Slashdot Mirror
Will Instant Messaging Ever Unite?
scallion writes "An article in Technology Review titled Getting AOL To Talk To MSN points out that currently the world of instant messaging is "as factionalized as Afghanistan," then asks, what will it take to unite all these individual IM networks under one umbrella?"
what will it take to unite all these individual IM networks under one umbrella?
jabber.org
Is it when the Ofice of Homeland Security makes us all standardize on M$ and takes over AOL for the war on terror?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
We could have a mega distributed beowulf cluster if we could get the two systems to inter-communicate.
Never mind back-orifice!
Sam
The problem is that AOL made instant messaging as we know it today. They feel they are the "inventors" and hence shouldn't have to let anyone else in on their network. If they had opened things up from the get go, they would now be the absolute standard for instant messaging instead of the de facto one for 90%+ of the people I know. Their stubbornness is what caused it.
Trillian rocks... combines 3 or 4 different IM into a single, skinnable interface, and even manages to keep up with AOL's shennanigans...
If everyone used the same network, it would be extremely difficult to find a new unique screen name. We'd all have to be either our full name (not anonymous) or Runner2949324329 (hard to remember). And what about people currently on different networks with the same name? Who gets to keep it?
everyone uses AOL IM.
ICQ, Yahoo! messaging, etc. are not even second-best. AIM is so dominant that they are third-best, at best.
AIM is simple and powerful. free clients exist. why use anything else?
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
I already have a unified messaging client. It's called Trillian
Not exactly perfect yet (but its not at 1.0 either), but definitely one of the best instant messaging clients I have used. For those of you using Windows, check it out. (Sorry, no Linux support AFAIK)
The secret as allways:
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Developers, developers, developers, developers!
Wooohooooooo!
Wooooo!
I can't hear you!
Woooooo!
hugs,
steve "pits" ballerm
p.s. don't give my secret away.
Just use a client that supports multiple protocols. Under Windows you can use Trillian. It supports MSN, AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, and IRC seamlessly. When you've got all that in one nice client where everything looks similar, why do you need a single protocol?
Jabber and Trillian have been mentioned, now for Miranda: http://miranda-icq.sourceforge.net
Support your open source brethren! Help develop an AOL or MSN plugin!
My choice would be Trillian
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Why would we want a standard Instant Messenger? Putting everything under one umbrella brings us back again to the problems with Microsoft and not having any choices. Isn't choice what we want?
Is your browser retarded?
At work we use IM as our primary means of communication. Since people come onto projects using their own favorite client, most of us end up using Trillian. Beats having 3 clients up at once which don't talk to each other.
[o]_O
MSN and AOL are inferior, anyway. people who want to chat to people on both networks will just download decent clients like Jabber and do so.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Unless I'm mistaken AOL have the market pretty much sown up in terms of users. By opening up the protocol or moving to something more open, they will probably stand to lose more than they will gain.
And unless anyone can reliably convince them otherwise (and it would appear that so far they haven't) then it just isn't going to happen.
(As a side note, I use Trillian which combines a number of them including IRC)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Don't they realize that as soon as the Micro$oft/AOL/Yahoo merger goes through, that they'll all standardize on a product that will work for everyone except linux/bsd geeks? Shouldn't be long either, not more than a few years... after all, Bush has to finance the 2004 campaign somehow...
They are competing standards. Lets look at that word - competing.
Why would they want to ever work together? The only way for this to happen is if you pay for the service. This is never going to happen bacause web users expect to be given a service for free. Other people have to foot the bill.
Mozilla has built-in IRC. Why do ppl keep using proprietary IMs? Just like they 'need' MSWord, a non-html document format.
The tools are already in place - there is software out there that needs users.
...how about Trillian? Yeah, I know it's not open-source, and it's for Win32 only (although one of co-workers uses it with the Crossover plug-in, and it works fine). It's still an outstanding piece of software, that allows these GlobalHyperMegaCorps to play their games, and still give us the functionality we users crave.
