÅ

Server: 5A419B00351D132079610304AC992E10020102010100040498 A3CE86070101050203C00A153135332D34362D31362E697074 2E616F6C2E636F6D0D5A7E91001E1E132076A007BB5E81DA6D DF20000000000696D66617274702E627574000D
Server: ZAÅ5 ya(TM).Å£ÎÀ153-46-16.ipt.aol.comZ~'Å-- tjÅ{è¦ÝòÅÅÅÅÅimfartp.butÅ

2) The packet - Ah, the illusive AOL packet. The structure of these packets have remained a mystery throughout America Online's life. I will now make an attempt at breaking down these packets.

Here's a basic idea of what a packet may look like:

Z (CRC) (CRC) [NULL] (LENGTH BYTE) (HB 6TH) (HB 7TH) [SPACE] (TOKEN) (TOKEN)

That's the first ten bytes in any AOL packet. The only bytes that don't change constantly are the first, Z(5A in Hex), and the fourth, A null(00 in hex). Anything after the first ten bytes is compressed FDO or data strings. Here is a breakdown of the ten bytes in greater detail.

A. The first byte for all AOL versions is Z or 5A in Hex. This is probably the least troublesome byte because it never changes and you can't forget to add it as easily as you can the fourth.

B. The second and third bytes are 'Hi' and 'Lo' bytes produced from the CRC16 Algorithm. CRC stands for "Cyclic Redundancy Check". The CRC is often used in compression to make sure no data was corrupted. If the CRC header does not match the data in a zip file, the file is assumed corrupted. The same goes for AOL packets. If the CRC does not match the packet, the AOL server ignores it. The CRC is taken from the packet with the first 5 bytes(the header) removed. The number produced by the algorithm is then used to produce a 'Hi' and a 'Lo' byte that is placed in the 2nd and 3rd spots in the header. The CRC only applies to versions of AOL clients 3.0 and below. The newer AOL clients simply send '**' as the 2nd and 3rd byte. you can get along with using newer AOL packets without a CRC, but you'll end up sending more data. If you can use the CRC it will actually be easier to just use it with the older, smaller packets.

Here is the CRC function and 'Hi' and 'Lo' byte subs for C++ and Visual Basic programmers. These are public functions, I did not write them:

C++:

Function AOLCrc (strng$, lenstr)

unsigned short
CRC16(byte * buffer, int length)
{
unsigned short crc = 0;
unsigned short ch;
int i, j;

for (i = 0; i > 1) ^ 0xa001;
Else
crc >>= 1;
ch >>= 1;
}
}

return (crc);
}

Visual Basic:

Function AOLCRC(strng$, lenstr)
Dim crc As Long
Dim ch As Long
Dim i As Long
Dim j As Long

For i = 0 To lenstr - 1
ch = Asc(Mid(strng$, i + 1, 1))
For j = 0 To 7
If ((crc Xor ch) And 1) Then
crc = (Int((crc / 2)) Xor 40961)
Else
crc = Int(crc / 2)
End If
ch = Int(ch / 2)
Next j
Next i
AOLCRC = crc
End Function

Function gethibyte(mybyte As Variant) As Variant
gethibyte = Int(mybyte / 256)
End Function

Function getlobyte(mybyte As Variant) As Variant
getlobyte = Int((mybyte - (gethibyte(mybyte) * 256)))
End Function

The use of these functions will be explained more later on.

C. The 4th byte for all AOL versions is a null(00 in Hex). This byte never changes, but it is required, just try to remember to include it.

D. The 5th byte is the length byte, The length byte is roughly the length of the packet with the first 5 bytes(The Header) removed. I say roughly because another thing can effect the length byte besides actual physical length. The byte directly before any string in the packet(screennames, chat, form data, etc..) is also a length byte. This byte represents the length of the string immediately following it, and is not counted in the 5th byte representation of the length. I have written a Visual Basic sub that will calculate the 5th byte in any given packet:

Function give5th(pack As String, inputz as integer)
'You need the EnHex function for this, you will find it later on in this document.
Dim give5th1 As Integer
inputz = inputz + 4
give5th1 = Len(DeHex(pack)) - inputz
give5th = EnHex(Chr(give5th1))
End Function

This function was written by me. Its use is simple. Just include the hexed entire packet(even header) and the # of inputs your form has to calculate the 5th byte to be places in your packet.

Example: give5th("5AD69400411010A044640015000100010A0400000 001010B04000000010301" & screenname$ & "20011D00011D00010A04000000020301" & password$ & "011D000002000D", 2)

E. The 6th and 7th bytes - These 2 bytes are almost as mind boggling as the 2nd and 3rd. If you watch AOL packets go by, you'll see what I mean. The 6th and 7th seem to change wildly, with no way to tell what the next will be. These packets are different for every new packet sent, but actually go in a loop. If you look at the login packets I use, you'll see the 6th byte(in hex) is 10(Int 16), and the seventh is 18(Int 24). Before every packet sent, I simply increase each by 1. Although the actual client seems to do something a little different, adding 1 works. You can't add 1 forever, of course. You'll notice after a while the AOL server will stop responding. The solution to this is resetting the 6th and 7th bytes to their original values, 10(Int 10) and 18(Int 24). I'm sure most of you don't want to explore this yourself, so the 6th and 7th reset at Int 127 and Int 135. I'm a little confused on what to call these bytes. I call them "counter bytes", but I've often heard them referred to as 'heartbeats'. It seems to me the 9 char "ping-like" packets should be called heartbeats(Who knows? maybe they are). Regardless of terminology, this works.
F. The 8th byte is simply a space.

G. Finally, the 9th and 10th bytes(in ASCII) represent the token. for those of you who know FDO, you know that token kind of tells the server what to expect. If you aren't sure what you're looking at, just look for these tokens and cross check them with the AOL-Files token list to see what kind of packet it is.

3) Logging AOL's Data Packets

Logging the packets AOL uses is a very important skill when dealing with the AOL protocol. Without it, you will get nowhere. When you form a packet to send to the AOL server, you don't build it from the ground up(At least I don't). To build it from scratch would require you to write it in FDO, compress the FDO, and add the header. Although it is possible to do it that way, it is much easier to use logged packets and just change them where needed. Getting AOL packets is actually pretty simple. First, you create a program that listens on port 5190 for incoming connections. You then choose a version of AOL to spy on. This document revolves around 2.5 packets, so I suggest using AOL 2.5(available at http://clients.aol-files.com). You have to set up the AOL client to connect to your computer locally, rather than to 'AmericaOnline.aol.com'. To do this open the 'tcp.ccl' file in the 'ccl' directory and change the 'AmericaOnline.aol.com' to 'localhost'. Save and close the file. you then connect your AOL client. If you did it correctly, you should see an incoming connection in your program. Now, your program make it so that when a client connects your program connects to 'AmericaOnline.aol.com' on port 5190. Set up your program so that when Data is received, depending on the ID of the socket, it will direct the data to the client or server socket. If data is sent from the client, send it to the server, if it is sent from the server, sent it to the client. The idea behind this is to become a type of "data link" between the server and client. We can now begin to intercept data.

Intercepting the data is nothing more than creating a textbox and displaying incoming data from the client or server. Its a good idea to mark it 'client' or 'server' to get a better idea of what you're looking at. The only trick to doing this is editing out the null characters. When a null character is put in any textbox or other viewing object, it represents to Windows the end of a line, so any text after it is unreadable. By editing out the null characters in a string, you allow yourself to see the entire packet. Here is a Visual Basic function I wrote to edit out null characters:

Function stripnulls(thedata as String)
Dim torem as Integer
torem = 1
Do Until crap = 0
torem = InStr(1, thedata, Chr$(0))
If torem > 0 Then Mid(thedata, torem, 1) = "Å"
Loop
End Function

When displaying a packet in ASCII, its is pretty much ruined for sending back to the server, even if you try putting the nulls back in. So most editing for packets is done in Hex. Here are some Visual Basic functions to Hex and DeHex strings and integers:

Public Function EnHex(Data As String) As String
Dim iCount As Double
Dim sTemp As String

For iCount = 1 To Len(Data)
sTemp = Hex$(Asc(Mid$(Data, iCount, 1)))
If Len(sTemp) 0 Then Mid(sData, crap, 1) = "Å"
Loop
status.Text = status.Text & "Server: " & sData & vbCrLf & vbCrLf

If InStr(1, sData, "Invalid password") Then
status.Text = status.Text & "Invalid Password" & vbCrLf
Call Winsock1.Close
End If
If InStr(1, sData, "Invalid account") Then
status.Text = status.Text & "Invalid account" & vbCrLf
Call Winsock1.Close
End If

If InStr(1, sData, "SD") Then
screenname1$ = Int2Hex(Len(screenname.Text) + 1) & EnHex(screenname.Text)
password1$ = Int2Hex(Len(password.Text)) & EnHex(password.Text)
fifth$ = give5th("5AD69400411010A044640015000100010A0400000 001010B04000000010301" & screenname1$ & "20011D00011D00010A04000000020301" & password1$ & "011D000002000D", 2)
packet$ = DeHex("00" & fifth$ & "1010A044640015000100010A0400000001010B04000000010 301" & screenname1$ & "20011D00011D00010A04000000020301" & password1$ & "011D000002000D")
crc1 = AOLCRC(packet$, Len(packet$) - 1)
thehi$ = Chr(gethibyte(crc1))
thelo$ = Chr(getlobyte(crc1))
packet$ = DeHex("5A" & EnHex(thehi$) & EnHex(thelo$) & "00" & fifth$ & "1010A044640015000100010A0400000001010B04000000010 301" & screenname1$ & "20011D00011D00010A04000000020301" & password1$ & "011D000002000D")
Winsock1.SendData packet$ 'Sends the screenname/password. If you don't understand this refer above to 'Forming Packets'
packet$ = DeHex("5A3A0A00031018A40D") 'This is a logged ping packet
Winsock1.SendData packet$
End If

If InStr(1, sData, "Master Tool") Then
packet$ = DeHex("5A3A0A00031018A40D5AC6910008111CA0796107010 10D5A5C340022121CA0746C00170001000A0F04007BB5E80A1 0041DA6DDF20A4504000000070002000D5A6F4A000D131CA05 34300150001000002000D")
Winsock1.SendData packet$ 'This sends the ya login packet, NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE
sixth=Hex2Int("13")
seventh=Hex2Int("21") 'This is where you set your sixth and seventh at first.
End If

In your send IM command button put this:

screenname1$ = Int2Hex(Len(IMName.Text)) & EnHex(IMName.Text)
IM1$ = Int2Hex(Len(IMMsg.Text)) & EnHex(IMMsg.Text)
If sixth = "127" Then
sixth = "15" 'Backtrack 1 because we are going to add 1 soon
seventh = "23" 'THIS IS THE CODE TO RESET THE BYTES
End If
sixth = CInt(sixth) + 1
seventh = CInt(seventh) + 1
fifth$ = give5th("5A606700001522A06953002500010001070400000 003010A04000000010301" & screenname1$ & "011D00010A04000000020301" & IM1$ & "011D00011D00011D000002000D", 2)
packet$ = DeHex("00" & fifth$ & Int2Hex(sixth) & Int2Hex(seventh) & "A06953002500010001070400000003010A04000000010301" & screenname1$ & "011D00010A04000000020301" & IM1$ & "011D00011D00011D000002000D")
crc1 = AOLCRC(packet$, Len(packet$) - 1)
thehi$ = Chr(gethibyte(crc1))
thelo$ = Chr(getlobyte(crc1))
packet$ = DeHex("5A" & EnHex(thehi$) & EnHex(thelo$) & "00" & fifth$ & Int2Hex(sixth) & Int2Hex(seventh) & "A06953002500010001070400000003010A04000000010301" & screenname1$ & "011D00010A04000000020301" & IM1$ & "011D00011D00011D000002000D")
Winsock1.SendData packet$
IMMsg.Text=""

In the Winsock control's 'SendComplete' event, put this:

Dim crap as Integer
crap = 1
Do Until crap = 0
crap = InStr(1, packet$, Chr$(0))
If crap > 0 Then Mid(packet$, crap, 1) = "Å"
Loop
status.Text = status.Text & "Client: " & packet$ & vbCrLf & vbCrLf

In the status textbox's 'Change' event, put this:

status.SelStart = Len(status.Text) 'Auto Scrolls
If Len(status.Text) >= 32000 Then status.Text = Right$(status.Text, Len(status.Text) / 2) 'Keeps the length from getting too large

Make sure your status.Text is set MultiLine to True and has scrollbars. If you did it correctly, you should now have a working AOL client that has a status box and can send IMs. Welcome to Winsock AOL.

8) Common Sense

Ok, most of you have probably stopped reading by now. But I need to make a point.

The only reason that the information above is not already widely available is because of the fear of abuse. Putting this information in immature hands is dangerous. Some people believe that if it gets out, the walls of the America Online service will come crashing down as things like faster mail bombers, spammers, IM bombers, and cloners begin to immerge. It may very well be impossible to enter a chat room without being so lagged by scrolling, IMs, and emails that you cannot even stay connected. I don't personally believe that though. Due to the complexity of these packets, it is far harder to use even copied source of this than to use copied source of the infamous "AOL Progs" that eventually died out. If you are learning from this document, I implore you to use common sense in your use of this information.

This document would not be possible if it weren't from the help I received from my friends.
Thanks to phrea, nec, jay, ceramic, and anyone else who I forgot.

Thank you for listening,
Gods Misfit
binary0100@yahoo.com

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[gorillasoft]

Have an HTML version of it...
http://www.accs-net.com/hosts/theaolprotocol.htm

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And wasn't last Windows OS to actually produce any .wri - stuff (that had notepad)
Windows 95? (or was it even removed there after 3.11?). Newer windoze-apps are still able to read it, of course, format being some kind of a subset of later full-features word-formats.

... I have been unfortunate enough to have been assigned the task of rewriting write-input - filter few years ago... It's absolutely horrible, evil, stupid format, with its 256 byte "paging" and other weird stuff.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Sparr0]

Dear God, someone PLEASE mod down some of the MANY text copies. I browse at 1 Nested Oldest and the one at the end was perfectly fine for me.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually most newer versions of Wordpad can still open the file, but it isn't very useful until it is saved into another format.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Windows 3 write.exe file will run fine on any of the newer 'Windows versions.'

Just as is the case with the other orphaned Windows binaries, i.e. terminal.exe cardfile.exe and calendar.exe.

All are fine applications that people can carry forward with them from the Windows 3 days.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[gweihir]

Save as WRI, cut of first and last lines in a
binary capable text editor (e.g. emacs).

Optionally use "dos2unix" and "fmt -78" on the
result. Makes readable ascii.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[flegged]

Actually, the write.exe binary (from windows 9x onwards) just opens wordpad.exe, passing the parameters it received. It's there for compatibility with win16 apps which expect write.exe to be in every installation.

Of course, if you were to take actual binary from Windows 3.1, it would still run, even on Windows XP. Gotta love backwards compatibility.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[cygnus]

.wri file?? am i the only one that finds it ironic that the method of circumventing a widely used proprietary protocol is written in a document using another closed protocol?

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what he was saying you useless puddle of cum.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Hell,
A binary from Windows 286 (v.2) still runs under XP!

I have a copy of MSDOS.EXE, the "MS DOS Executive" that someone sent me as a joke. That's the Windows 2.x "file manager". Really, its like a bitmap of the DIR command output, optimized for EGA!

It's fasinating and illuminating that the Windows API calls still support this antique. I would have thought that M$ would have introduced a routine to disable these old embarrasments.

Re:A Text File woudl be nice

[Norbert de Jonge]

Why is the text "A Text File woudl be nice" visible on the main page (which has "score 2, offtopic") and this reply "Re:A Text File woudl be nice" not (even though it is rated "score 3" and is much more interesting)? A flaw in moderation or SlashCode?

With best regards,

Norbert de Jonge
http://norbertdejonge.sourceforge.net

Congratulations!

[Methuseus]

As much as I dislike AOL, I understand many people like it. I'm glad that one more proprietary thing has been broken to help people. I just hope this doesn't make AOL accounts any easier to hack into, as I've heard. I don't know the exact nature of AOL's login process, so does anyone have any idea what the chances this can be used as a malicious hacking tool are?

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is everything proprietary automatically labeled as bad?

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

To help people? You're such a fucking dumbass. I really hate it when the open source shitheads declare that everything should be their playground. If you people are so fucking smart, then build a space ship, fly to another inhabitable planet and sit around trading files all day. Lets see how long it takes for the arguments to start about who's going to go hunt for some food or do something productive.

Re:Congratulations!

[Methuseus]

Things that are proprietary are not always bad. Windows 95/98 used a proprietary IP stack, but you could still share a connection, use said connection with other programs besides IE, etc. It's when proprietary things severely (in our minds, our meaning tech geeks) limit what you can do beyond the realms of "reasonable use" or whatever you want to call it. I hope that answers your question.

Re:Congratulations!

[drzhivago]

Reading the text file, it does look like someone could write a trojan that acted as the go-between described in the document. At that point, their account name and password could be stolen.

Greg

Re:Congratulations!

[Methuseus]

I was thinking more into somehow finding a way to break into AOL without an account without stealing any info, somewhat akin to using a guest account on *nix machines. I said this because, even though I won't pay for AOL, they don't deserve to have people use their service without paying, since you can still use the internet through other providers.

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

I take it you hate people who modify their cars or bikes as well? Perhaps you aren't smart enough to figure out how things work?

Re:Congratulations!

[aozilla]

AOL cracks have been in existence for over 10 years now (way before AOL was even on the internet, or called AOL). As it turns out, AOL started with a lot of security through obscurity (they used to trust the client for a lot), and as a result, there were holes galore. One crack a couple years ago realized that you got internet access before you actually logged in, and for a while people were getting free internet access without signing up again every 30 (now 45) days (like those of us with a little more fear of jail time do).

In any case, yes, releasing the protocol might uncover some additional security through obscurity holes, but in the end they can always be plugged up, just as they have in the past.

Re:Congratulations!

[haruharaharu]

Windows 95/98 used a proprietary IP stack

windows and sun both use proprietary implementations of TCP/IP. The protocol, on the other hand, is standard. AOL uses a proprietary implementation of a proprietary protocol - this is the problem.

Re:Congratulations!