RW
Whatever happened to ICQ? They were the biggest at one time. A think a lot of people still use it. It's been probably about 4 years since I've used an IM client so somebody chime in if ICQ has become as crappy as MS or AOL's offerings.
Personally, I'd like the Google guys to develop one. Just a bare bones here's-a-box-to-type-in-and-a-send-button without the candy land themes and context menus that fill the screen with every emoticon ever created. Just something that does the job instead of trying to be everything to everybody.
The only real motivation they would have to open these networks up would be if an open solution reached critical mass and they wanted to piggy back on the success of the new platform. The only way an open solution will gain larger market share than AOL, MSN, ICQ, Yahoo, etc. is if a large number of people outside of tech circles cared. I think the slow adoption of Linux and Mozilla on the desktop have shown that most people just use what's easy.
I remember dreaming at the time that Win95 would be somehow built on X11 . . .
This isn't as easy as the browser wars. There are server side considerations that need to be taken into account. When you IM, you're actually using one of the company's servers, one of the company's money, displaying one of the company's ad banners. Don't think for a minute that they will just open this up.
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
Client side apps are already doing the job fairly well:
Everybuddy
There are others for the non-Linux crowd too. (Feel free to list a few... I'm busy at work.)
(And there's always Jabber.)
The only problem is the intentional changing of AIM, MSN protocols solely for the purpose of "breaking" third-party clients.
* Nobody can rival the ease of deployment MS has with Messenger. Now I don't know the competing IM offers, but they'll have to be substantially better than MS Messenger for people to install them.
* Microsoft doesn't want to share, so it has no commercial interest in interoperability with other IM services
* Microsoft is almost forcing MS Messenger on you, if you use Outlook 2000/XP. If I don't have MS Messenger running Outlook will start its own instance, but it will not be signed in. In this mode Outlook is noticably slower than if I have MS Messenger started and signed in. Something like a second or so to show a message in the preview pane.
QED
You can get all chat windows combined into one - it's called gaim.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
It will happen as soon as the companies involved believe they have a financial incentive to do so, and not one second sooner. It's called capitalism, and that's the way it works, whether we like it or not.
The IM networks are never going to be merged. Eventually, one dominant player (*cough*AOL) will open up their protocol and servers a bit and allow others to use it. The other networks will slowly die.
Merging IM networks would be a monumental task. The namespace conflicts alone would awful to deal with.
--
Phil
I made the mistake of installing Microsoft's messanger the other day. Don't ask me why. Since then: It launches on start up, even though I have repeatedly set it to not do so, and I cannot uninstall it. Basically, I'm going to have to reinstall Windows to get rid of it. It's like an Explorer nightmare all over again.
Can I bum a sig?
Time for an OS IM product utilizing Slashdot ID numbers. You could even moderate your own conversations. +1, Informative, -1 Troll. It'd be great fun for the whole family.
The answer from IETF is a workgroup called SIMPLE. This working group focuses on the application of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP, RFC 2543) to the suite of services collectively known as instant messaging and presence (IMP). The IETF has committed to producing an interoperable standard for these services compatible with the requirements detailed in RFC 2779 and in the Common Presence and Instant Messaging (CPIM) specification, developed within the IMPP working group. As the most common services for which SIP is used share quite a bit in common with IMP, the adaptation of SIP to IMP seems a natural choice given the widespread support for (and relative maturity of) the SIP standard. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/simple-charter.h tml
3rd party software could be an answer.
UM will never reach a point of co-operation as it is too much of importance. How can you create a loyal userbase? Not by giving them options to be able to communicate with people who use different IM software. If your friends use MSN or ICQ or other software you most likely choose the one that is the most used within your circle of friends. Especially when the software of a competitor cannot communicate with their clients.
So, 3rd party software playing translator to the different kind of clients is one of the possible solutions.
Linux: GAIM
Enough said.
...and a program called BIFF, used to alert you to it.
:-) ).