[Joseppi Blauinski]

My, my, my ... what a ugly batch of English, Anonymous Coward that you are. This is Slashdot, do you even have a hope of buying a clue as to what it represents?

If they're using aohell....

[wo1verin3]

do you really want them installing Linux?

Imagine if it crashes, the support staff is confused enough already with windows!

Illegal Activities?

[jerw134]

Wouldn't this be considered illegal under the DMCA, since they reverse engineered AOL's proprietary protocol? If AOL had meant for it to be public, then they would have put it out themselves.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[jd]

I think that would only count if AOL claimed to be secure. That would be one interesting legal argument.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Milican]

I don't know the specifics of the DMCA, but I don't believe any form of encryption was broken into. I don't believe that reverse engineering a protocol through trial and error is illegal. However, circumventing a security / encryption mechanism is. Please feel free to correct any discrepancies.

JOhn

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Sparr0]

Considering previous applications of the DMCA to reverse engineering of protocols, I would have to say, tentatively, yes. Unless someone can provide a counterpoint?

IANAL

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Purificator]

it may be illegal, but not under the dmca because it doesn't involve bypassing encryption to get to data; it's just reverse engineering. if the software has a reverse engineering clause there might be problems.

i liked timothy's comment that people who use aol may shy away from bsd or linux because they wouldn't want to switch isps. having seen the aol interface and met aol users, i doubt any aol user would honestly USE linux. at best a couple might try the install, but go back to using windows.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Sir_Real]

I wonder if "intentionally obscured" is the same as "encrypted" in the eyes of the DCMA...

Re:Illegal Activities?

[klykken]

mod this up pls, legal issues with AOL is important.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[DickBreath]

I wonder if "intentionally obscured" is the same as "encrypted" in the eyes of the DCMA

You mean using Double Rot13 for an extra layer of security?

Re:Illegal Activities?

[rot26]

You mean using Double Rot13 for an extra layer of security?

You mean that doesn't work?

Re:Illegal Activities?

[JesseL]

If I understand correctly, this only applies when the encryption/obfuscation/kludgy protocol is being used to protect a copyrighted work. I could be wrong.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[technos]

AOL is still the only 'local' 'ISP' in quite a few places, even here in the USA.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[blakestah]

Wouldn't this be considered illegal under the DMCA, since they reverse engineered AOL's proprietary protocol? If AOL had meant for it to be public, then they would have put it out themselves.

No. Reverse engineering algorithms protected only by copyright is always legal. DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent or reverse engineer copyright protection schemes. There is no evidence anything of the sort has been done.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[yesthatguy]

While it may not be illegal under the DMCA, I'd be surprised if it didn't violate AOL's licensing and terms of service. In order to effectively reverse engineer the protocol, you'd have to have an account to try connecting to, and to have an account, you need to have agreed to their license. Has anybody seen the AOL license recently and looked for a clause like this?

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Phill Hugo]

Sign-on and IM can hardly be termed "Copyright protection mechanisms" can they?

Re:Illegal Activities?

[HereTheDogIsBuried]

Apparently the grandparent post is a USian, try a double ROT13 encryption on any cyrillic, hebrew or arabic script and it will work like a charm.

Those USians can't see beyond their nose :-)

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Sloppy]

If you're going to allege that it violates DMCA, then please be specific: What is the copyrighted content that, using a technological measure, has had its access effectively controlled? Is it a login prompt? Surely it's not the WWW.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Sloppy]

The counterpoint is the DMCA itself. Which clause covers this situation? I don't see one.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[baronben]

Quote I wonder if "intentionally obscured" is the same as "encrypted" in the eyes of the DCMA...
This would mean that finding anything that was surronded by a media blitz would be illegal to find, so much for the feild research and the Dewey Decimal System.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[ethereal]

You know, it's not just people in the U.S. that use a 26-letter alphabet. Not that people in the U.S. aren't annoying in other ways, but I don't recall anyone here ever laying sole claim to [a-zA-Z]. Why don't you pick a real reason to complain about residents of the U.S. next time?

Re:Illegal Activities?

[SurfsUp]

I don't know the specifics of the DMCA, but I don't believe any form of encryption was broken into. I don't believe that reverse engineering a protocol through trial and error is illegal. However, circumventing a security / encryption mechanism is.

If that's true, then AOL just has to encrypt their protocol to get anti-circumvention protection under the DCMA.

Disclaimer: I'm not implying this is a good thing.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends. I'm a highschooler, and as such, I don't get my choice of ISP. It would seem to me that it would be beneficial for AOL to provide standard dial up service for people like me who want to use Linux. It seems as though they are really giving up a market that they could at least have had a slice of just by making bread and butter dial up available.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[kilgore_47]

I highly doubt there is anywhere in the US where AOL has local numbers and there are NO other ISP's with local numbers.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[defeated]

When I first moved out to the sticks in '97, the only real choices were AOL, Earthlink, and a local ISP that offered filtered content for Christians.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Defector!!!]

Yeah, the DCMA specifically makes an exception that allows for reverse engineering. Check here: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
for some more info and a short (well, 20 pages) summary of the DCMA. Oh, and teh reverse engineering thing is on pg. 4 of that PDF.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[HereTheDogIsBuried]

You probably should look up the meaning of a smiley at the end of a claim, this was intended to come out as a joke on complaints on USians. But whatever I guess there are humor impaired peoples everywhere...

Re:Illegal Activities?

[technos]

As of late 1999, I can confirm there were.

A friends company rolled out VPN and global email for all their sales reps.

One fellow in NV and one fellow in Backwoods, Alberta, Canada ended up with AOL, despite the fact it wouldn't work with the VPN, because even after exhaustive searching the only dialup access offered with a local number was AOL.

Re:Illegal Activities?

[ethereal]

Sorry, I'm only humor-impaired when my projects at work aren't going well. Much better now...

Re:Illegal Activities?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's don't be so darned condescending. Lots of people use AOL because its convenient and it works most of the time. I have AOL because it allows me a dialup account just about everywhere I go on business. I travel from Taiwan to Brazil and all over the U.S. and connect to the net via AOL. At work, we use Red Hat Linus 7.1. So don't assume that because one has an AOL account that they're incapable of independant thought.

People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[mmacdona86]

I suppose there might be a handful. A small handful. Not "a fair number".

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[Jace of Fuse!]

I suppose there might be a handful.

More than a handful.

I know people who actually use the words "I like AOL" all together in one sentence.

It's really a weird thing to witness.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[chinton]

I know people who actually use the words "I like AOL" all together in one sentence.

Hey now, wait a minute!!! You're stepping on my toes, now. I use those words together in one sentence all the time:

"I would like to see AOL ripped into tiny pieces and thrown into the Seven Seas."

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[rkischuk]

Agreed. AOL caters to the lowest common denominator, the anti-power-user, with few exceptions. I sincerely doubt there are very many people who would be willing to switch to Linux but not willing to switch away from the AOL dummy interface. Still, an intriguing hack, simply on principal.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[drodver]

Remember AOL owns Netscape, which helps to bring us Mozilla. They also have sponsor AOLServer, an open soruce web server. I'm no AOL fan but give some credit where credit is due.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[dohcvtec]

Much more than a handful, actually. A lot of people only use Windows because that's all they know, and many of the same people only use AOL because that's all they know. It's one of the fundamental reasons AOL & MS are as widepsread as they are ("So easy to use no wonder it's number 1!" & "All my friends are on AOL!") But as far as the people who are torn between using AOL as an ISP and running *NIX, I think these people would be few in number, as you said.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[chinton]

They also have sponsor AOLServer, an open soruce web server.

I have not heard of this project... What does it offer over Apache (another Open Source web server)?

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps it's not as patchy.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[guinsu]

Thast like saying "I have not heard of , what does it offer over " There's room for alternatives. The AOL server was (I think) good for serving up dynamic web pages using the TCL language.

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[Anonymous Coward]

Introduction to the AOL Server, and surprisingly, it's quite good.

(although that particular site took a while to return with anything... hmmm)

Re:People sticking with Windows because of AOL?

[tcc]

> I know people who actually use the words "I like AOL" all together in one sentence.

Interresting, in my case, I tend to act like if I didn't know them :)

It's about time..

[LordOfTheHunt]

this got hacked. Now let's see if AOL goes ahead and opens it up for developers or if they take the wimps way out with DMCA based lawsuits?

Scott

Re:It's about time..

[bjwest]

That or they'll change the format by a bit or two and reliese a "new and improved" version of their software.

Cat and mouse games

[boinger]

How long until they make an arbitrary change that breaks all the "new" clients? While I don't understand why they'd care (the customer is still, in theory, paying for the service), the fact that they've kept it secret for so long makes me wonder if they'll let this slide. Not to mention their annoying policies regarding the AIM client (how many times did they break everybuddy?)

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Gaijin42]

The reason they won't let this slide : not all of AOL's revenue comes from subscription. They have lots of ads. And alternate clients could nix the ads, hence no ad revenue.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[rabtech]

Not if you figure out the AOL auto-updating mechanism as part of the protocol. Then, the only way they can lock alternatives out is to actually force everyone who is on AOL 2,3,4,5, and 6 to upgrade immediately. That isn't ever going to happen.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[monkeydo]

While I don't understand why they'd care (the customer is still, in theory, paying for the service), the fact that they've kept it secret for so long makes me wonder if they'll let this slide.

If you've ever used AOL you'll realize while they probably won't "let it slide" AOL is much more than an ISP and the client is about 80% of that. Whether they take legal action depends on their lawyers, but it would be trivial for them to get around this technically. Since the AOL client automatically every time it connects they could simple change some small bit of the protocol every week (or day) that would break the non-AOL clients until someone patched them. AOL could probaly automate this fairly easily to the point that they could just do it forever or until the non-AOL folks just give up.

I imagine you'll see cease-and-desist letters followed by engineering changes, followed by lawsuits.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[SUidRoot]

this could be used to evade advertising and similar things that are shown in the AOL client to give them more income.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[DickBreath]

they could simple change some small bit of the protocol every week (or day) that would break the non-AOL clients until someone patched them. AOL could probaly automate this fairly easily

The difficulty is to change the protocol in a way that doesn't break their clients but does break all of the unauthorized clients.

They can't just force everyone to update overnight. Some people still use AOL 2.

One way that's been discussed here before is to alter the protocol to request a selected checksum of the executable. Now the only way you can answer this checksum query is to have an actual copy of the AOL client. This still does not make it impossible to implement an Open Source client.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[smack_attack]

They would have to force upgrades on current AOL subscribers in order for their clients to understand and new protocol changes. Frankly I don't see this happening, even if they tried to force upgrades at initial connection they would have to be able to patch every supported version at once (ver4/5/6). It seems like that would be a daunting task and could only backfire in their face if they f*cked up a patch.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[gmhowell]

One way that's been discussed here before is to alter the protocol to request a selected checksum of the executable. Now the only way you can answer this checksum query is to have an actual copy of the AOL client. This still does not make it impossible to implement an Open Source client.

Hmm, need a copy of the AOL client? I've got two copies here on my desk at work, my copy of the Godfather Trilogy is at home, ordered from Amazon, so there might be a disk in there, I might order from Tiger Computers in the next few days, so they'll send a disc, I saw one of the PC rags at the grocery store the other day with a disc, and I know I just threw away one of those that came unsolicited at home just last Saturday.

So, while I can't put up an ftp site with a copy of it, I'm sure there must be one or two people with an unwanted copy of the client.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[smack_attack]

This one is actually quite easy... The client connects and download ads or else the RAS kicks them offline for being "idle" :)

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Gaijin42]

Just because the ad gets downloaded, does not mean the ad gets displayed. That is what the advertisers care about.

Also, AOL wouldn't let a rougue client get used, as it could potentially cause problems on the systems performance wise. Additionally it would contribute to the dilution of AOL's brand and potentially their image (if the alternate clients suck)

Re:Cat and mouse games

[smack_attack]

Just send the location of the ad as an encrypted string... and make it so that only the valid client can decrypt it (ad plugin app?).

I know that AOL will never let a new client co-exist peacefully, I'm just trying to point out the technical paths that AOL might take to shut any competitors down.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[harlows_monkeys]

If they did checksumming of parts of the client, the smart way would be to checksum parts of the client in memory, not on disk. These parts could include data that is set up at initialization.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[GrenDel Fuego]

They already force updates all the time. Just not for things this big. When you sign off, they automaticallly start updating.

All they'd have to do is support the old protocol, but restrict people on the old protocol to performing updates to the newer patched version.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[damiam]

Downloading the ads doesn't mean you have to display them.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[gmhowell]

But to look elsewhere in the comments, how do they do this and not break versions 2,3,4,etc.?

Would using checksums of parts in RAM work across several clients? IOW, if they give data 'foo' to 20 clients, will the checksum always be 'bar' from each of the 20 clients? And how long would this last? Now that a certain baseline is established, aren't further changing merely incremental, and thus, easier to adapt to?

Re:Cat and mouse games

[yesthatguy]

Well, back at least with AOL 3, the software could automatically install updates. They could probably add a lockout feature with no more than a few hundred KB of updates to existing clients. If they release a binary patch, it could be rather hard to figure out what they did, and they could just keep changing it every time it's cracked.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Anonymous Coward]

People are arguing the techincal possibility, but haven't they done this exactly for the AIM network? (checksumming memory, exploiting holes in their own software to check for validity)

Re:Cat and mouse games

[SubtleNuance]

(the customer is still, in theory, paying for the service)

Yes, but AOL is selling their eyeballs also...

thats the whole 'keyword' bit - sold to the highest bidder.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[nick_burns]

Well, I know from here that ads can be disable in AIM. Is there a similar feature in the actual AOL client? Of course, this ad disableing will be taken out in the next version of the client, if I so choose to upgrade.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[DickBreath]

Everyone has a copy of an AOL client.

Don't you remember their Pave The Earth campaign a few years back? You know, the one where they tried to cause the continental US to sink into the ocean due to the weight of all the AOL floppy disks?

Re:Cat and mouse games

[shepd]

>Not if you figure out the AOL auto-updating mechanism as part of the protocol

People already have that part figured out for the DirecTV H and HU cards. Still doesn't help when they send out dynamic code.

AOL will just start sending out little patches that do nothing (and are useless when decompiled) and all of a sudden send out a patch to put all the little patches together. Of course, then you are at square one again. Fun.

Or, heck, why not send out encrypted patches? I think its highly unlikely you'll see auto-linux-updates when it's illegal... :-)

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Trepidity]

Uhh, the ad disabling is built into the AOL client. Go look under preferences. They're only on by default.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Anonymous Coward]

So, simply reverse-engineer the new client and get the encryption string. There ain't no such puppy as a trusted client.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[Rob Y.]

Can't a Windows-based AOL user just use AOL as an ISP without using the AOL environment (with ads) at all?

That's what I do for Compuserve, and it works fine on Windows and Linux.

So, why should AOL care if you do the same thing with the AOL service. If all you want's the connection, at least they've got you as a customer.

Or are you suggesting that, now that the protocol's been broken, somebody's going to reverse engineer the rest of AOL's shell? Why?

Re:Cat and mouse games

[essell]

Stupid Dave and his cryptic USW patchy updates! Grrrr.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[ywwg]

or perhaps the unix client could actually display the ad, and then tell AOL that they are still getting their revenue. This way AOL can't say "they're stealing our money, we can lock them out." Naturally someone would release an unofficial patch to block the ads, but as long as the primary project kept them in we can keep AOL happy.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[rnd()]

Yes you can. Just minimize the window and use IE or Netscape and any other apps that talk tcp/ip.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[DNS-and-BIND]

Does the AOL client for DOS still work? I have a copy still sitting around somewhere.

Re:Cat and mouse games

[JordanH]

thats the whole 'keyword' bit - sold to the highest bidder.

I still don't get it. If you implemented the AOL protocol, it seems like you would want to implement the 'keyword' stuff too. Sure, they sell the keywords to clients, but there is, apparently, quite a bit of convenience to the user in being able to type in a easy-to-remember, no URL syntax, keyword and up comes your reference.

An Open Source client without the keyword interface would lose to one with it.

I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL...

[John_Booty]

...was keeping AOL users ON Windows? Now they can spread....

Re:I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL...

[DickBreath]

Actually, given AOL's and MS's recent adversarial squabbles, there could be benefit to AOL to support (more) non MS platforms (than they presently do).

What would happen if a major OEM (Dell, Gateway, etc.) computer came bundled with Linux, StarOffice, and AOL on the desktop? This is in AOL's advantage. Although non-o-fish-al clients may not be.

Re:I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL...

[passion]

been supported on the mac for years...

though I do agree with your point, it could/should spread to other platforms, and end their problems with the monopoly

Re:I Thought The Main Benefit Of AOL...

[trcooper]

Hmmm... Reminds me of the Monty Python 'Twit' skits...

Here they come wondering why elm doesn't say 'You've got Mail'

This'll last...

[DNAGuy]

Considering AOL wasn't exactly thrilled with "Unauthorized" versions of their messaging software (Jabber) I wonder how long it will take them to have a stroke over this.

Re:This'll last...

[Lally Singh]

Well, that interfered with advertising revenue.

AOL / Linux

[mighty_mallards]

I wouldn't try AOL even with my own customizable "protocol". I'm quite happy with a local provider.

It's not AOL that's keeping me from trying Linux on the desktop - it's that my fiancee needs to use the PC as well, and she has enough trouble with Windows... (okay, that and the games)

Re:AOL / Linux

[Prior Restraint]

[My fiancee] has enough trouble with Windows...

It's been my experience that if a user is so much a novice that they're tripping over their own feet in Windows, then you can swith them to KDE and they'll be no worse off.

That said, I completely sympathize about the games.

Re:AOL / Linux

[snilloc]

It's been my experience that if a user is so much a novice that they're tripping over their own feet in Windows, then you can swith them to KDE and they'll be no worse off.

Considering the amount of work I've had to done to get my parents up to their current level of usability with Windows, I'd rather not start all over again. If I were starting from scratch, I wouldn't be as concerned about using KDE or Gnome.

For way too many people, learning to use "the computer" means learning how to use specific Microsoft products.

Re:AOL / Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you build a new box, you poor bastard? For god's sake, I'm a uni student living in the equivalent of a cardboard box (paid for by myself) with several computers of different architecture (paid for by myself) with a fair DSL line (you get the idea). Now, not withstanding, I'm in debt. What the hell are student loans for anyway? In thoery, I should be making enough to pay it all off in 3 years after college, and that's not a bad deal, concidering I come from a very middle class family. Grow up, and stop whining about your inadequices; do something about it. And teach your SO how to use a freaking comp, jerk!

Re:AOL / Linux

[Derleth]

Why don't you build a new box, you poor bastard? For god's sake, I'm a uni student living in the equivalent of a cardboard box (paid for by myself) with several computers of different architecture (paid for by myself) with a fair DSL line (you get the idea). Now, not withstanding, I'm in debt. What the hell are student loans for anyway? In thoery, I should be making enough to pay it all off in 3 years after college, and that's not a bad deal, concidering I come from a very middle class family. Grow up, and stop whining about your inadequices; do something about it. And teach your SO how to use a freaking comp, jerk!

Cry me a river with discount tears! :-)

Re:AOL / Linux

[korvus]

You mean you don't like such lovely FreeBSD games as:
/usr/games/pom
/usr/games/wargames
and /usr/games/factor?

OH NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean I'm going to get a free AOL CD not only for every release... but for every OS?!?!

yay, now I can chat with idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

'nuff said.

(okay, so this is kind of lame).

Re:yay, now I can chat with idiots.

[LinuxIsForAssholes]

You're already doing that by posting here.

Re:yay, now I can chat with idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

I use AIM to chat with women. Some of whom don't run Linux on any of their hardware. Some of who I then meet to do things that many geeks don't really understand very much about.

Oh well. Have fun, geeks. Myabe that shemale in IRC will pay attention to you tonight.

Re:yay, now I can chat with idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

and some of the women are 50 year old men

Re:yay, now I can chat with idiots.

[maxpublic]

Jeez, I'm a geek. And you're right, I don't use AIM to chat with dirty old men (like myself) who pose as young, nubile women.

No, I do it the old-fashioned way: face-to-face. Which sometimes leads to sex with more than just your hand.

You should try it sometime.

Max

AOHell?

[British]

Does this mean a stronger, better, more annoying version of AoHell will be released?

Re:AOHell?

[Anonymous Coward]

Esh, you'd have to be a moron to use AOL. I doubt someone who uses AOL would have any clue as to what linux is, and actually believes the internet is all on one cd! =)

Finally

[Sparr0]

Its about time. For the longest time my roommate was on AOL and I couldnt set up a linux gateway for our home LAN because of it. Thank god the days of ICS over AOL are over!

Re:Finally

[gmhowell]

Why couldn't you set up a linux gateway? Get your local ISP (or university service) set up roomie's Winbox with a tcp/ip card with linux as default gateway. Then install/setup AOL with 'Bring your own access' or whatever they call it. Heck, he can even save $2 per month that way.

Re:Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

BS! AOL has alowed TCP/IP access since at least v5.0. I believe AOL V4.0, also. Maybe earlier.

Check to see what connection options are available in the AOL software.

Check in the AOL directory for a network protocal subdir. Hell, I think it's in the csl sub-dir. Read the one that says tcp*.*, and you can find what port and host AOL uses.

I set up a home lan four years ago, using that info. And thay still haven't had any problems connecting to AOL.

Good one!

[dave-fu]

I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time.

Damn. That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
And they say geeks have no sense of humor.

AOL on linux

[dashmaul]

AOL on Linux.

Isn't that like having a red neck teach physic's at MIT?

Re:AOL on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

More like having a slashdotter teach English.

Re:AOL on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

well, i've never been to MIT, but a redneck taught me physics in high school. he knew what he was talking about too - rednecks aren't necessarily dumb, just usually.

Re:AOL on linux

[CodeShark]

Or an M$ programmer teach a class in "writing efficient C++ code" ;-)

Re:AOL on linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how smart the redneck is.

Re:AOL on linux

[tcc]

>>AOL on Linux.
>>Isn't that like having a red neck teach physic's at MIT?

>More like having a slashdotter teach English.

Or taco correcting at a spelling contest.

Well, that seals it

[MaximumBob]

Finally, I can get onto AOL using Linux! I'm installing it as soon as I get home!

Seriously, I don't know why whenever something gets posted on /., the sentiment "Finally! Now the average user will use Linux!" has to be used. The simple fact is that the average user isn't savvy enough to use it, and there is a large group of users who ARE savvy enough to use it, but find setting it up to be a big headache.

America Online isn't going to be Linux's killer app.

(ducks behind asbestos wall)

Re:Well, that seals it

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it was just timothy's poor attempt at humor, even though it didn't come across as sarcastic enough. He must be into subtle humor.

Re:Well, that seals it

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, I can get onto AOL using Linux! I'm installing it as soon as I get home! I'm not sure what's a more interesting thought: "it"==Linux, suggesting this will draw AOLusers to Linux or "it"==AOL, suggesting this will draw Linux users to AOL. either way, it's just funny...

Re:Well, that seals it

[neo]

It would be nice if there was an "AOL" client, perhaps based on linux, that was user friendly. It would never boot into windows, just into AOL. I can see a freestanding unit costing under $100 (and perhaps, eventually, given for free to subscibers) that allowed users to login and navigate AOL specifically. Such a unit would increase AOL marketshare.

So AOL could be Linux's killer app... but it wouldn't be from Linuz hackers.

Re:Well, that seals it

[Lumpy]

AOL users were using linux for the past year.

Buy a AOL/Gateway connected pad, it runs linux :-)
AOL has been running on linux for months now by AOL's own design.

Yes, it was easier than a PC with windows and their client. Why did it die? who in their right mind would pay $399.99 for a webpad that only connected to AOL!

Re:Well, that seals it

[t14m4t]

(ducks behind asbestos wall)

and dies from cancer....

sorry, had to say it....

weylin

AOL Runs on Linux also.

[jelwell]

Uh, AOL runs on linux also, think Gateway kitchen device, think Playstation 2. It's there, it works, they've shipped. You just can't download it yet.

But I would go as far to say that the type of people who like computers very simple, and very task oriented wouldn't want to install Linux on their desktop for more than one reason.

1) maybe AOL
2) their computer likely came with windows and installing a new OS is beyond their skills
3) linux desktops are still not dumbed down enough. Come on, TiVo is easy to use, my playstation 2 is easy to use, why is my computer so hard?

Joseph Elwell.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[discogravy]

>>>>3) linux desktops are still not dumbed down enough. Come on, TiVo is easy to use, my playstation 2 is easy to use, why is my computer so hard? >>>>

Because your computer is not a single purpose machine. Arguably, PS2 isn't either, but it's main purpose is not as a DVD player or computer -- notwithstanding sony's "lets pretend it is so we can avoid UK taxes" strategy. Your computer is designed (at least PCs) to do any variety of things. Apple's machines are meant to do a few specific things -- if your machine isn't designed to, you can't easily open them up and switch much around to make it into a game machine, a music studio, a word processor, a programming station, a server, a tv/digital recorder without voiding your warranty; Apple has seen the desire people have for these functions and (mostly) built them into it's design. A PC is as flexible as it is because the parts are (mostly,) off-the-shelf stuff.

Computers (and operating systems,) are dumbed down for the hoi polloi -- this is what gets you stuff like Win ME, or the anti-command line stance that Apple has(had). It's a "make it unbelievably easy for every idiot to use". Most people these days don't use their computer's full capabilities because they don't need it; they'll do a little word processing and surf the net, maybe play a game or two and if they're really stretching it, use a couple of other extra apps -- geneaology programs, tax and accounting software, etc. Most people don't have a LAN at home -- most people don't have more than one computer at home. AOL is simpler than Win9x in many way, and way simpler than 2000/NT variants.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[Sir Spank-o-tron]

The answer to #3 above is pretty simple:

Your computer isn't specialized enough. That's why it's so hard.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[Trepidity]

But Windows is easy.

Granted Linux is always going to be harder than Windows to use, but it doesn't have to be *that* much harder.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[jelwell]

Ok, so why isn't the computer specialized enough?

My Playstation 2 can do almost anything my computer can do (Once the online adaptor is released in the USA - it's already available in japan). But it's much easier to configure and use. There aren't many end user applications that don't have web interfaces. I can do my taxes, edit my photos, email my sister, pay my bills, do my geneology, and research my homework - all on the web. There's even a printer for the ps2 - notwithstanding the two usb ports, the firewire port and the hard drive bay. Someone tell me that's not a computer and i'll show you my digital watch and point out that it's more computer than you'll ever understand.

The real difference is that modern computing devices are no longer task oriented. In the old days you bought a typewriter - it did one thing, really well. With the playstation and the TiVo, you do one thing until you're done with it. You want to compose some music on your playstation - you put in mtv's music generator cd, and you can't type up an email at the same time.

Microsoft and other application manufacturers are starting to see that task oriented applications are easier to use and a more natural design. MS Works runs that way, and Windows XP is moving towards that direction (check out the control panel where your presented with tasks rather than controls - albeit all the controls are available) "I want to change my background", "I want to change my screen resolution".

Joseph Elwell.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[Derleth]

Come on, TiVo is easy to use, my playstation 2 is easy to use, why is my computer so hard?

Because your computer is a general-purpose machine. You can use it for a wider range of things than just playing games (PS2) or just watching TV (TiVo). You can instruct it to do a wide range of things, and that means the user interface has to accept a wide range of input from the user. Remember, computers aren't psychic. Nor are they intelligent. They are just simple input-output devices with a lot of flash glued on. To do interesting things, they need instructions more complex than what your TiVo takes.

Besides, who wants to be talked down to by a computer? :-)

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[haruharaharu]

Windows is easy.

Windows is familiar. It's not that easy - if you ever get a chance to see a complete neophyte use it (like in a QA lab or maybe a computer store), you'll understand. Maybe Linux isn't that easy to install, but it's not that bad to use.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[wsapplegate]

Yes, AOL runs on Linux. But it isn't AOL's fault neither ;-)

Check The PengAOL site to find about the Linux client software.

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[Trepidity]

Depends on what you mean by "Linux." If you mean the traditional Linux CLI setup with perhaps X and a windowmanager, it's not easy at all. While in Win2k a newbie might poke around a bit, in Linux they'd just sit there with no idea what to do, as there isn't even a Start menu with all the programs in it. Hell at least in Windows you can click on the "Help" icon in the Start menu; in Linux you have to know what a manpage is, which is not obvious to a newbie.

If you mean an already-set-up GNOME or KDE installation, then Linux is far easier to use now than it used to be, but I'd still argue it's harder than Windows, especially for someone who doesn't use the CLI to supplement their GUI use (for example, the file managers are pretty crappy).

Re:AOL Runs on Linux also.

[nalfeshnee]

'cos your pc is a universal turing machine. that's why.

this should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

I think as soon as this knoledge becomes available, we will see a lot of script kiddies popping up with tools to mess with aol
maybe a return of punters, which currently only work on aim
who knows, the abilities for scripts as well as exploits have suddenly become endless and easy based on the availability of the protocol

Re:this should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

oh well-It was there so he climbed it. Good for him.

Re:this should be interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

do you KNOW how to spell. knowledge

Silly Rabbit!

[funky49]

I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time. A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.

Probably very few people using AOL would consider playing with *nix. If you're playing with other operating systems, you've probably already outgrown AOL. You're not burning ISOs from Redhat that you downloaded via AOL/dialup. If you're on AOL, you're happy and content and most probably don't want to be switching ISPs or playing with a new OS. Besides, just because you're on a new OS, doesn't mean you have to get rid of your M$ partition and AOL as your dialup. People can explore the goodness of *nix on that old computer in the closet they feel bad about donating to the Salvation Army.

The AOL protocal was a nice reverse engineering hack. Nice work fellows. AOL didn't make it more freely available because it was a proprietary technology. They'd prefer to keep it to themselves or license it out.. otherwise they would have used a published standard.

=steve

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Plugh]

The AOL protocal was a nice reverse engineering hack. Nice work fellows.

Hear, hear!
Look:
There is nothing wrong with a cool hack, made by hackers, that is solely of interest to other hackers, and that maybe even impresses your hacker friends.

This is all Just For Fun, people... never lose sight of that!

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[passion]

no - but how many people leave their system booted into windows, since their SO, mom, whatever doesn't know how to:

# sync
# sync
# /sbin/shutdown -r now

If they could just click on a pretty AOL icon on the linux desktop, a lot of linux-users might drop their windows partition entirely.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[crisco]

Ha,

I know a guy that wanted to install RedHat cause thats what the lab at school had. But his ISP is AOL. So he's not going to be a quick linux convert cause he's gonna have to boot into windows to get online. He was ready to ditch the whole windows partition too...

Funny thing that the Anti Microsoft advocacy got to him before the Anti AOL advocacy did. To the rest of us it is a simple solution, switch ISPs. But for some reason that was out of the question for him.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[UberLame]

AOL users on Linux would definately be a minority. However, AOL does have a very impressive world wide network, which makes them very appealing for people who travel a lot. AOL users get scorned quite a bit, but I've met a few who would make the average /.er shiver with their computer knowledge.

Plus, as mentioned elsewhere, lots of kids are stuck using the family ISP, and Mom just refuses to switch. These kids too could now use linux.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[ethereal]

Um, all you do is select "Reboot" or "Halt" from the GDM or KDM window, you know. It's not like we're all still using slackware w/o X here in 2001. My wife has no problems rebooting between Linux and Windows.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[SEE]

Probably very few people using AOL would consider playing with *nix

Except, of course, for people who live where AOL is the only ISP within a local-call distance. For example, I have a cousin in rural Mississippi. His cable company doesn't offer access, the community has no local-call ISP, and DSL is unavailable (heck, the phone line was a party line as recently as 1989). His choices are AOL or paying for bidirectional satellite. So, when he wants to do something as simple as check his email, he has to shut down Linux and boot into Windows.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my friends really wants to switch to Linux but can't because:

1. TFC won't run (certainly not as well under Wine as in Windows).
2. There's no AOL.

That's all that's holding him back.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[ChenLing]

My father currently uses AOL on WinME. All he wants is email, web access, word processing, printing, and viewing MPEGS (VCDs from China). He uses Unix (Tru64) at work, and is much more comfortable with that than with Windows. However, he gets AOL for free (go figure), so he sticks with windows. He actually wants me to replace his Windows desktop with Linux (b/c it crashes so damn much -- time to reinstall I guess), but can't b/c of AOL. This might help, except you never know when AOL will change their protocol. This is probably not the only case of someone who is stuck in Windows b/c of AOL, but I doubt they are a significant portion of the population.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Sonicated]

The AOL protocal was a nice reverse engineering hack. Nice work fellows. AOL didn't make it more freely available because it was a proprietary technology. They'd prefer to keep it to themselves or license it out.. otherwise they would have used a published standard.

In the UK we still have to pay for local phone calls and AOL were one of the first to offer a unmetered service which I am sure was reliable (unlike most of the others at that time). If the protocol was reversed engineered back then and I could connect with linux then they would of had my subscription money. I am still seriously considering it now.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[marick]

This may be offtopic, but I use Linux as my primary OS, and I have NEVER typed "sync" at the command line (I'm pretty sure, anyway). I don't even know what it does. Call me clueless if you'd like.

Additionally, occasionally if I'm doing some command-line server-type work, I have to shutdown manually, but KDE and Gnome do this (shutdown) for you now, and I don't know too many people running desktop linux who aren't using KDE or Gnome at this point.
Why do posts like this get modded up as insightful anyway? Funny, maybe, but insightful?

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You wife also has no problems sucking off me and the rest of the hockey league. Tell her the NHL says hi!

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[chris.bitmead]

sync??? What are you still using UNIX
on PDP-11 or what?

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Kinetix303]

You think Little Billy who can't get mom and pop's permission to switch ISPs is going to get their permission to wipe out the PC and install Linux? Let alone not piss off the family highly by doing this on the family PC?

Don't think so.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[seann]

gdm?
kdm?

Why would you use those?

Hope my 20 seconds is up.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Sloppy]

Probably just about nobody. If someone who can't type uses that computer, and is able to figure out Windows' GUI, then they can probably figure out GDM too.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're terribly easy to use once setup. Sure, they swallow up a bit of ram, but the handy fact of getting a graphical login on bootup outweighs that.

Having said that, my desktop runs kdm/kde, but my local lan server boots to shell. That's what I like about linux, it's so mallable (sp?).

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[seann]

I see..
I used to use GDM/KDM, I thought it was really cool
but The shell makes me feel special, and wards evil kids away from my computer.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[UberLame]

I was assuming that little billy had his own computer. Since 486s tend to be free for the taking, and a 486 would run linux quite nicely, it is a reasonable assumption. I had more than one of my own computers before I could afford my own ISP.

Re:Silly Rabbit!

[Tassach]

You can run Windows in a VMWare session and run AOL from there without rebooting. My wife uses this setup all the time to access a dialup service with a windows-only interface (It's not aol, it's an order-processing package for her business, but the principle is the same). If you are using 98 or ME with internet connection sharing, you should be able to access the internet from Linux after establishing the AOL session from the virtual machine.

Also, The official AOL client works
under WINE (You'll probably have the best luck using the 16-bit version of the AOL client).

it's all about advertising

[vocaljess]

when you have to use aol's software to log in to aol, you have to look at the ads and crap that they want you to look at. aol is just one large, happy advertisement. with the possibility of being able to log into your aol account without having to use their software, they'll lose some of that advertising exposure, which means that yes, they will have kittens over this. whee.

Re:it's all about advertising

[timbck2]

when you have to use aol's software to log in to aol, you have to look at the ads and crap that they want you to look at. aol is just one large, happy advertisement. with the possibility of being able to log into your aol account without having to use their software, they'll lose some of that advertising exposure, which means that yes, they will have kittens over this. whee.

But all they have to do is release AOL for Linux, then they can make the Linux desktop one big happy advertisement too!

Re:it's all about advertising

[Kinetix303]

Obviously unresearched. You can turn off ad receiving in AOL prefs. Don't see why this got modded up to 5.... it's blatantly wrong.

More technical info

[briggsb]

More technical info about AOL can be found here.

Re:you is not paying attention.

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is about the logon to AOL Proper, not the AIM client. "We" broke through AIM's protocol long ago.

Why a shame?

[Red Aardvark House]

A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.

This reminds me of the same sort of complaint found in a recent Slashdot article on Microsoft. Do you really think AOL/Time Warner wants this type of information spread around so they can lose subscribers?

It's not a shame, it's good business sense.

Re:Why a shame?