I absolutely refuse to use any instant messaging software, and when I tell people to E-Mail me, they seem to think that I'm going to check a POP server once in a blue moon. Errr, no, if I was going to do that, I'd use IMAP anyway, but if you E-Mail me, if I'm sitting at my computer, I'll usually be reading it within 30 seconds, (that doesn't include mail from the kernel list, though, I'd never finish reading that
If they dont publish a usable standard why should we care if MS and AOL's network can intertalk?
MS buys AOL and Yahoo.
The truth shall set you free!
Umbrellas!! If we can unite stuff under them, with "protocols" then what need for politics/religion/microwave ovens??? We could construct a MASSIVE umbrella (Off the top of my head, it'd need to be 126,000 Km^2) and get EVERYONE in the world to talk the same language!! and be friends!! to unite under the one true UMBRELLA. And you stay dry! Even in Ireland, Im off to patent UMBRELLAS as middleware for life in the universe....
why would you want them to consolidate, competition and all is good, right? anyways, i was forced away from ICQ and into MSN, which means i needed a windows box just for communication amongst friends. my friends are not that tech savy and all basically jumped on the MSN bandwagon after getting pressured by hotmail...so i had to leave the better product (IMHO) to use microsofts inferior product (seems to be a trend of their's eh?) it's a bit offtopic, but i tend to gripe about it at any chance, especially to my friends.....about 20 of my friends use ICQ, and 60 or so use MSN, the 60 include the 20 who use ICQ, and i'm a resource scrooge, so i just couldn't justify having two messengers open....
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
The answer is: not until they want to.
They could today if they wanted to. Jabber has tried this and got it to work, but AOL and MSN, etc. kept changing their protocol to break Jabber's integration. They even went so far as to make the protocol very dynamic, in order to ease their constant changing of protocols. Very conter-productive if you ask me.
If they wanted to, they could, but then, that would hinder AOLs big selling point: all your friends are on it. Then the Internet came, and it didn't matter. They hold onto what they can and lie about the rest.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
Look at how inundated this website is with the windows users. At least a third of the posts thus far all shout out "Trillian!" which I will admit is the best multi-protocol client out there for windows. And it does work w/ wine, too, albeit somewhat unstably.
Running linux, kopete is the best I've come across, although it lacks both file transfer capabilities and Yahoo Messenger support. If it attracts enough attention, it ought to have both before too long, what with it being open-sourced and all.
for those who don't know, trillian DOES run on linux, and quite well in fact. It needs wine, (or crossover plugin if yer lazy) but it works pretty much perfectly.
Trillian has already been mentioned for win32, but there's also gaim for Linux/GTK - it supports almost every instant messaging protocol under the sun, and doesn't feature the same bloat as the likes of ICQ.
Gabber's also pretty good, but since no-one uses the Jabber protocol, it seems pointless to register...
Why would competing companies want to share their resources with "the enemy"? What reason could there be for AOL to allow MSN users access to their systems, or vice versa?
The answer...
MONEY.
AOL / MSN / etc just need to come up with a cross-IM network advertising system, and things will rapidly fall into place. It might be a bit much to assume you'd see AOL signup ads when using MS software, but most anything else could be fair game. Mark my words...
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
- AOL
- AOL is the undisputed leader in the IM market. They were the
pioneers; instant messages have been a part of AOL since the service was
called AppleLink back in the late 1980s.
- AOL does not need any more users on its IM network. It does not want
more users on the network. Everybody who is anybody has an AIM account.
- Facilitating compatibility with other IM networks would cost AOL money
unnecessarily. They would not be able to install their spyware and ads on
your system. And they would not be able to use the competing services to
try to get you to join AOL. The economics of the situation favor the
current approach.
- MSN
- Microsoft would also lose out from giving up the right to blast ads
and spyware at all of the users of its network.
- Microsoft fully intends to leverage a monopoly in the instant messaging
arena to further its desktop and server monopoly. At that point they will
begin charging for service. This would be less effective if they opened
their network.