[SLi]

Do you really think AOL/Time Warner wants this type of information spread around so they can lose subscribers?

Umm, you think they reverse-engineered the protocol so they can switch to another ISP?

Sounds like a good theory to me.

They'll never allow OSS clients!

[pixel_bc]

Why?

WHen you use their client, they control eveything you see. What you can do. Think - they could force commercials or ads down yoru throat (and they will). If its opened up, you know people will just chose not to accept them.

The protocol will change very soon. :)

What is the attraction?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading on /. about how AOL just up and turned over all of thier archived emails and IM traffic, why on earth would anyone be want to write, much less actually use an application to communicate with AOL anything?

Re:This is stupid.

[AaronStJ]

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

Umm, the artile talking about AOL itself, not AIM. And anyone using an alternate AOL client would still have to pay for AOL, so I don't see why it's a problem at all.

Not a big user group overlap..

[sid_vicious]

I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP ...

Let's face it, the reason that AOL and Linux don't mesh isn't because there's no AOL-Linux interface. It's because people who use AOL use it for a reason - it's got a happy, friendly, push big rainbow colored buttons, don't-cut-yourself safety-scissors interface. Love 'em or hate 'em, it's what they do well - an interface so simple that even grandma can use the demon box.

Linux is still, even in its most user-friendly form, a system that requires you to get some dirt under your fingernails while you use it. It's still a power-user OS.
There just simply isn't a big overlap between the types of people who use AOL and the types of people who traditionally run Linux.

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[nurightshu]

[P]eople who use AOL use it for a reason - it's got a happy, friendly, push big rainbow colored buttons, don't-cut-yourself safety-scissors interface.

And I thought people used AOL because it's easier for them to find vast quantities of low-quality pr0n...

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[sid_vicious]

And I thought people used AOL because it's easier for them to find vast quantities of low-quality pr0n...

Not when you've got the power of usenet at your fingertips!
:-)

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[Old Wolf]

Is it? Maybe I need to install AOL..

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[zesnark]

AOL for Linux has been floating around for a while now. Gateway made (makes?) Linux-based internet appliance type box that ran the software and at DC9 there was a group demoing the software extracted to and executing on a laptop. I think they were even passing out CDs. It was actually (IMHO) a better interface than the current Windows version, but then again it's not like an AOL user would switch to another platform even though AOL is available.

AOL's great advantage is that it provides a consistant environment with messaging and web features all integrated into one interface. The type of person who really likes this sort of interface is hardly going to throw away a platform and software package that's working fine to try out alternative software and a new operating system, neither of which backed by commercial support. Mod me down if you like, but the main reason why open source alternatives to common software (e.g. W/O/A - Windows/Office/AOL) is not that it doesn't work as well but that it doesn't look or act the same.

Want to convert W/O/A users? Make an interface that looks and acts like W/O/A. Then make it cheaper. Then ship it with a manufacturer's computers. Then be prepared to play catch-up to the real deal until you have a large enough user base to have some real clout.

Embrace and extend. That's Microsoft business tactics 101 for you.

z

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[Rick the Red]

There just simply isn't a big overlap between the types of people who use AOL and the types of people who traditionally run Linux.

Everything you say is true (I did't quote your entire post, but I mostly agree with all of it). There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt. What will thousands of Linux users do when their always-on, high-speed ISP goes away and is replaced by AOL? Switch to Windows? Perhaps so, either that or go back to a dial-up ISP. If I were faced with that choice, I'd prefer to figure out how to make AOL work with Linux. Or rather, figure out how to make Linux work with AOL. There may not be much overlap between Linux users and AOL subscribers now, but in the near future there may well be quite a bit of overlap as the "types who traditionally run Linux" are given few alternatives.

Unless you think it might be easer to get MSN to play with Linux.

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[flegged]

it's got a happy, friendly, push big rainbow colored buttons, don't-cut-yourself safety-scissors interface

Really? Can't say I've ever much looked at the AOL interface.

And yet I'm using AOL now.

Not because of some notion that AOL have decent content. Nor because it is allegedly easy to use. It's because here in the UK, our comms network is so arcane (BT owning everything!) that it still costs to use a dialup. Unmetered 0800 (freephone) ISPs are few and far between, and AOL is one of them. It's also the cheapest (£14.99 pm), since I don't have to pay for BT Smurftime (£14.99pm) on top of that. The total cost for something like Freeserve is twice that of AOL.

So yes, I admit it. I use AOL. I used AOL to download Mandrake. So now I can connect to my freephone ISP with Mandrake.

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[sid_vicious]

There is one point you and many others overlook: @Home is bankrupt.

Y'know, I've been kind of confused about this.. I've got Roadrunner, so I haven't been affected, but I know a lot of people who have @Home. Some have made the distinction (perhaps incorrectly) that it's not @Home that's gone out of business, but Excite@Home (dunno what that is - some kind of Newsletter maybe? Or are they synonymous?)

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[sid_vicious]

Not because of some notion that AOL have decent content. Nor because it is allegedly easy to use. It's because here in the UK, our comms network is so arcane (BT owning everything!) that it still costs to use a dialup. Unmetered 0800 (freephone) ISPs are few and far between, and AOL is one of them. It's also the cheapest (£14.99 pm), since I don't have to pay for BT Smurftime (£14.99pm) on top of that. The total cost for something like Freeserve is twice that of AOL.

Blargh! You guys don't have any good broadband options over there? I just got into a discussion with another UK Slashdotter a few days ago about how you guys are paying like $4.25/gallon for gas (~ 0.75 pounds / liter?).

The UK sure gets the shaft on some stuff... My broadband connection costs me about $50 / month (cable modem) - expensive, but always on and frees up my phone line.

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[robhancock]

@Home and Excite@Home are one and the same. The basic cable modem service is provided by the local cable company, @Home provides the email and newsgroup servers and what passes for "content", as well as the backbone for most of their users, which is leased from AT&T.

Also, they're not out of business or bankrupt, they're in bankruptcy protection, there's a difference..

Re:Not a big user group overlap..

[Surak]

Actually, some of the @Home users will probably be bought by AOL/TW's RoadRunner. AOL still has a lot of cash, and I think they see RoadRunner as being a large part of their future success as an ISP. (Why else would they have bought TimeWaner? :)

Violation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a direct violation of AOL software. I highly doubt AOL would do something like this....since I have programmers friends who work there they would not like this to have appeared...

Making it available means lost revenue

[Traicovn]

Actually, it doesn't surprise me that they don't make it available. If they release that information, they lose an edge they have on joe average as an entry level computer user. How many times have you talked to someone who wanted to show you something that was on the 'internet' and in reality, it was something that was on a section of AOL? AOL has done a really good job of making a 'controlled' section of the internet we're they control the information. By having only one style of software they have more control also. Would YOU just want anything to connect to YOUR server and have authorization privleges? Of course AOL is very much based on server side scripting, and a butchered version of html. All aol sections are addressed with an aol://xxxx:xxxx:asdgfsadgas type link... a mix of alphanumeric strings, etc. Essentially it's THERE style of html distributed through a browser.

But in the end the bottom line is profit. You don't want to allow people to get onto the internet where you can't 100% control what the first thing they see is. AOL gives the illusion to first time joe averages that it IS the internet. My mom spent months on AOL without even using the actual internet and she thought she was on the internet. It's marketing genius. You control their access, you control the way content is shown, you give them places to spend their money and control the ways they communicate. Everyone does it the same way, so everyone is having a similar version of their own experience...
The AOL designers aren't dumb IMHO, sure it's not the service that I want as my ISP, but when it comes to marketing, they know what their doing...

For awhile they were going to make it so you could use them as a 'traditional' isp using Dial-up, but I don't think that anything really ever came of it.... I guess AOL users just like hearing 'WELCOME, YOU'VE GOT SPAM, (I MEAN MAIL)...'

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Methuseus]

Just a quick note for you:
it's AOL's version of HTTP, not HTML that they are using. I know in the past AOL just used IE as it's HTML reader, but I don't know how that's changed. Just wanted to let you know.

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[eknuds]

Actually, it doesn't surprise me that they don't make it available. If they release that information, they lose an edge they have on joe average as an entry level computer user. How many times have you talked to someone who wanted to show you something that was on the 'internet' and in reality, it was something that was on a section of AOL?

Actually, NEVER!

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Traicovn]

Well.... The AOLSERER is it's own version of http, however it can issue both the mal-adjusted AOL-HTML and standard HTML pages. Content within AOL is programmed primarily in a butchered version of AOL with a combination of standard html tags and proprietary HTML tags. It's got a little bit more XML in it now, but it's still got a strong backing in plain HTML. The AOL Client relies on MSIE being installed to help it display content, but is not 100% reliable on it. AOL cannot function 100% alone without IE if I remember properly, but it can do quite a bit.

So you are correct about it's own version of http, but they do display content in a 'modified' version of HTML too. If I remember properly they use a little bit of Java Script, and some of the code that distributes content is PERL....
:)

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[WinterSolstice]

What a 'Matrix' way of looking at it ...

-WS

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

"Something witty and intelligent should have appeared here."

And in the post preceeding this sig as well.

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[billnapier]

Essentially it's THERE style of html distributed through a browser.

Oy Vey!!! Please learn about possesive pronouns! Try this instead:

Essentially it's THIER style of html distributed through a browser.

Nothing like a spelling/grammar flame war to get things going...

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Essentially it's THERE style of html distributed through a browser.

Come on man! If you're going to mix up your they're/there/their, then don't CAPITALIZE it and expose your grammar ineptitude to the world.

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Traicovn]

true.... i did make a mistake..... (hides in corner), but I think it should be spelled their :)

Reaches for the eraser labeled 'For Big Misteaks' :)

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

You spelled their wrong, you should check before you post.

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Kenrod]

Or maybe even "Essentially it's THEIR style of html distributed through a browser"!

And you missed this later in the post.

The AOL designers aren't dumb IMHO, sure it's not the service that I want as my ISP, but when it comes to marketing, they know what their doing...

Try "they're".

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron.

"THEIR."

"possessive."

Dumbshit.

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[NonSequor]

That was to distract everyone from the fact that he substituted "we're" for "where."

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[RobNich]

They're == They Are (apostrophe means letters are missing)
There == a place (has the word "here" in it, which is the opposite)
Their == Belongs to them

We're == We are (apostrophe!)
Where == a place (again, has the word "here" in it, also a location)
also, (pronounce("we're") != pronounce("where"))

I understand that people might get these confused, but certainly they could remember after seeing the above! I dropped out of high school after ninth grade! (Though it was to pursue programming...)

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[kiwaiti]

... and "were" == plural("was")

and ((pronounce("were") != pronounce("we're")) && (pronounce("were") != pronounce("where")))

Kiwaiti

Re:Making it available means lost revenue

[billnapier]

Damn usenet rules strikes again. Goes something like:

There is always a spelling error in a flame on grammer.

and vice-versa... And I even checked for this!!! Damn.

This will not get AOLer to Switch OS's

[Nf1nk]

This will not get AOLers to switch OS's. Most AOLer's are very paranoid about any change to their computer.

They fear that the change they make will kill their expensive toy and force them to go talk to a more computer literate friend who will once again berate them for using the most expensive ISP with the worst service.

What this will do. (maybe) is covered by point 8

8) Common Sense

Ok, most of you have probably stopped reading by now. But I need to make a point.

The only reason that the information above is not already widely available is because of the fear of abuse. Putting this information in immature hands is dangerous. Some people believe that if it gets out, the walls of the America Online service will come crashing down as things like faster mail bombers, spammers, IM bombers, and cloners begin to immerge. It may very well be impossible to enter a chat room without being so lagged by scrolling, IMs, and emails that you cannot even stay connected. I don't personally believe that though. Due to the complexity of these packets, it is far harder to use even copied source of this than to use copied source of the infamous "AOL Progs" that eventually died out. If you are learning from this document, I implore you to use common sense in your use of this information.

I suspect that this doocument will be the source from which nasty new AOL hacks will be based. And now that it is out it is in very immature hands.

Not that it matters to me because I don't use AOL

Re:This will not get AOLer to Switch OS's

[GrenDel Fuego]

You're right, it won't get AOL'ers to switch Operating systems. Why would it? It works perfectly fine under windows.

What it will allow is for people who are using AOL to switch operating systems if they want to. There's a subtle distinction between allowing the change and causing it.

Gaim

[peter_gzowski]

I don't know about the ISP protocol, but people have cracked the AOL Instant Messenger protocol, so you can use AIM in Linux (along with various other protocols, it's fantastic). It's called Gaim, and it's available over at Sourceforge (link here). Happy chatting!

Re:Gaim

[Patrick Cable II]

They have only partially reverse engineered OSCAR, AIM's windows protocol. the TOC protocol, which can be used by other AIM clients was open, for a while.

Re:Gaim

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL came out with an AIM for linux
which is more stable then Gaim, but less
options.

Knee jerk much?

[Doktor Memory]

Would it have killed you to do more than skim the headline, see the words "AOL" and "protocol" in it, and instantly decide that this was obviously about Instant Messaging?

The protocol in question is not OSCAR or TOC. I'd tell you what is actually under discussion here, but I'd rather you just scrolled up and figure it out for yourself.

AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

It's AOL -- who gives a shit?

Anyone looking to log into AOL through Linux needs professional counselling and a licence for Windows98.

Why should everybody reveal everything??

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoop dee damn doo..so now the AOl protocol is revealed. First of all, timothy, why should AOL reveal anything about their own proprietary software??? It's within their rights to keep it confidential if they so desire. It'll keep out Linux and other OS's from connecting, but they're obviously well aware of that and know it's a market not worth pursuing.

Thats what galls me about these open-source zealots..that everything should and must be open for them to play with. The world isn't made only to benefit you, you hippies.

Re:Why should everybody reveal everything??

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be modded up to insightful, however theres only 2 or 3 moderators that will actually perform the first mod on a comment, then the other 397 jump in just re-mod whatever the first few did.

Re:Why should everybody reveal everything??

[talks_to_birds]

Try reading the actual fucking article.

There's not one suggestion of "open source zealotry" in it.

It was a technical exercise, asshole.

Get a clue.

t_t_b

Re:Why should everybody reveal everything??

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading my fucking comment, dipshit.

i was talking about timothy's stupid comments in the writeup.

Thats where his "open source everything for the world" attitude shines through.

Get a fucking life, slashbot.

Re:Why should everybody reveal everything??

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that everything should be revealed, but to ensure the growth of your product.Particularly from AOLs stand point, this is a blessing. Users will continue to have to pay for subscriptions, but can have alternative clients (Skinnedversions, light version, super kid friendly version) and clients that run under alternative OSs. This will peak interest in AOL, and ensure growth in markets, that you state are worthless, they would not normally have. Imagine if ABC Computer Company starts selling good home-user based computers (Celeron 800 64mb ram, 30gig HD, 15 inch monitor, 16mb TNT 2, cheesy sound card) for $500 bucks, that came with linux, and a gambit of other software (open office, gimp, killustrator, everything a home user needs), including AOL. They will certainly sale! ABC Computers will make profit, and AOL will make profit off of subscription and spam. This is a good thing, everyone wins!

That is the thing with you ayn rand, capitalist zealots, you can't avert your view away from your so-called objective goals. Maybe I am too much of a pragmatist, who actually see things
for what they are worth.

Re:Why should everybody reveal everything??

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we have a case of pot-and-kettle calling names here. 'cept youre a spineless little prick.

Re:This is stupid.

[dinivin]

You know, you wouldn't look like such a fool if you had read the article and realized that they're talking about the AOL protocol, not the AIM protocol.

Dinivin

Sweet! Oh wait...

[ryepup]

So who is ever go to put time into this? Anyone who can write something like this is probably not interested in dialing up to AOL, and the 'ease-of-use' folks who can't write it probably appreciate the AOL interface.
Other than hacking into AOL for the fun of it, this is pretty useless. It's a good blow for the cause of open protocols and file formats.
I suppose there might be a market for a simple AOL client, for those who use it for portable internet access.

Re:Sweet! Oh wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well...
There are some people (such as myself) that prefer to use Linux, although I dual-boot with Win2k, but don't want to spend $20/month on 56k access. We don't have any real broadband in my area and if I can use my pop's AOL account for free then I think I'll just do that.
JJ

Closed source video chat

[wiremind]

Something I recall reading a while back was that AOL's Instant Messanger program did NOT have video chat abilitys because if aol added that they would have to open up there protocol. and they did NOT want that. now that the protocol maybe there is a chance that Aol Instant Messanger will add the video chat feature, which would in effect challenge MSN's messanger.
That or AOL will just go and change everything now...

Microsoft, AOL, Borg, whats the diff.....

First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

First Post

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

ha! n0t 3v3n c10s3, y0u fucking anonymous FUCKTARD!!! Die!!!

Downloading new art

[dafoomie]

Now we get to find out what all that "Downloading new art" stuff really is.

But wouldn't ICQ be better to have a 3rd party client for? It didn't have ads until recently, theres probably a lot less attention paid to it, and AOL owns it too.

Re:Downloading new art

[johann6]

But wouldn't ICQ be better to have a 3rd party client for? It didn't have ads until recently, theres probably a lot less attention paid to it, and AOL owns it too.

ICQ has ads now? Isn't there a ton of web pages that tell one how to get rid of those ads?

Re:Downloading new art

[Anonymous Coward]

ICQ already has numerous third-party clients. Many of which run on UNIX variants and some for Windows.

Not to mention that the ads in the official client can easily be removed!

Finally!

[Leven Valera]

Public recognition of Visual Basic as a programming language by the /. crowd! Millions of Microsoft programmers, no longer afraid to talk about work at cocktail parties!

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason you aren't publicly beaten right now is because of the political climate and the promotion of tolerance towards those that are different, regardless of how stupid they appear to be.

Personally, I think we should declare a war against VB programmers after the war on terrorism is over.

Re:Finally!

[stud9920]

Public recognition of Wordpad abandonned .wri as a file format by the /. crowd! Millions of Microsoft programmers, no longer afraid to talk about work at cocktail parties!

Re:Finally!

[phigga]

Would it be proper to "launch a jihad" against the said VB suckers?

Re:Finally!

[Old Wolf]

No -- they chose VB because it is about equally as dumb as AOL

Re:Finally!

[ethereal]

No, I think a "crusade" would be more appropriate :)

Re:Finally!

[Computer!]