- Keeping their network closed encourages more users to get Passport
accounts, which Microsoft uses to harvest personal information and sell
consumer dossiers and mailing lists.
- Jabber
- Jabber.org would benefit from an open IM standard. Unfortunately,
Jabber.com would lose its only competitive advantage and would quickly go
out of business.
- Decentralization would make administration simpler, but would be
unnecessarily incompatible with the centralized models of AOL, MSN, and (to
a large extent) ICQ.
b.You would have a simpler time uniting the US republican and democratic parties then uniting all the IM formats. There are too many programs and too many formats to be a success. ICQ alone has enough troubles with compatibility with old verions. Let alone MSN, Yahoo IM, AOL IM, etc...
like, duh
Newsflash: private interests dont co-operate for the greater public good, especially wrt protocals and standards. News at 11!
"Old man yells at systemd"
'nough said!
what will it take to unite all these individual IM networks under one umbrella?
Microsoft buying AOLTW ?
I know enough people who use IM clients because it's easier to use than IRC clients. ;)) would solve the problem for everyone.
Perhaps a cheesy, modified (read: VERY easy to use IRC client, with smilies, "send" buttons AND an option "start up when windows is booting"
Hell, if you take a good look at IM systems, they aren't that different from IRC anyway, they are just really limited and leave out most of the advanced options.
ofcourse, on the other hand, I would like to see an IRC network capable of handling the millions of IM users. (imagine trying to explain to a user that he can't message to his friend because there is a netsplit)
You know what, skip that thought, IRC is already filled with nitwit morons, we don't need another 10 million of them spamming the networks :p
"The majority is always sane, Louis." -- Nessus
http://slashdot.jp
There are many multi "transport" instant message clients out there, the largest being Trillian ( http://www.trillian.cc ) and Jabber ( http://www.jabber.org ). While it is true that they're not supported by their respective owner (AOL, Yahoo or Microsoft), they do function properly. In the past Microsoft tried to block them but recently has supported Trillian by offering them the future specifications of the MSN protocol (although I am sure it somehow is meant to undermine AOL), and AOL has given up trying to block the sneaky clients. I doubt they will ever work together (at least not until an evil and scary merger between AOL and Microsoft happens). I use Trillian personally and I have used Jabber in the past and I feel they are quite professional.
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true." --James
This message is SUCH a troll, someone please stop him!
Or like Linux Distributions?
a) who cares? you've got your favorite, so screw that one friend who uses the other IMer, you didn't need him anyways.
b) it's not in a single company's best interest so it's never going to happen
c) these kinds of articles are only going to alert lawyers about your rogue client projects and piss them off.
d) cell phones are keep, and face time is a key factor in sex. get off the computer.
feints within feints, wheels within wheels
and say to hell with it, we'll all become bar
codes. i mean really. 6,200,000,000 people...
according to my calculator sais over
1 800 000 000 in hex...(but my calculator sucks
so i could be mistaken in here)
"hi im $FE10110039
and you could add descriptors/last names to make
the system even more usable...
"hi i'm FE10110039, decker. i 80386." etc etc.
and it would give them an excuse to give us barcode tattoos!. imagine how sexy you'd look with one of those.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
In addition to the convenience of only downloading one program, it's amazing to find that Trillian takes up less space that AIM alone. Admittedly, these programs typically aren't that large compared to the 20, 40, and 80 GB hard drives (or larger!) that are common today, but I appreciate how compact Trillian is.
mmm...physics...
I use Trillian - it integrates AOL, MSN, Yahoo!IM, ICQ and IRC all in one app. It's got a lot of great features you don't find on the native apps, but it's missing some functionality, like file transfer and webcam integration that you can get in some apps.
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
The long term loser in this game is probably AOL, which will see its IM useage decrease as the AOL service inevitably (continues to) loses customers.