Here here! And better still, they've all got to boot into Windows to run the client. Of course first they've got to download a warez version of the VB compiler. Who are the suckers now?

Some other notes:

• This project was compiled with an earlier version of VB than 6.o (5, maybe?)
• This project was coded in circa 1992-style VB. Check out calls to Mid$!
• Not that I'm one to rag on someone's code, but this is the kind of stuff that gives VB programmers a bad name:
  
  
  Dim sixth As String
  
  Dim seventh As String
  
  Dim packet As String
  
  
  
  Hungarian, shmungarian I guess.
• 
  There wasn't enough real reverse-engineering of packets, just enough experimentation to get logon and IM to work. It would be great if someone could do a more stringent analysis, and produce a list of commands sent to AOL's servers.
  
• 
  packet$ = DeHex("5A" & EnHex(thehi$) & EnHex(thelo$) & "00" & fifth$ & Int2Hex(sixth) & Int2Hex(seventh) & "A06953002500010001070400000003010A04000000010301" & screenname1$ & "011D00010A04000000020301" & IM1$ & "011D00011D00011D000002000D")'Nuff said.

Anyone get this client running?

Re:Finally!

[cREW oNE]

You just called them "programmers."

Dont.... Ever.... Do.... That.... Again.

Re:Finally!

[EllisDees]

Don't you mean "Jihad, or holy war..."

;)

Re: Finally!

[Inthewire]

Anyone get this client running?

Nope. I just saw this article as I was about to leave work and grabbed the code...tried to run it out of the IDE and couldn't, compiled it and it still fucked up. I don't feel like digging through someone else's garbage right now. Maybe tomorrow if I'm not busy.
But I'm wondering just what the hell this client really does, since connecting to AIM isn't it.

Re: Finally!

[Inthewire]

Of course, it isn't supposed to connect to AIM, so I suppose that doesn't matter...oops.
Haste makes long red lumpy smears on the highway.

Re:Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as someone who works with VB, I'll have to agree with that one.

What are you staring at? Like you haven't done worse.

Re:Finally!

[os2fan]

The ulitmate irony was that VB is being used to hack some secret IP. Does M$ proud.

Personally, I think that we should go the VB crowd because of the collapese of Ansett and the WTC. MS is not relenting on their release date for XP, and are probably using the drawn attention as a cover.

Re:Finally!

[Pass_Thru]

Like it!! After one week back at our MS sponsored college!

Sad thing is we are learning the STL using vis C++!!

Ah well, glad I can take the HND and go, self educated so as not to be tempted to the dark side!

merlin.

AOL DSL

[xobyte]

I wonder if this could be used to make a login script for my sisters AOL DSL account. You have to login to AOL before you can use any tcpip...the modem says it is connected though.

Why does my sister use AOL DSL...? I dunno. But she's an air traffic controller in the US Navy so I will forgive her for now.

Re:AOL DSL

[easter1916]

That's wonderful, you must be so proud of her.

Re:AOL DSL

[Old Wolf]

"Can I have flight deetails for the World Trade Centre please?"

"The WTC? Why?"

"Eet ees a surprise for my mother"

Re:AOL DSL

[Anonymous Coward]

As a pilot, I've always suspected the people in the control tower were rather dim, but I didn't know just HOW dim. I don't know whether to curl up wracked with sobs, or just cry.

The sound you're hearing is the last little bit of respect I had for ATCs washing away....

What about mail?

[JoeShmoe]

In my opinion, logging on and enjoying AOL's so-called services was never 1/10 of the problem as their stupid crappy propritary mail system.

Back around 1996 or so, I was part of an AOL beta program that released a MAPI interface for AOL mail servers. IE, you could add the AOL mail server to your Outlook config and download your AOL mail right into Outlook.

Of course, the AOL exec freaked out when they considered how many eyeballs their advertisers would lose if everyone uninstalled the AOL client and kept their mail via Outlook. So the program was canned, and I was unfortunately too short-sighted to save a copy of that MAPI tool before the area was closed down.

Ever since, I've been trying to get my sister/parents/grandparents off AOL. Not to mention that AOL never supported Windows NT because they couldn't figure out how to install their stupid AOL Adapter TCP shunt thing. So for years my relatives were forced to run a crappy 16-bit (Win 3.11) version of the AOL client for the sole purpose of checking e-mail.

AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses. If you really want to do a great services to help newbies move beyond their AOL shackles...please, I implore you:

A) Reverse engineer the AOL mail protocol so that external programs can at least READ AOL mail (sending, unsending, and AOL custom features are optional)

B) Reverse engineer the AOL mail database (local copy of stored mail) so that it can be imported into another program.

Even after I got a couple family members to switch over to Hotmail, they still have to use the AOL client to read their old mail. It's that or save it all as flat text and lose all the important header information.

Also, a bonus to reverse engineering the AOL mail database would be the ability to sync mail with your Palm. The AOL client for Palm is 400KB and can only dial-up, not sync.

Please post reply if you know of any project working on the AOL mail/database formats. Thank you!

- JoeShmoe

Re:What about mail?

[bkocik]

A) Reverse engineer the AOL mail protocol so that external programs can at least READ AOL mail (sending, unsending, and AOL custom features are optional)

It's just a set of IMAP servers. There's no secret about it. If you use Netscape 6.x, it gives you the option to set up an account to retrieve your AOL mail, and it does this by setting you up to do it via IMAP.

imap.mail.aol.com

(Yes, I'm an AOL employee)

Re:What about mail?

[sintetika]

umm... you can retrieve aol mail with other clients.
for example:
http://www.eprompter.com/aol.htm

btw, eprompter is a convenient, simple tool and worth a download.

Re:What about mail?

[Rocketboy]

Not to mention that AOL never supported Windows NT because they couldn't figure out how to install their stupid AOL Adapter TCP shunt thing.

AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine. I also bitched about the lack of a Linux client and the support person told me that they thought one was going to be released, but I haven't seen that, either. I figure it's either vaporware or someone changed their mind.

AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.

AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics. Another reason for AOL accounts is their great worldwide POP network. We keep several AOL accounts for traveling salespeople and executives because we know they can find a local POP to dial into from just about anywhere they happen to be: London, Munich, Mexico City, and almost anywhere in the US. It beats the heck out of paying ruinous hotel long distance charges, or the '800' AOL line surcharge. And really beats the crap out of talking a marketing manager through whatever weird TCP/IP setup a local provider in Back Woods, Ontario needs for a local ISP connection over the phone on Sunday evening. :)

Finally, you no longer need the AOL mail client to send/receive AOL e-mail, you can use practically any web browser. Just point to www.aol.com and sign in to your AOL account, then click the mail icon. Presto, you're there. It's all web-r-ized. Webbified. Whatever.

Re:What about mail?

[jwalther420]

AOL is also one of the few IPs who allow multiple users per account (although only one can be signed on at a time.) With five people in my house (all of whom have e-mail accounts,) I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone. With AOL, it's just $23 per month. Pure economics.

Most ISPs will sell you additional pop mailboxes for a few dollars a month.

Re:What about mail?

[MindStalker]

I'd pay $100 per month for separate unlimited access accounts for everyone.
Umm you can share any isp account however you want. You would just need to get seperate email accounts, most offer them for free or a dollar or two.

Re:What about mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

are they filtering non-aol ips? i can't get in

Re:What about mail?

[MasterD]

this just simply does not work. I have tried with netscape 6.1 and evolution. it times out.

-tduffy

Re:What about mail?

[Hadlock]

w00t google (as the real page is now defunct)

http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:tmgxE07-6Ms :m embers.aol.com/adamkb/aol/mailfaq/+imap.mail.aol.c om+setup

As an aside, it is entirely possible to use a third-party email program over the AOL TCP/IP connection. All you have to do is sign on with AOL , launch the program, and use it. But you will have to use it with a third-party email system that you have an account with. It is quite common for AOL members to access their POP3 or IMAP account while dialed into AOL, by supplying their mail account username and password. One problem with this, however, is the lack of an AOL SMTP server; forcing you to use a third-party server to send mail through the AOL connection. Note that for security reasons, AOL will redirect such attempts to AOL's own servers and identify the sender's AOL screen name in an X-Apparently-From header. Some services block mail sent in this manner.

Re:What about mail?

[WNight]

Or, pay $20-$25 for a real ISP, and $0-$5 for extra email adresses.

As for global access, many dialup ISPs can use iPass, a company that provides local POPs (dial-in numbers) around the world. You can then use your ISP normally as if you were at home.

Re:What about mail?

[doorbot.com]

AOL's mail service is terrible but a lot of people don't want to change their e-mail addresses.

I know what you mean. Why would anyone want to change from J122oeSm@aol.com to JoeShmoe@abetterisp.com? Or maybe to JoeSh055@hotmail.com?

As if the people relying on AOL for their email can possibly have time-sensitive, critical emails going back and forth. As if it would radically change their life if they had to drop an email (prior to cancelling AOL) notifying the three people in their contact list that they're switching to another email address.

Re:What about mail?

[penguinboy]

Win2K, FWIW, runs AOL 5.0 and 6.0 relatively well.

Re:What about mail?

[penguinboy]

Actually.. yes. I should hope this isn't a terribly widespread situation, but the office I work part-time in uses AOL for email. The company is a distributor of advertising specialities and depends on email to receive artwork from customers, send price quotes, recieve inquiries, and communicate with the factory. Naturally, I'd prefer to see the use of a more sane email client (their mail reader can't do half of what even Netscape Messenger can do), but the fact that there hasn't been any change has to do with the manager - who thinks that browsing the web with Internet Explorer and AOL (through a 3rd party DSL line) are significantly different. But then, that's their market..

Re:What about mail?

[bkocik]

this just simply does not work. I have tried with netscape 6.1 and evolution. it times out.

I use it every day, both from inside work (from my Ultra 5), and from home. It is decidedly faster when I'm at work...no timeouts. From home I get timeouts a lot, but if I keep plugging at it, it lets me in usually about the third or fourth try. I certainly won't disagree that it has room for improvement (it really needs to be scaled up), but it does work.

Re:What about mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

The MAPI client is still available on the web and as of a few short months ago it still worked. Check out http://members.aol.com/Diverdooo/private/mapi.htm for the file and instructions.

I work for AOL/TW and they mandated that all employees convert over to that godforsaken client of theirs. What a nightmare! Unfortunately the MAPI client will not work for us because they insist on using these stupid SecureID Fobs.

Good luck!

Doofus

Re:What about mail?

[Catbeller]

Actually, I've had an AOL account since 1993 -- and I actually use my own name as a screenname! It's pretty short and memorable. Pretty cool -- and irreplaceable...

I keep the AOL account for two reasons. First, so that long-lost email friends can find me if they so desire (it's happened! very freaky) after years of absence. Secondly, AOL's mail client sucks. Can't do what Outlook, Eudora, and Netscapes package can. And that's what I want -- simplicity -- and the immunity to all those assinine virii and worms that afflict those programs.

I don't get bugs via the Preview pane, and I don't transmit virri/worms through my address book. AOL is too lame to hack.

BUT -- I agree 100% with the top of this thread : if anyone wants to make life lubberly, CRACK THAT DAMNED PROPRIETARY EMAIL ARCHIVE DATABASE. I would almost have certainly killed my AOL client years back, but for all that email saved up for the last eight years. You need AOL to read them -- or you could purchase a greymarket AOL cracker that could do it, maybe. But the specs should be sniffed out (can't be that bloody hard -- wish I were a coder) and published. Just to spite AOL for keeping such basic abilities off the table such as archiving our email into a open format. (Never said I loved them.)

Re:What about mail?

[maxpublic]

I don't really see the point of a multiple-mailbox argument. You can set up any number of webmail accounts you like (e.g., @yahoo.com) within a few minutes and access them from anywhere in the world.

I have @home cable and never use the 3 or 4 or however many mail accounts came with it (I only activated one of them because I had to when I signed up). I use webmail (yahoo, wildmail, operamail, etc.) exclusively precisely because it doesn't matter where I am or what system I'm using - I can still get to my mail so long as I have an internet connection. Why bother with AOL-specific, or any ISP-specific, mail accounts?

Max

Re:What about mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

As nasty as their e-mail system is, it's not half as bad as their retarted ftp system! Screw the GUI, good god, just give the user a damn shell already, or better yet, a standard ftp port so they can plug in their own ftp client.

Maybe I can use these new protocols to write a bridge to use my own ftp client... yeah, that's the ticket...

Re:What about mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us had accounts way back when, such that we don't have lame ass numbers in our screen names. Of course, these accounts now get so much spam that it's probably easier just to start with a clean slate...

Re:What about mail?

[legojenn]

I haven't done tech support for iSTAR/Interlog/PSI for almost two years now, but I remember that we used to get so many calls from people everywhere who were shocked at the cost of iPASS and who had problems getting an SMTP server. For people who went to the UK, I just advised them to get one of those ubiquitous 'free' services that gouge you on the cost of the call and toss the disk when they come back. They'd know what their server names are and not have to worry about the unreliable iPASS authentication server. Also, if the purpose was just to get mail, just dial back to Canada. Long distance is cheaper than iPASS.

Re:What about mail?

[WNight]

Hmmm. I haven't heard anything that bad about iPass, but I admit I've never used it.

I would agree though, that if all they want is some text email, a two-minute call would be cheaper than paying for some third-party service. Much easier too.

Where did you work for iStar from?

Re:What about mail?

[Anonymous Coward]

imap.mail.aol.com is only available on the internal AOL network. NS 6.1 has special hooks in it that allows it to get access to public AOL IMAP servers.

Re:What about mail?

[legojenn]

It was a company called Taima. iStar outsourced their tech support to them. It's not a job I enjoyed though some of the people were fun, interesting etc.

Re:What about mail?

[WNight]

Ahhh. I was wondering if 1) you were in Vancouver and 2) you didn't mind the work.

Looking for 2-3 skilled tech support people, preferably with ISP experience.

Thought it was worth asking. Can't say I'd jump at the job myself though. :)

Why do you think that is?

[StikyPad]

A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.

A large amount of AOL's income is from advertisements. You're bombarded by them from the second you sign on, in every window you open, till you sign off. Salon might have adopted the mandatory ad viewing my friend, but they didn't invent it. AOL has been using these for years. Subscribers are forced to view several ads of "special offers" before they can even begin to navigate through the "service." It's like playing Where's Waldo trying to find the Close button on some of these windows. AOL doesn't want third parties designing software to be used on their networks because it would be detrimental to their advertising income. Fewer members using their software translates into fewer eyes viewing their ads, which reduces the value of their ad space. It's a safe bet that AOL will do everything in its power to ensure that people continue to use its software.

Re:Why do you think that is?

[Skynet]

A large amount of AOL's income is from advertisements. You're bombarded by them from the second you sign on, in every window you open, till you sign off. Salon might have adopted the mandatory ad viewing my friend, but they didn't invent it. AOL has been using these for years. Subscribers are forced to view several ads of "special offers" before they can even begin to navigate through the "service." It's like playing Where's Waldo trying to find the Close button on some of these windows.

Actually this is misinformation. There is a preference setting in AOL to allow you to turn off the Pop-Up ads. It's accesible from the preferences section of AOL, they just don't tell you about it. And why should they? AOL DOES make a lot of it's money from advertising.

The AOL experience is not all ads. I would venture to say it is about equal to surfing the Web the amount of ads per screen space encountered. If it were, 32 million people would not love to use it.

AOL doesn't want third parties designing software to be used on their networks because it would be detrimental to their advertising income. Fewer members using their software translates into fewer eyes viewing their ads, which reduces the value of their ad space. It's a safe bet that AOL will do everything in its power to ensure that people continue to use its software.

Agreed.

AOL has one good feature

[Paul Carver]

As a single person without children I've never had any desire to use AOL, but I know lots of AOL users. There is at least one good reason to use AOL. Years ago internet access was $20/month and that gave you one email account. Meanwhile, AOL gave allowed you to create many accounts. Which is the better choice for a family with several children? One account shared between mom, dad, and all the kids, multiple accounts with some (possibly outrageous) surcharge per POP account, or one AOL account with lots of screen names?

Even now, most ISPs will give you a couple of POP mailboxes for $15-$20/month, but few if any provide the ease and convenience of creating new "screen names" that AOL provides. Try telling a 12-16 year old girl that she can't change her screen name to avoid some pre-pubescent geek who's harrasing her via email.

Re:AOL has one good feature

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the pre-pusbescent girl is one of those aol losers who try to meet the opposite sex online. Maybe she wants the attention she can not get in real life, online.

Re:AOL has one good feature

[StormCrow]

One word:

killfile

Re:AOL has one good feature

[GigsVT]

Years ago internet access was $20/month and that gave you one email account. Meanwhile, AOL gave allowed you to create many accounts

Years ago AOL was $3.50 an hour. Your argument holds no water.

Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for this for the past year, so I can sell my cable modem bandwidth to my AOL-addicted neighbors, over 802.11b from my attic!

Given that I'm not exactly on the legal side of the fence, this will make it much easier to plug/play this scheme.

And give myself free cable modemness in the meantime ...

Bwaa Haaa Haaa Haaa

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

you already can. aol can be used over tcp/ip

Re:Excellent!

[fmaxwell]

Pity it's $20 shareware

Why is it a "pity" that someone can try to earn a living by writing useful computer software? Should talented programmers write software for free and earn a living by flipping burgers or selling drugs? You should be damned glad that he's made a useful package and is only asking $20 for it.

This whole "all software should be free" crap is really annoying the hell out of me. If someone wants to give away the software that they write for the good of some community, that's very noble, but that doesn't mean that everyone should. I have found that most of the people in the "free software movement" are actually a bunch of leeches that just want to get something for nothing. They don't write software and are frequently just computer users. They give nothing back to the community. But they are the first ones on the FTP site when any new piece of free software hits the platters.

If you like the package, pay the guy $20. Then send him an e-mail thanking him for making it available for such a small price.

Re:Excellent!

[JoeShmoe]

You ask, why is it a pity?

Because I'm trading one piece of proprietary software for another. Let's say AOL does something to break eNetBot (like they did to MSN Messenger several times)...well I will be SOL if eNetBot Inc. can't fix it in a timely fashion.

Contrary to what you may think, I don't have a problem with someone making money off this piece of software. But can't I still be allowed to lament the fact that the underlying information isn't available? Compare this eNetBot thing to what the original article was about.

Original article is a document explaining how the AOL protocol is formatted, as well as some basic functions to demonstrate usage. Five out of five stars. eNetBot doesn't explain anything but offers me an alternative to the piggish AOL client for e-mail. Nice, but still only four out of five stars. Thus, my pity comment.

I'd much prefer a website that went something like "here's how to write your own interface to access your AOL Mail via the website...oh by way if you're interested I've already written one and you can have it for $X".

- JoeShmoe

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does open source exist or why is it important? So people who are too cheap to afford `real' software can simply download fake, free stuff? I say nay, I will simply say: why do we teach our children 2 + 2 = 4 ? Or more importantly, who owns the rights to 2 + 2 = 4? These are important questions that explain why open source is vital to the intellectual community. Spreading information, to ensure growth, may not seem like an important rule in the world to a capitalist, but I assure, it is. There is a time to keep things secret, and others where it is wiser to not to.

(I think someone is breaking into my car, have to end promptly)

Re:Excellent!

[fmaxwell]

As I stated in my original post, it is a noble thing to release "free" software. But that does not make anyone who chooses not to some kind of right-wing, establishment, capitalist pig. Most of the people who release shareware get an occasional small check in exchange for hours of development time. That's hardly puts them into the same boat with Microsoft.

While there are many good arguments in favor of open source software, some of which you make, the main appeal to many people is that they get something for nothing.

Only part of the equation

[DamienMcKenna]

One of the main reasons why so many people use AOL is because AOL is easier to use than many other interfaces. Having the protocol is the start on the road to an openAOL, but it will still need good, user-friendly client software.

Finally AOL on Linux

[CtrlPhreak]

I'm forced to use AOL as my ISP because my family actually likes it. I used to have an ISP for me to use just for linux, but since we moved away, those days are over. And being a college student (commuter) I can't afford to get one of my own. I use the internet whenever my computer is on, so I can't really use linux with out it, or I go into a horrible withdrawl. For now I'm dammed to AOHell and windows. I love linux and use it almost every day in school, and before now I used it most of the time on this comp. So maybe this will finally get me back into linux for my primary OS. ::crosses fingers::

Slashdot privacy (way offtopic, mod accordingly)

[Anonymous Coward]

Is posting anonymous private? Obviously they don't store your userid on the message record, but they stored the last posted message time and a timestamp on each comment posted. Couldn't this be used to find out the last anonymous comment posted by an individual?

Obligatory AOL Response

[Anonymous Coward]

ME TOO!!!!

Here's the simplified version:

[swordboy]

Here is the simplified version of the protocol:

void AOL()
{
while(connected)
{
send_advertisements();
monitor_browsing_habits();
monthly_fee++;
if(bandwith_to_spare)
send_internet_data();
}
return;
}

Re:Here's the simplified version:

[Nf1nk]

You seem to have left out the bit about disconnecting at random intervals I belive it sits just after the increase fee section :-P

Re:Here's the simplified version:

[Joe Jordan]

Maybe that's why the AOL client crashes so much - you forgot to declare your monthly_fee variable.

Re:Slashdot privacy (way offtopic, mod accordingly

[robvasquez]

What are you talking about?

Woo Woo
oOoOoOo

What happened to all the ASCII trolls?

This doesnt solve the problem . . .

[jgaynor]

A bunch of clone clients have been trying to get hooks in for years to no constructive end because AOL actively tried to BLOCK other clients from connecting. If I remember correctly Jabber and MSN had it working for a while until AOL forced them out by altering the protocol. Most lately I believe they've been doing it with executable checksums. We might have figured out the protocol, but theyre just going to change it up again as soon as foreign clients start connecting in large numbers.

Some old coverage of this can be found at ZD. Theyve got a whole site called "InstantMess" that talks about how AOL refuses to discuss an open format because they want to lock users into their app.

Recently Trillian (www.trillian.cc) has succesfully done it. I think they got around it by using whatever method the JAVA aol clients (AIM express, Quickbuddy).

Id love to see an open standard, but without AOL on board its useless. Its sad really - that the unwashed masses are dictating the standard for the rest of us.

What did this accomplish?

[t0qer]

I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time.
The whole evil giant dark overlord's excuse for why linux hasn't gone mainstream has gotten old to me. I'm not fanatical about any o/s. I go with what get's the job done for me. Linux is my firewall nat router, that's about it.
A shame that AOL doesn't make this kind of information more easily available.
And why should they? They've spent probably billions of dollars since their inception on equipment and software to build their own private AOL protocol, their own little AOL world. When and if linux ever gains a %1 share of the desktop market, then you will see a AOL client on the *nix systems because the profit of subscriptions will far outweigh the cost of hiring a team of coders. It's not there yet.
Ok maybe I do see the point of this, it's to get more software on other o/s's, but going through proper channels is the way to do it. Not like this.

--toq

Re:Slashdot privacy (way offtopic, mod accordingly

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have been clearer... If you are logged in and the almighty slashdot system is keeping track of your cookie, and you then post a comment as anonymous, the last post timestamp gets marked on your user record (doesn't it?).

A Very Good Thing, if AOL approves...

[BRSQUIRRL]

I am a professional developer, a Linux user, and an AOL member. I've used AOL for years because it is actually fairly fast (for dial-up) in my area and it is nation-wide (great for travel). I've dual-booted Linux and Windows for quite awhile, but because of the lack of a Linux AOL client, I can't make a 100% switch to Linux...something that I'd like to try.

I wish AOL would at least entertain the idea of opening their protocol to third-party clients.

Re:A Very Good Thing, if AOL approves...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pengaol.ipfrance.net/
this soft can help you !

Re:text version...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it that you get a +1 Informative when the AC who posted the same thing before you (by a minute, but still) gets nothing?

ROck On

[Rinikusu]

I can't wait for the first Linux-client. Why?

The only thing about AOL that's worth anything are the chatrooms. Unlike IRC, you can actually meet real, low-self-esteemed, fat chicks who'll put out for anyone willing to pretend to listen to them whine about how no one likes them.

I'd better stock up on condoms and twinkies, big dog is gettin' let out of the house...

Re:ROck On

[Old Wolf]

Actually if I were around fat, whining chicks I'd be hoping fervently that they didn't want to put out

Re:ROck On

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone surf /. from AOL?

Re:ROck On

[Rinikusu]

True that, I was being facetious.. :)

I've had the horror of meeting some of these in person (which is why I have implemented the "I never meet people on the internet" policy).

"oh god, I think she smells.. Please oh god, don't take off your clothes.... OOOO.. BLOWJOB!"

Re:ROck On

[cactopus]

It wasn't actually funny either.

Just because a woman is large doesn't mean she is auto-magically desperate. Your comment was highly thoughtless. You could've just left out the size part... too many people these days are killing themselves to fit a Hollywood image.

Besides not everyone likes boy-shaped women.

Re:ROck On

[Rinikusu]

Let's get this straight: I'm not talking about women with some meat on their bones. I'm talking *obese*. As in 5'4", 240 pounds. And, from what I can tell, it's usually not genetic, it's lifestyle.

"All I do is sit around on AOL and watch Jerry Springer and down a dozen donuts all day long..."

Yes, it's not really funny, but hey, I don't make the rules around here. I actually enjoy adbuster's "The Beauty Industry is the Beast" campaign. But, for christ-sakes, don't kid yourself. "Obese" is not beautiful. Barely being able to lift oneself off the couch is not sexy.

Now, go be a good boy(girl) and have a good day.

Re:ROck On

[Old Wolf]

Yes. Have you ever noticed how a thin family with one fat person is rare and an entire bunch of fatasses is much more common?

This could be explained by genetics, lifestyle, or a fat virus, so it is actually not a very useful observation at all.

Always meet IRC people for the first time at irc parties. Only meet them one-on-one if you know they are cool and you are only looking for friends and not sex

Re:ROck On

[cactopus]

Yes, it's not really funny, but hey, I don't make the rules around here. I actually enjoy adbuster's "The Beauty Industry is the Beast" campaign. But, for christ-sakes, don't kid yourself. "Obese" is not beautiful.

begin SOAPBOX
Says you. I'm not going to bother explaining the concept of FA's and BBW to you...but a simple web search will indicate thousands of pertinent sites. starting with http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com but then again what do you care? My only point of contention is the rather callous idea that 1. anyone would pretend to be interested in someone because they were desparate (which is cruel) and 2. You automatically assume large women of ANY size should be desparate and receptive... (Fat == ugly)... a small-minded media fed point of view. No size of person including super-sized people should have to deal with any negative comments on their size... the same goes for race, religion, height, etc. etc. etc. Nor does anyone have the right to pass judgement on an entire class of people even if society seems to.

Now, go be a good boy(girl) and have a good day. Regards, Guy who loves BBW
end SOAPBOX

This is gonna rock.

[Anonymous Coward]

(710)123-4567 is my phone line.
(456)123-4567 is an AOLnet dialin. Numbers mutilated to protect the guilty, of course. A few years and many many area code splits ago, we were all one code. More than a few lusers are confused by Windows' concept of "dialing location" and area code settings, and apparently more than a few of them are AOLers.

I get silent phone calls all the time, sometimes several in a row. Without fail, if I answer with a carrier, they connect.

Sometimes if I send "login:" they talk back. I've never bothered to get farther than that.

I've long dreamed of hacking up a barebones AOL emulator, just enough to push them a page that says "You dumbass, your area code settings are fux0red!" and then play some fart noises before dropping them.

Yeah, this is gonna rock. Not only do I get to fuck with their heads, but I get a free supply of AOL l:/p: pairs delivered to my desktop! Never know when those might come in handy.

Re:This is gonna rock.

[Myself]

Why do I see a lukewarm future among kiddies of "number squatting", getting personal phone lines that're similar to national ISP dialins except for the area code?

I also wonder about the legality of such a practice. The users are placing the call, right? I guess it depends on how different AOL's login procedure is from something standard. "No, Your Honor, that was my personal login so I could access my computer from my friend's house." Compare to the tone-detector that lets you use a redbox to turn appliances on and off.

Re:This is gonna rock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda scary. You could just forward their packets to the AOL server and forward back the servers response. You'd just get a nice view of everything they do online..

Re:This is gonna rock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Numbers mutilated to protect the guilty

Any chance we could find his complete number by putting the aol suffices behind his prefix?
I really hope he mutilated them further then that!

Re:text version...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the time it took me to write the above, the comment I was talking about went from a 0 to a +1 (Funny?). My bad...

Hmm

[Sturm]

I hate to say it, but chances are, anybody who "needs" AOL as an ISP is likely going to have a difficult time running Linux.

Linux and AOL can fit.

[jellomizer]

Even though AOL is not targeted at the Unix/Linux user. There could be good reasons why a Unix/Linux guy could want or need to use AOL.

1. There are many kids out there who want to learn Linux and are allowed to setup a duel boot systems. But their parents are paying for AOL as an ISP and will not switch. So not at least they can switch the os and pay for one ISP.
2. Emergancy Internet connection. Every once in a while your Internet connection goes down at the ISP level and you need a quick short term internet connection. Hay AOL give 1000 hours free internet for a month. And if you like me there are hundreds of those CDs with trial passwords around. It is tempoary free internet. Hey it may suck but it is better then nothing.

3. Simular to #2 many new computers come with a year of Free AOL. You got the computer at a good price why pay for an other ISP when you can get AOL for free for a year.

4. AOL only services. AOL has some services that other ISPs dont have. Although they are ways around them but sometimes they may be covient.

5. The @AOL.com E-mail address. Those are easy to remember for most people (becasue they use AOL). And with the e-mail they can find your IM name quicker.

I dont directly use AOL (I use RoadRunner own by AOL/TimeWarner) nor do I ever want to use AOL. But I just wanted to state they there are reasons why a UNIX/Linux person would want access to AOL. and they are people who can use Linux who dont care much about the proper geek way, they just want a good OS, or just to try something new. To say that All AOL users are Unix Ilerate or will always be that way is a gross overstatement.

Re:This is stupid.

[SlamMan]

I so wish I had some mod points left...

There *is* an AOL mail workaround...

[aquarian]

There is a work-around to AOL's proprietary email protocol. I think it's called e-netbot, and it works by connecting to AOL webmail, and downloading messages into Outlook Express. The program itself uses Internet Explorer components.

No, it's the other way around

[fobbman]

A Linux user logging into AOL would be like an MIT professor showing up on Springer.

Well I would be one

[Anonymous Coward]

While I partially agree with you (for the average consumer, AOL client isn't holding them from using LInux), but I think that the problem is more widespread that you may think

My compnay supports Windows, Linux, or Solaris as a desktop platform, but selected AOL as its remote connectivity solution.

So that means that whenever I travel, dial-in from home, etc, I am forced to take a windows laptop just to dial-in, or pay for connectivy on my own dime. So although I do 90% of my work while running Linux, I still have to use windows just to use AOL

Re:Well I would be one

[kill -9 $$]

You should see if your company will let you run VMWare. Its a lot cheaper than another laptop, especially if its just Win98 or Win95 (VMWare Lite or something? is all you need which I believe is free or very cheap)

Re:Well I would be one

[shepd]

See if you can get this to work.

Might solve your Linux woes... well... maybe... Probably not statically compiled so perhaps you are screwed. Well, that and its gonna be hard to find. Maybe try alt.binaries.warez.linux ?

Uh-Oh?

[TheDarkRogue]

First, i'd like to express how happy I am that this is now out in the open. The thing is though, isn't AOL going to be bitching about this? This means that they can now not force their client upon you with what ever fun they put into it. Last I checked (Which i do admit was a while ago) they didn't like you using anything but their AIM client, why would their big one be any different?

PDF Format

[1010011010]

Here is the file in PDF, rather than "write" format:

http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/mirrors/The-AOL-P rotocol.pdf

Re:PDF Format

[connorbd]

You with the CueCat driver, and now this -- are you trying to be a shit magnet :-)

Hats off, though... and hats off to the person who did it in the first place...

/Brian

Re:Dear Mod:

[blakestah]

There are not any.

The protocol may be protected by copyright, patent, or as a trade secret.

Reverse engineering of methods described in copyrighted material is legal.

Reverse engineering of trade secrets is legal.

Reverse engineering of patented inventions is illegal.

Bypassing copyright protection schemes through reverse engineering is illegal.

Reverse engineering protocols is similar to what the SAMBA team does already - of the NTFS team, or the VFAT team, or the HFS team etc...

Mac OS X is BSD

[WiggyWack]

Just to be annoying...

Mac OS X is BSD based and AOL makes a client for it.

So not ALL people who switch to a BSD based OS have to drop AOL. :)

Okay, I'll shut up.

Finaly.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am forced to use AOL (becuse of my less computer savvy family), and now I will finaly be able to stop having to run windows every time I want to use the internet.

No.

[mindstrm]

Because this isn't directly a copyright issue.

The DMCA makes breaking a copy protection mechanism illegal.. which this isn't.

Excellent!

[JoeShmoe]

Yes, this is very, very good. That's a very smart idea. Seeing as how AOL caved to the pressure to have a webmail system, it seems only logical that someone would rip apart the HTML and figure out all the FORM POST commands necessary to fill in the proper boxes on AOL's mail page.

http://www.enetbot.com/ for those also curious.

Pity it's $20 shareware, but this is very good. That takes care of request A from my post...now can any clever soul provide a solution for converting/importing previous mail?

- JoeShmoe

Wrong topic..

[mindstrm]

This has nothing to do with instant messaging.. it's about the actual AOL signon procedure.. not AIM.

And trillian rocks.... to be sure. Needs some UI work.. some stuff you really have to hunt for. Needs proxy support.. and needs file transfers to work properly.. but otherwise, it's superb.

Re:Wrong topic..

[jgaynor]

I stand corrected. Sorry for the knee jerk post :(.

Beware

[WildBeast]

who knows, maybe AOL will sue Slashdot for publishing the code to millions of users. cmdrTaco will be the next Dimitry Skylarov.

Re:Beware

[Anonymous Coward]

Please santa I've been a good kid all year. Grant
me this one wish.

AOL for Linux

[WoWo]

I for one, will switch if someone can figure a way for me to use AOL with Linux. I'm trying to get off the Microsoft dependency for a long time. The only thing that has been holding me out is AOL. I've used AOL for a while, and in the early days of the internet, AOL was one of the few ISPs that you could use anywhere in the country. I haven't changed ISPs because too many people know my AOL address and I don't want to have to contact them all just because I switched ISPs. If someone invents even a limited way to access my email and internet access by AOL from Linux, I'll drop Windows off my computer in a heartbeat. Heck, I may even try to figure out a way to do it. I'm glad someone finally figured it out. I wonder how long it took them to do it.

Cheers
LP

Re:AOL for Linux

[JacobD]

Hi, AOL for Linux has already been released...remember the Gamera client? That's the software running on the Gateway appliance and was pulled off of there to prove that AOL violated free software licenses. More info can be found at http://www.observers.net/gamera2/gamerastory.html Jacob Observers.net

Re:AOL for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead and change ISPs. After changing, simply go to www.aol.com and use their web-login form (it's on the main page!) to access your email. Quick, easy, convenient, and your contacts don't have to learn a new email address. Unless, of course, you can't stand using a web mail client.

not only on Linux...

[yivi]

I never fancied AOL, but in some places/schemes AOL is more practical, or more cheap, or the only alternative.

And if the have the protocol handy, they might make dialers for diferents OSes and devices, not just Linux/BSD.

I.E.: I use my handheld to check/write mails, and ocassionally using stuff as ICQ/AIM or telnet. Now I'm stuck with "free" (contractless) dial-up providers, where you pay for as long you are connected. Since the ones that offer flat access require propietary dialers to connect (AOL or BT).

A dialer for the Palm OS would be really nice for me.

TeamOn can get AOL mail

[mccrew]

TeamOn Systems web-based e-mail service has been aggregating all kinds of proprietary e-mail for some time now, including AOL and Hotmail.

Something is missing...

[Maj. Kong]

#include <me_too.h>
#include <a-s-l.h>
#include <ALLCAPS.H>

Gamera

[nstrom]

I see lots of people posting comments like "I can't wait until there's AOL for Linux". Well, there was an internal AOL project called Gamera which was a Linux-based AOL client (for Gateway's branded "Instant AOL" internet appliance). The program was leaked, and copies are floating around. Here's some info on Gamera: http://www.observers.net/gamera/

Re:Gamera

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamera is friend to all children! He is a GOOD turtle!