.....One IM to rule them all, one IM to find them
one IM to connect to them all and in the darkness bind them
It seems to me that the ideal solution would be for everyone to agree on a single protocol. This will not happen. You see, it used to be that someone would come out with a protocol and client and server implementations, and would release them into the wild. Then, people would either use it (like IRC) or not (like UNIX's talk command). If they did, then other and better implementations would come out, as long as the protocol was solid. This is how email, FTP, HTTP and many other common Internet protocols were developed.
Now, though, companies create the protocols and allow them only to the chosen few who use their software (think AOL for IM and Real for streaming content). The protocol is not generally available, meaning better clients can't be made, and there is often a dependence upon resources wholly owned by a single company. Sometimes (again AOL and Real come to mind) these are genuinely useful. In that case, someone (another company, generally) will produce a competing product, that does the same thing in a different way.
Some people will choose one method and some will choose another. Users cannot force standardization. The corporate developers are being paid to enforce balkanization, rather than to work towards standardization. Independent developers cannot get enough of a critical mass to make it feasible for users to migrate to their systems, or for corporations to adopt the independent methods as a matter of convenience.
The net result, no pun intended, is that there is no way to move to a standard. This leaves us with the options of using a client which speaks all of the different protocols, choosing to pocket ourselves into a small part of the possible Internet community (with corresponding obeisance to the local corporate power), or choosing to cover our screen with all of the various blessed programs. Only a unified client holds any real appeal to me, and that is fraught with problems. For example, try talking to AIM when AOL keeps changing the way the servers work on the back end! It's a nontrivial problem.
So I guess the point I'm trying to make is that expecting a unified IM system to appear, just because it makes sense from a user perspective, is not very likely to be worth anyone's while.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
lawsuits won't work.
Since Big Brother is Watching our IMs now, I really don't think it matters anymore which IM system I use. I can't find a link to the article in the NY Times, but I remember that Carnivore/Echelon was recently extended to cover IMs too. Who needs privacy anyway...
I look to Jabber as the foundation of sensible IM-ing; users are screenname@jabber.server.address, and messaging users on multiple "services" is just a matter of adding them to your buddy list. No funky add-ons or protocol descriptors needed. Only problem is, Jabber isn't useful as a revenue generator. But what if IM-ing simply became a standard ISP feature? If each ISP ran a Jabber-type server, you'd just need someone's email address to reach him.
Since IM-ing is obviously becoming as widely used as email, why isn't it a part of the standard service package? If distributed, like Jabber, I can't see it placing a huge burden on even very small ISPs.
It wouldn't be *as* bad if AIM didn't suck so bad. The client is absolutely horrific! Everything but the kitchen sink is in it (and I think the sink is going to be in the next release). Rate your buddy, buddy icons, e-mail checker, stock ticker...
And then they don't add useful features like aliases for your buddies (so you can see FrogDog24 as "John Smith"), secure IM, etc.
Perhaps its better this way, though. If AIM were improving, there would be less of a base for revolt.
Right now there are lots of IM protocols floating around (AIM, MSN, ICQ, Jabber, etc). This is a good thing. Why? Because each service provides different options, allowing people to choose which client fits their needs. Competition creates better products.
Sure, you could ask each of the different developers to follow a universal protocol. This would ensure a marketplace in which each product succeeded or failed on the merits of its features. But you aren't gonna get MSN or AOL to abandon anything proprietary. Why? Because they don't stand to gain from such a move (you think people want to use bloated, ad-ridden software?).
Besides, this is somewhat of a moot point for those of us running OS X. Anyone who needs to juggle clients can use Proteus or Fire. I suspect such software exists for other platforms as well.
...but it ain't the answer that everyone claims it to be.
...they can finally agree upon a standard. This will make it simple for everyone as I can pick a name on my favorite service (ICQ in this case...for the off line messages capability mostly) and share that ONE name out to the rest of thier friends on whatever service that they are using and let the IM's fall where they may.
Granted that with it (and I am a user) one can seamlessly communicate with everyone, BUT you have to set up a screen name with each and everyone of them.