Re:Gamera

[JacobD]

For the correct url it's http://www.observers.net/gamera2/gamerastory.html for information and download sites. If you can't find it there, email me at jacob@observers.net and I will get a copy for you.

There is one more client out there

[sulli]

Claris Emailer 1.x for Mac. It is the only email client I've seen that connects to AOL AND POP3. Still works today, though I haven't used it for more than playing with it in years.

Of course, I can see why AOL doesn't want people doing this - I used this mainly as a tool for migrating to POP3! I would check AOL email once in a while, and whenever there was anything other than spam (rare) I would reply to it from my POP3 account.

Reasons for AOL on Linux

[BluePenguin]

Amazingly, I'll put myself in the catagory of people who could use a Linux AOL client. Why?

1. Because I'm a poor college student who's parents are still on AOL. Why pay for a second ISP when there's one available? Linux isn't a solution for them, but if I could dial up from the Linux Box in my room (Linux on the second cheap computer? I have the second cheap computer!), that'd make my life simpler.
2. Who wants to reboot to a Win/9x partition, connect, DL kernel patch, reboot to linux partition... etc...
3. Remember that AOL offers a nation wide network. So these days, that's nothing new. But think about moving every few years, and doing this six years ago. Want to hunt up a new ISP every time you move?
4. If you've managed to keep an ISP (and e-mail address) for a few years, would you want to go through the hassle of chainging? There are alot of long time AOL users who cling to AOL just to keep their e-mail addresses. As they grow more comfortable with their computer they may even grow towards Linux. Being able to keep your ISP would make that decision easier.

It's not about converting windows users to Linux because now they can keep AOL (though I think you may see some of that). It's about letting power users simplify thier life. (Single ISP for both the kids running windows and parents running linux (or the other way around!))

Another possible effect could be an "Offical AOL For Linux". Which would be easier and less stressful in the long run, continually fighting off the third party connections, or writing an offical port to get people away from third party connection software?

ethereal

[brer_rabbit]

ok, I know that reverse engineering a protocol isn't easy, but why hasn't this happened much sooner? I don't know jack about AOL (or their protocols), but if you can run ethereal or even tcpdump you can start documenting the interface.

I do this quite often, run ethereal before a Windows app connects over the net and bam! you've got a full text of the conversation. I recommend you give it a shot the next time you hit "register via the internet" on some piece of software. You might be surprised what you see.

Re:ethereal

[Anonymous Coward]

why hasn't this happened much sooner?

Because no one gives a fuck.

Re:ethereal

[Anonymous Coward]

It has "happened much sooner", as you say.
See this everything2 node and note the date.

Really...

[Rob.Mathers]

How many self-respecting Linux users would want to use AOL? Granted, there is a small appeal in saying "Hey i got AOL to work on Linux," but I imagine it would sorta wear thin after a minute or 2.

Re:Really...

[Anonymous Coward]

I would guess that anyone who travels alot and needs Internet access would go for it in a heartbeat. AOL dialups are *everywhere*, so if you could get online from anywhere in the country with the OS of your choice, all the better.

Opening the AOL protcol and terrorisim legislation

[doogieh]

Better be careful. AOL may consider any unauthorized use of their servers as computer trespass - even if you are an AOL subscriber. (They can say via license "you are only authorized to use our servers using OUR software.")

Thus, this information is aiding and abetting computer trespass. Slashdot and the authors may be liable retroactively under the new terrorism legislation (depending on the scope of the hacking provisions) with mandatory life sentences for giving aid to terrorists.

By advocating an open AOL client for linux, given AOL's licensing terms, you are trying to change intellectual property policy, thus are "trying to change government policy through computer trespass" under the PATRIOT act, USA act, or whatever they are calling it now.

While this scenario seems crazy, keep in mind that this is literally within the scope of (some versions of) the terrorism legislation.

Conclusion: "You've got jail!"

Alternative

[j7953]

Which is the better choice for a family with several children?

The better alternative would be an operating system that supports secure and easy to setup multiuser operation. This will also make sure your kids can't read any of the files you don't want them to see, etc. If the setup were simple enough, as an added bonus control of the computer would move back from the kids to the parents. Things like restricted use of games and restricted software installation don't have to be hard to use, they just happen to be.

Multiple e-mail adresses are not a serious problem, as there are so many freemail offers and anyway your local ISP might also want to offer "subaccounts," if it were easy enough for average users to setup so they won't call tech support all the time.

Is any such operating system available? Unfortunately not. Windows XP, from what I have seen so far, is simple to use and setup, but horribly insecure (e.g. non-password protected users with admin rights are created during setup) and tries to force you into using Passport, Digital Rights Management etc. Linux, on the other hand, is secure, but much harder to setup and maintain. There are also only very few games available. Mac OS X might be an option, but Macs are quite expensive for a family computer, and as with Linux, few games are available.

Re:Alternative

[Paul Carver]

Ok, perhaps I should have prefixed that question with "of things that exist," and maybe even suffixed it with ", and which were usable by the majority of computer users in the mid 1990s".

Lest we forget, computers may be purchased and used by non-computer professionals. Just as cars may be purchased by non-mechanics and food may be purchased by non-farmers.
The level of arrogance among computer experts does seem a bit higher than most professions. I'm not sure what the reason is for this lack of a broad perspective on the world.

I have a bad feeling...

[yzquxnet]

It will only be a matter of time before the DMCA is brought up regarding this. I am almost certain of it.

Did Anyone Out There Notice Change in Mod

[Anonymous Coward]

Posts are being remoderated!!!!

Sounds like Bush (aka 1984).

Freenet key

[Anonymous Coward]

This document has been posted to Freenet 0.3:

freenet:KSK@AOL_Protocol.wri

Jerry Springer

[stud9920]

Possible subject :

• I had sex with the one legged robot.
• My SPARCstation is cheating on me.
• Aliens ate my termpaper.
• I cross-dress as a system administrator.
• I love talking dirty to my HP48GX

Re:Jerry Springer

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

that was professor that was typed up there.

HP41CV, baby.

finally!

[HappyDrgn]

/dev/aol anyone?

So fix it...

[Da VinMan]

You're absolutely correct. Not only do they have a captive audience, but they have an audience about whom they know a lot about.

So, if the problem is "we can't use AOL from Linux, etc", then why don't they fix it? What's really stopping them from putting together a cross-platform Java (heck, or even C-based) GUI? That way, at least no one has an excuse to work around them.

I do think they'll be forced to stomp on anyone producing other implementations of their client. Long-term though, it's not a battle they can win (especially if Linux does start getting used more by average/non-technical users).

Re: MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a genius-caliber troll. BillNapier, I salute you.

AOL users discouraged from switching?

[audacity242]

So, here's the premise. AOL isn't available on Linux or BSD, therefore people who are happy with AOL but considering switching to Linux/BSD would not switch, because AOL isn't available.

There's just one problem. How many AOL users are even aware of the mere EXISTANCE of Linux/BSD? The people who use AOL when there are other options available are the same types of people who use Windows simply because that is what is loaded onto their computer when they bought it. The vast majority of AOL users aren't going to bother to find out whether other OSes would be good for them, considering that they haven't bothered to see whether ISPs are better.

-Jenn

AOL/Time Warner vs OpenAOL clients

[smack_attack]

3-6 months - someone actually writes a fully functional OpenAOL client that people are willing to use.

+ 2-3 months - AOL figures things out, issues cease and desist letters, starts blocking OpenAOL clients.

+ 1 week - OpenAOL figures out new protocols (return to previous step as needed while Lawyers OpenAOL users)

+ ??? months - AOL finally wins in a DMCA case that no one cares about because by this time everyone is using DSL and realizes that AOL and is another weight throwing mega-corp.

Note: AOL will probably blow a LOT of money fighting this too, that's why this is so humorous to me... I look forward to seeing ideas like this show up on rtmark.com.

AOL: Killer App for KDE?

[chiph]

Imagine if AOL wrote a client for KDE -- would KDE then become ubiquitous on Linux, with 99.9% market penetration?

Why of course..

[Anonymous Coward]

..its now open since its obsolete. AOL is going for SIMPLE (Sip for Instant Messaging and Presence). One of the pioneers in SIMPLE development and probably the most visible one is a swedish startup called Hotsip.

Re:Dear Mod:

[MindStalker]

Reverse engineering of patented inventions is illgal.
I'm sure its legal, but basically unessesary, as the infomation is in the patent. If there is something in the patented invention that needed reverse engineering so you can create a different item that worked with the patented item that didn't violate the patent. Sounds legal to me.

What elementary school do you attend?

[Anonymous Coward]

your = belongs to you
you're = you are
were = past tense of is
where = location

AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol

[jesup]

The AOL protocol described is a modification of the old (1984) PlayNet error-correction and data communication protocol I devised (with some input from Steve Bohram, but it was mostly my design based on the Tannenbaum networking book).

CRC-16 was used because modems (300 baud) didn't have any error correction, and we could use tables to process the data 16 bits at a time without using too much memory or CPU (the servers were 12MHz 68010's).

Packets all ended in hex 0D because we were using Telenet and Tymnet X25 dial-in pads in line-buffered mode, because we were charged by the packet. We also munged the other fields to avoid 0D (that may be gone now). Also, they were limited to 256 byte lines; thus the length byte instead of something longer.

Bytes 6 & 7 (which the author doesn't understand) are sequence numbers used in the sliding-window error-correction protocol.

The two-character ASCII prefixes were the actual message types for data packets, and were the input to a multi-tasking state-machine language. EM for example was (IIRC) part of email, perhaps to turn on the 'MAIL' icon. (I forget all the codes, I'm afraid).
Z on the front seems to be an AOL addition.

I was at PlayNet from Feb '84 to Feb '86 (when we declared bankruptcy). AOL licensed the PlayNet software from us for a song when we were running out of money, and rebranded it QuantumLink (and made minor mods, many of which we did for them).
PlayNet ran out of money in Feb '86, though the service continued to remain up for the 1500-3000 subs for another year or two.

PlayNet got a cut of AOL gross revenues until they finally wiggled out of it right before launching America Online (a port of the software to the PC with considerable enhancement), at which point PlayNet's bankruptcy was closed.

The servers were Stratus fault-tolerant machines, and as of 3 years ago they were still using them.

They didn't manage to change the 10-character limit on usernames until a few years ago. That limit was because of the 40-character width of the C64 screen, a ',' between each name, 16(?) characters for the room name plus a space, and we wanted N (12? 15?) users in a chat room. The result was that there were 10 characters available for the username.

The algorithm in AOL for selecting usernames that resulted in JohnQ12345 was also part of the old PlayNet (server) software. Also the default initial passwords for "marketing" accounts (i.e. the free disks) of "word-word" is another thing thought up over lunch at PlayNet that still hasn't changed.

Many things have been added & changed - but far more than I ever expected remains the same. I figured they'd dropped the ECC protocol ages ago.

-- Randell Jesup

Re:AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol

[EnglishTim]

Fascinating. Someone mod this up!

Re:AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol

[man_ls]

It's great to hear from someone who actually helped to develop the protocol that is being used now. I have a copy of the AOL source and I pasted your comment in to it, but if you wish, I can remove it if you'd prefer to remain anonymous or uninvolved before I post it to Gnutella.

Thank's for posting this.

J.Koebel

Re:AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol

[kiscica]

Also the default initial passwords for "marketing" accounts (i.e. the free disks) of "word-word" is another thing thought up over lunch at PlayNet that still hasn't changed.

Fascinating info! By the way, the "word-word" password scheme is even older than that. I remember it being used on CompuServe (along with the 7xxxx,yyyy TENEX-style user ids) in the early 80s.

kiscica

Re:AOL is just a modified PlayNet protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting stuff. AOL's current protocol, AFAIK, is known internally as "P2". Is that a reference to a second iteration of the PlayNet protocol?

AOL ran over X.25 for years, as a self-contained stream, hence the error correction of its own. Nowadays it uses TELNET and AOLnet is TCP/IP, so those elements seem to be, well, redundant. The interesting part of P2 is how it encodes its graphics, windows, etc. -- the virtual terminal application stuff. The article dwells on the boring lower layers and seems to miss the interesting higher-layer stuff.

http://www.bozilla.net:8080/theaolprotocol.txt

[nocomment]

here you go
www.bozilla.net:8080/theaolprotocol.txt

text file here

[nocomment]

www.bozilla.net:8080/theaolprotocol.txt

AOL now sucks less

[Apreche]

Well AOL the company isn't so hot because they didn't give away this information. However the main reason that AOL stinks as an ISP is because in order to connect you have to load this enourmous hog of a program into memory. With a normal dial up isp you use dial up networking, and with a NIC you load nothing. If we could write a very small program that simply connects to aol and establishes an internet connection, that would be fantastic. People could still use AOL, but it wont suck, as much.

ooh ooh

[phatmax2k]

1) Establishing a connection
A. Servers - America Online Servers generally run on port 5190. The server that the clients connect to is randomly chosen via the DNS Round Robin 'AmericaOnline.aol.com'.

Now all we need to do is update Nimba/CodeRed to attack AmericaOnline.aol.com to get rid of all the crud on irc.

AOL-Linux

[roystgnr]

My family were AOL users for a year or two, long enough ago that we used the DOS-based interface. We didn't stop, either, until after I got a dialup University account and they got a commercial PPP account in 1995.

I've been using Linux since 1997. Perhaps the current crop of AOLers would also require a couple years "transition" period, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.

Re:AOL-Linux

[RobNich]

I had the same situation. I was an AOL user since 93, on Windows 3.1. I tried Linux (Slackware) in '95, in the middle of installing Win95 (I had repartitioned anyway). I went back to using AOL until I got a job where we used dial-in access, and finally got our own T1, 1997. In January 1999 I got ADSL from the phone company. I've never looked back.

The discussions I have about AOL with users I support all seem to be about what AOL actually does. They don't have any proprietary content worth speaking of--all of the good content is actually a website which non-AOL users can get to as well. AOL doesn't want their users to be aware of this, of course.

The only argument I have seen for using AOL is parental control. In one case, someone pays for ADSL, but also pays for BYOA AOL so that his kids can access only the clean stuff. Now that the ADSL provider has this service, his situation may change.

However, I have converted two other users (families) from AOL to standard ISP broadband (using Win/IE), and have introduced two users to the Internet with a standard ISP. All are very happy.

Re:AOL-Linux

[aol-files]

You can use AOL for Linux, commonly called 'Instant AOL' or 'Gamera', check it out at
clients.aol-files.com/instantaol/

Quick action needed

[return 42]

Jesus, someone put it on Freenet quick! They'll have an injunction against that site within a day or two!

Alternate Clients

[LagDemon]

I keep hearing people say that the reason there are no alternate AOL clients is that AOL changes the protocol if it decides people are using alternate clients. However, as far as i can tell, the only way AOL can see what client you are using is through the identification packet that is sent during logon. If the client is designed to properly fudge the identification, AOL would never know, and in fact they'd think you were using a plain old AOL client.

Can someone please tell me if i understand this properly?

AOL for NT

[Anonymous Coward]

AOL 5 runs fine on NT 4.0. AOL doesn't support it, but it works. The last time I called their tech support (last Spring,) they said they'd have a specific NT client out by now. I haven't seen it and don't know that the world really needs it since AOL 5 works fine.

There is an AOL 5.0 client specifically for NT. It's listed right on the download page.

Places this could be useful

[IGnatius T Foobar]

This spec could be terribly useful for anyone who wants to write a program to migrate a user's e-mail (or even their settings, etc.) to a new service.

Or better yet -- think about this: with this spec, an AOL module could be written for fetchmail. Suck down the mail from that old AOL account and deliver it via SMTP. Cool, eh?

ISP decides OS, yeah, whatever...

[Zed2K]

"I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time."

Oh yeah, thats it exactly, you hit it right on the head. I choose my OS by what ISP I have...bingo. I'm so glad slashdot folks are so damn smart.

Re:ISP decides OS, yeah, whatever...

[huh69]

You are an imputant mortal, obviously. While I don't agree either with his statement, I don't agree because it doesn't apply to me. A lot of people I know that have computers don't even realize that AOL is NOT the internet. His statement may apply, atleast partially, to them. Assuming your a computer geek like a decent percentage of /. readers, I would've thought that you might realize that not all people think like you or I do. While I find easy to configure, Solaris, Linux or Windows to my liking, and you might also, to others it may be a nightmare just to configure their computer name to work with an @home cable modem. You need a reality check, because not all people are computer experts and your comment suggests that you think that people who aren't are idiots and that is not just so. A lot of people I know are brilliant with other things but have no clue about computers, I do not believe they are idiots.

Re:ISP decides OS, yeah, whatever...

[Tazzy531]

In fact, I had to use Windows 98 because of AOL. I have AOL with DirecPC (Satellite Internet) and it is only supported on Windows 9x. I would've liked to go to Win2k because I use the computer as a gateway server for my home lan. Win98 sucks on memory management and I have to reboot every now and then. But ya.. I'm using Windows 98 only because of AOL/DirecPC.

BTW: I'm using AOL with DirecPC because:
1) Local copper doesn't support DSL
2) Local cable does not provide internet
3) AOL/DirecPC is cheaper than just DirecPC

So ya..in a way...my gateway server is using Win98 because of AOL!

Re:Dear Mod:

[MikeTheYak]

Reverse engineering of patented inventions is illegal.

Could you explain this one? Patent law makes it illegal to make use of someone else's patent as your own, but I don't see how looking to see how it works would be illegal. Especially since patents are published anyway.

Universal communications?

[raam4122]

Pardon my ignorance, but does this mean we are a little closer to having a universal Instant Messaging program? I'm sick of needing to open so many programs (AIM, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, MSN Messenger) to talk to different people. A single universal program would be awesome. I think the big companies should come together to create one standard (preferably open-source) for instant messaging, although I doubt it will happen. I know there are a bunch of people out there already attempting to do this (jabber.org).

so what do you do with that binary patch?

[twitter]

Not if you figure out the AOL auto-updating mechanism as part of the protocol.

Huh? I'm not sure how you can do this. If AOL sends out some big nasty M$ patch as it's update, what are you going to do? I suppose someone could set up a rig to automatically update observed protocall from an official and updated AOL client. If they then set up a Deb, everyone could get the updates as a chron job. Whew! What a lot of trouble for AOL's dinky client.

For some reason, I still give AOL $10/month. It's a junk mail account until I get a reasonable TOS that will let me serve my own mail. It get's about 30 spams/day, and is utterly useless for real mail, despite AOL anywhere that actually lets me read it. The only AOL software I have is AIM. Will they ever see the light?

They used to license the AOL protocol

[phillymjs]

Back in 1995, Claris introduced Emailer, a Mac e-mail client application that could retrieve AOL mail, along with many other kinds of mail accounts. Development was continued on it for about 3 years or so, but it became an orphan when Claris became Filemaker, Inc and divested itself of non-database products. It was neglected and finally end-of-lifed by Apple in November 1998 at version 2.0v3. Most of the team that created it went on to develop Outlook Express for the Mac, which does not do AOL mail because AOL decided to stop licensing out the protocol. I can only assume that AOL realized they could make more money by forcing everyone to use their shitty built-in mail client and bombarding them with paid advertisements the entire time, than by licensing out the protocol to other software companies creating clean, elegantly-designed mail clients.

Six years later, Emailer still works great on Mac OS 9.x, and the original developers do not believe it should break under OS X. I still use it (as do a lot of people) and I still think it's the best mail client I've ever used, because it doesn't do HTML mail. Nothing but pure, speedy text.

~Philly

That's a load of crap...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Linux is still, even in its most user-friendly
> form, a system that requires you to get some
> dirt under your fingernails while you use it.

I'm running Gnome and KDE. In gnome, you would simply double-click the AOL icon on your desktop or select it from the program menu. KDE you single-click the desktop icon or select it from the menu. I don't know about you, but I don't get much "dirt under my fingernails" by clicking an icon.

Re:That's a load of crap...

[sid_vicious]

I'm running Gnome and KDE. In gnome, you would simply double-click the AOL icon on your desktop or select it from the program menu. KDE you single-click the desktop icon or select it from the menu. I don't know about you, but I don't get much "dirt under my fingernails" by clicking an icon.

I'm running Gnome here also. Sure, now that it's set up, it's very easy for me to run programs. But getting the system set up and firewalled properly, tying down nasty little daemons that script kiddies are dying to r00t wasn't exactly point and click.

Re:That's a load of crap...

[seann]

didn't you point and click your installation?

Re:That's a load of crap...

[kiwaiti]

We're talking the kind of users with difficulties installing windows. They're not supposed to do it. You can do it for them, or if they don't want to rely on a friend taking on any trouble, they could even pay someone to do it. Once it is set up properly, you only really need to change things when dramatic security holes are discovered (the kind that would be dangerous regardless of a restrictive firewall - when did that last happen?). In fact, all they need to know is 1.) how to click the right button 2.) who to turn to if something weird (oh ****, obviously I read /. too much - I nearly overlooked "wierd"! - but then I am not a native speaker) happens.

Gradually, and if they want to, you can let them discover the wealth of programs and documentation you installed on their system...

Kiwaiti

MetaMod

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what I do whenever I get moderated incorrectly.

Actually, that's the ONLY time I metamod. I figure if everyone did this when they are angry moderators would be a LOT more careful with what and how they moderate.

AOL is just for dial up

[Anonymous Coward]

I have used AOL for many years and i have of course outgrown the AOL as an isp, but i still use aol to chat with friends in the same chatroom for almost 8 years, That is why i havent been able to run my PC in linux 100% of the time. but i run it 99% of the time and use my other computers for chatting.

Re:AOL is just for dial up

[KillerBob]

AOL isn't just dialup. I've never used it myself, but as a CSR for Compaq (well, for now at least.... :/), I see a huge number of customers using AOL.

And believe it or not, the recent versions of AOL allow users to connect to their services via a VPN. A VPN can be established through anything... including Cable Modem, and a large number of AOL users are connecting to AOL through these methods now.

Personally, I think it's a good idea at the same time as being almost as stupid as giving Johnny the ability to make/modify/send shell scripts under Windows XP. (Off topic, but johnny can create a script that tells the user he's defragging the hard drive, while it's actually running a system command, like, oh, I dunno... Format? Macro-viruses built into the O/S!)

It's a good idea, because it will be one more reason for people to switch to Linux. The original article does a very good job of explaining and pointing this out, and I won't go into more arguments for it.

By that same token, the average AOL user is too ingrained into being breastfed by the techies to come anywhere near grasping a command-line architechture like Linux. KDE, Gnome, Litestep, etc. do a pretty good job of allowing the user to use Linux in a GUI, but let's face it: if you don't understand at least the rudiments of the Linux command-line structure, you're screwed when you try to modify it. It's not as good as Windows or Mac, and I doubt it ever will be.

HTH
-RK

How about doing this for MSN?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about doing this for MSN so us folks who live in houses where people are stupid enough to fall for the 2 year hitch with MSN and getting $200?

duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

were = collective past tense of is

Re:This is stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Yeah, you are offtopic, but I'm bored. Feel free to do your worst to this.]

Since you asked, no, Jabber won't be a problem.

You don't use a central server for sending messages between clients. That's freaking retarded, and is part of the reason AIM/messenger/ICQ *suck* in their current state.

The most central thing you need (and this may be overkill) is a database a client accesses once to get a userid and server that userid is registered to. Want to message that user? Your client connects to the tiny server they are running and sends a message through it.

So, here's the deal, your big-daddy ISP would need to devote an-ISDN-ful or two of bandwidth to an el-cheapo pentium server, or your mom-n-pop ISP would devote a KB or two of bandwidth to some POS 486 in the corner. Your ISP is lazy you say? Get an ml.org (or whatever the flavour is this week) DNS and run your own private server.

Cheaper, faster, better, and more reliable. That and no SPOF. Excellent. Exactly what the internet is all about.

How long before...

[Rhinobird]

How long before the next KDE project is ameriKa online? KOL? This is just wrong...AOL on my linux box? bad enough with aim but now the rest? GOOD NIGHT!

Screw the Client, write a new Server

[smart2000]

Grossly overlooked in all the posts I've seen so far is the fact that this also will allow you to write a new AOL server. So you could piggyback on AOLs carpet bombing of free CDs by having people just dial up a new number, and get GnuAOL.

So-

[Anonymous Coward]

If using Linux makes you 'l33t', but using AOL makes you a 'l4m3r', does using AOL on linux make you a 'l33t l4m3r'?

Jelly.

Re:AOL on linux-Stranger things have happened

[thumbtack]

I recently ran across a site that archived the the old SIDDs music from Quantum link and had a Window s player available to play them.....

Jesus, you can't even troll on-topic.

[Wakko Warner]

Read the paper. Nothing to do with AIM.

Boo, bad troll.

- A.P.

Re:AOL ISN'T just for dial up

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn my typing thats supposed to read AOL isnt just for dial up

Don't get too excited...

[Anonymous Coward]

The info/source presented exploits an old version of the AOL login protocol. All versions from 4.0 up support a login with a cryptographic handshake that makes it immune to the type of replay used here. AOL always has the option of disabling the old-style logins; while it would impact legit users who aren't running 4.0 or newer, that has to be a pretty miniscule fraction of their total user base by now, and could very well be worth it to them to shut out all the script kiddies and non-ad-viewers.

--AC (three guesses why I am posting this as AC, and the first two don't count)

AOL version 2.5?

[alcohollins]

This document reveals the "secret" protocol of AOL version 2.5. Version 2.5 was released eons ago. The protocol has probably changed a lot since then, since AOL's current client is on version 6.0.

In addition, this document must be eons old as well. Who claims this is a new document? Why would anyone bother with deciphering AOL version 2.5 at this point? This is ancient info.

Another reason for AOL...

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, AOL is great for trolling for easy chicks when you're bored on a Friday night.... can't forget that. ;)

Open Source Linux AOL client exists.

[llzackll]

This has all been done years ago. Check out www.pengaol.org it's in french, but there is an english version also. PengAOL is under active development. There are a few others that were under development a few years ago, but are no longer around. There is not much as far as an interface to aol areas yet cause would need to interpret FDO script language, but they will allow you to establish an internet connection with your aol account from linux.

If you want more info from other sites, just use this google search.

I loved Q-Link

[Hollins]

I loved Q-Link. Maybe it was because it was the first online community I was involved in, but I suspect it had more to do with the community itself. It was small (relative to today's standards), and populated with mostly honorable people. I spent most of my time playing chess, but recognized a surprising portion of the usernames in most of the chat areas. No virtual communities have come near it since. The closest today are well-moderated IRC channels, but these are too small. On the other hand, AOL is too big, rooms don't have consistent community and there are 5 trolls or lurkers for every good person.

I've expended a lot of thought about what led to this type of community, free of trolls and the seedy quality of most chatrooms. I think it came from a couple things:

1. It was new to those participating. We hadn't learned to abuse anonymity.

2. The size was right. IRC channels are too small, while the scale of IRC servers or AOL itself is too large.

3. We paid a buttload for the service. At $3.60/hour the bills racked up quick. No one would pay that today, but it sure kept the idiots out.

It would be nice if someone started an AOL type community that required an application to join, capped its membership numbers (~5000), did not provide anonymity and charged a fee. I doubt it could be profitable, but it might be very refreshing.

Re:I loved Q-Link

[drwiii]

Yeah, QuantumLink rocked. My dad was a beta tester way back in 84/85 and (today) I work with one of the guys who built their original network out. He used to lend Steve Case money so he could get drunk. My how times have changed.

1000 Free Hours

[gozie]

Finally 1000 free hours won't be used as a coaster any more

The new mail greeting...

[shokk]

sounds like "You've got DMCA violation!". Wonder if AOL will jump on that bandwagon.

Much easier

[kimihia]

I don't know what you are using, but it's fairly easy to shut the machine down without running a root shell and three commands.

Just click the Gnome foot, hit "Shutdown", choose "Halt", and if prompted enter your password.

Presto!

My thoughts exactly

[elroyjenkins]

I have done quite a bit of house-call computer support in my time. Not once have I ever heard someone say "Ya know, I would love to try out the latest slackware release, but I need to check my email." How many of AOLs 24 Million users do you think can figure out how to make their PCs boot from a cd let alone install an operating system? Many users these days arent even really able to figure out the whole Start button thing, and cant run anything on the computer if it doesnt have an icon on the Desktop. You think a "fair number" of users would try it out?

Oh now its ON!

[elroyjenkins]

Now I can steal the "Youve got Mail" sound bite and continue my plans to take over the world!

Hmm...

[Nameles]

Funny how hours after it's released and posted on /., the AIM server (that I connect to at least) is down...

AOL's design + IRC = bad

[Scoria]

Has anyone ever observed that the way AOL's dynamic IPs are assigned that you can't ban a single area of AOL from an IRC server for more than a couple of hours at a time?

The hostnames change. How irritating.

AOL: you either ban the whole thing or ban none of it.

Re:AOL's design + IRC = bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I chose to ban all of it.

Re:How about doing this for MSN? (already done)

[nickms85]

Actually, I did this in the past in linux. The MSN protocol does nothing but adds a... excuse me if i'm wrong... 'msn/' (no quotes), infront of the username (and possibly password). Excuse the vaugeness and perhaps out-of-dateness of this information, as I switched to DSL years ago. But I certainly remember something of the sort, and being able to pull it off.

AOL for free

[barureddy]

I know this is off topic, but for those aol users reading out there, for free aol access for a few months or so, threaten to change service. Call them up and say I don't like your service and I'm changing to a better isp. Just like that they will offer you either a reduced or straight up free access for a while. I did this and got my offer, but I had to decline because I got @home(which I don't like now since their service has slown down dramatically and they are more focused on expanding than giving good service).

Lets rewrite some parts of that protocol

[AnimeFreak]

Lets rewrite it so it can lessen the "idiot load".

Re:Lets rewrite some parts of that protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

(AnimeFreak) amoeba, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22404&cid=2409 226
...
(AnimeFreak) amoeba, http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22348&cid=2400 756 -- this too :D

asking for karma is bad, mmkay?

AOhell

[Anonymous Coward]

Next lets get them to stop pussy futing around with modems, and offer a java client to not have to dick around with os specific code. Or better yet AOLL could get itself a LOT of good pr:fibre the REAL internet has been waiting twenty years. ban on modems I say.

Re:Dear Mod:

[blakestah]

Patent law allows the patent holder to prevent anyone from using the patented invention for the purpose of one of the patent claims.

If you do not know how an invention works, and you invent something to do the same thing, you may or may not need the patent holder's permission to use it. If it uses the same invention described in the patent, you need permission.

Check out more AOL stuff

[aol-files]

if anyone has no life connect to irc.aol-files.com and join #aol-files or #irc to chat about stuff . . also for you linux dorks check out Instant AOL at clients.aol-files.com, it's an AOL client for Linux for those of you who didn't know there was one ;) As a webmaster for the site I'd just like to say that the site is not for people to harass AOL or to say how much it sucks, I use it sometimes. Nobody can deny it has far too many ads for over $22/mo when you can get a dialup for free with less ads, but it is easy to use which is what its designed for, if you're more advanced then complaining about simplicity is kinda lame :) long live aol!

Clarification

[jrockway]

This is for the AOL Login protocol, not the AIM protocol. It took me a while to figure that out, so maybe this will help someone.

AOL already officially supports BSD

[helixblue]

The MacOS X flavor, anyways.. Login to AOL and type "Beta", and it's available for download.

Strange that they require you to have a working AOL setup first before you download it.

Ahh, MacOS X.. the ability to enjoy all my BSD goodness, and get supported by the world in general, isn't life grand? :)

(I'll stick with my normal IP services through the other AOL branch, TWC Road Runner)

Apparently Noone Noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

but this is not anything close to a description of AOL's protocol.

this file has the CRC for packet communication integrity, and beyond that the only other fact about the protocol contained is a very general description of the packet headers. here's an exact quote:

Z (CRC) (CRC) [NULL] (LENGTH BYTE) (HB 6TH) (HB 7TH) [SPACE] (TOKEN) (TOKEN)

there. that's it. the rest of the article basically tells you how to download and view the packets coming from the AOL server. there are multiple winsock spy programs available online that perform that exact same task, for a small fee of course.

in fact the accompanying programs (from aol-files.com) that utilize the information in this article simply take copies of packet data and replace "screenname" and "message" with what they want and resize the packets, then send them. the author has no idea what any of the packet's data means or does beyond knowing that replacing those items makes it work.

and the title of this /. article is "The America Online Protocol Revealed".
are you kidding me?!

Re:Apparently Noone Noticed

[Anonymous Coward]

The header is the only thing that people don't already know about. The rest is FDO which is described in detail in documents already available. Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth again.

imap.mail.aol.com is in private IP space

[mparaz]

172.31.34.15, 172.18.145.1

No way I could connect to those from here.

My big reason...

[AstynaxX]

MY main reason for using AOL is portability in terms of geography. I recently moved ~100 miles,a dn will likely be moving again soon. Until I'm fully settled, at which point I'll probably spring for DSL of some flavor if I can get it, AOL provides an easy way to get online where ever I land, no down time beyond plugging myself in.

Dear lord no.

[dave-fu]

The average user isn't a goddamned masochist. They want things to work and they don't want to think about it and figure out why this app needs this version of Gnome while that one needs this version of KDE and why'd I just get a kernel panic?
They just want their AOL and not to crash too much while they're downloading porn.
Also, I'll grab, but only if you ask nicely.

No it's not

[bkocik]

The 172* private space is 172.16.0.0/12. Go check out RFC 1918.

Re:No it's not

[CoasterM]

So if you do the math, that means the range is 172.16.0.0-172.31.255.255, which thus includes the addresses the previous poster stated.

Wrote such a solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I hacked together a solution years ago, a POP3 and IMAP to AOL MIP gateway, as well as an AOL IP Tunnel to PPP gateway. Attachment support is a little flakey.. but I'm sure it could be improved.

I've never been able to get the IMAP servers to work. If there's any interest/use I could comment my code and post it.

jcroall@yahoo.com

AolTime Warner War Criminals

[Anonymous Coward]

Since 9-11 people on antennas have been getting crap reception due to the loss of the WTC Antenna. None of the remedial measures has been successfull & guess who is taking advantage of the consumers, now thatwe are in a hole, you guessed it, Aol. Now that everybody has to use the cable set, they make sure that the unscrambled channels have been cut back to the minimum commited set of local channels as a shake down on forced users. before 9-11 we could break up the useage by using the scifi channel & the Fox News etc, They cut that all out in an effort to milk the public for extra boxes. I for one am never going to forget what they did & I congratulate the guy who put out the protocol, it has really been a long time in coming. They deserve to be driven off the net & out of the company of civilized people everywhere.

I'm glad I got my girlfriend off Aol, I don't know why people pay Aol for what many Courts, libraries, Juno, Kmart, etc give away free.

Fair = single digit?

[Syberghost]

I suspect a fair number of people never try Linux or one of the BSDs because they're moderately happy with AOL as an ISP, and switching OSes would mean switching ISPs at the same time.

You show me five people who say the only thing stopping them from using Linux is AOL, and I'll show you three people who are lying and two who are probably trying it anyway.

Re:Dear Mod:

[MikeTheYak]

Which is all well and good, but it doesn't explain why reverse engineering patents would be illegal.

you have aol?

[Anonymous Coward]

fucking loser

what about claris emailer?

[JustinHoMi]

What I don't understand is how Claris Emailer (an Mac Classic app that can fetch AOL email) continues to work even when AOL changed the token. There must be another way to connect to AOL....

Justin

Re:Dear Mod:

[blakestah]

Patents protect an invention. It does not matter if you think of the same invention independently - you still need permission from the patent holder. That is how patents work.

Copyright protects expression, so if you can implement a method described in a copyrighted work without using the expression, it is legal. This is an appropriate interpretation for most software reverse engineering. If you do not use the source, you are always fine.

This document is shit !

[Anonymous Coward]

This protocol spezification is shit. They haven't really decoded the protocol, they have only collected some packets, that you could send, if you plan to code an AIM client. Some of the given Information is simply wrong, other parts are not complete.

I'm missing information on how to code atom streams, on how to compile and decompile them, there's no word about the cryptology algorithm used in AOL-clients since version 4, and there is no word about GID's, protocol types and Objects used by AOL.

In fact this is only a guide how to write a very bad AIM-client. Really, AOL clients use the same packets, called "P3", but the information given in this document is so bad, that no one could call it an protocol spezification.

Andy (Nobody.net@gmx.net)