Which I am loathe to do (even though I DID break down and do it).
The major problem is the fact that I have to keep track of screen names for AIM, MSN, Yahoo, and ICQ. I don't even get the luxury of picking a screen name that is the same on all servers. I've tried and unless I pick something so off the wall that no one in thier right mind can remember it, it ain't happening. So there are now 4 accounts and 4 passwords (since the password schemes aren't the same either and not advisable to use the same password anyway) that I have to track in my book.
Also, it's all well and good that these clients are 4 IM client ready, but what happens when the 5th or the 6th one comes out? New programs, new accounts, and new passwords starting the chain of frustration all over again. It's neverending unless...
With M$ being thier usual stingy selves I see this as likely happening as phytoplankton discovering FTP physics.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
they are more like the more modern East German Stasi (sp?) than the SS.
they even have that great American and former service Marine Ed McMahon advertising for the new "Neighborhood Watch". You aren't watching your neighbors house when he is away. You, for the safety and security of your country, should be spying on your neighbors when they are home. Thanks Ed.
-Tom
I hate this program... in XP (in the others I've never had this problem), you have to edit your sysoc file... there is a line that reads MSNMSG or something, about halfway down... at the end there is the word "hide"... DELETE THE WORD HIDE (and theres a, extra comma in there too, get rid of it as well)
:)
you should now be able to remove it from "windows components"
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Is there anything really useful that any instant messanger does that could NOT be done via a tray-application communication over IRC? You can still have messages pop up or be displayed in various styles. You can still have some sort of encryption over IRC if you wanted to Im sure. Transfer files? sure, thats what DCC is for. ICQ supports sending messages when the user if offline, but it hardly works since they might not gett the message for days. Most other IMs require the user to be online. I look at something like Trillian, with IRC support built in, and wonder what is great and new about the ICQ/Y!/MSM/AIM protocols? Do they really let you do anything different?
Morphing Software
I guess you didn't bother to check and see what protocols Gaim actually supports, preferring instead to make an inference based on the name of the program. For the record, it supports MSN, Yahoo, IRC, Gadu-Gadu, Napster, Zephyr, Jabber, and ICQ.
Everybuddy (www.everybuddy.org) is another multi-protocol chat client available for Linux. It can actually receive files from AIM users, which Gaim can't, though I don't really worry about that too much. And I never worry about being able to send files using my IM client; that's what Web server software does.
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Email is pretty much standardized on one app, and look how great that's been!
Seriously, we recognize the dangers of monoculture in other areas of computing -- OS, email client, etc. -- what makes people think that IM is going to be any better? I'd think the last thing we'd want in computing is another monoculture.
I know the question is not when will IM be ruled by a single client but rather when will IM clients be interoperable, but is there really any chance of it happening another way? These are big corporations! These are the same people who keep us perpetually 3-5 years behind the rest of the world on cellphone technology!
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
You should try ICQ Lite:
http://www.icq.com/alpha/icqlite/faq.html
What is ICQ Lite?
ICQ Lite is pure messaging: It includes only the most popular features of ICQ, such as instant messaging, file transfer, SMS and meeting people, for super-quick communication!
What are the advantages of ICQ Lite?
ICQ Lite is a small download of 1.4 Mb, installation is quick and easy and it takes minimal memory to run. Because it's so small and has everything good about the full-featured ICQ made easy, it's the perfect version to send to your friends and get them on ICQ!
If you're not running WinXP, get TweakUI (Power Toys, MS Downloads). It's very helpful for stopping those annoying programs that insist on starting every reboot.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Wasn't AOL Required by the FCC to open up their IM service as a condition of the AOL Time warner merger? Last I heard they were claiming technical difficulties but I can't find much info regarding this.
I hated it when I was logged into a SunOS box running ytalk and my friend was trying to run ntalk on Solaris (or was it the other way around?) and they don't communicate right. *sigh* Hopefully, someday these programs will unite.
CenterICQ is a text based console app which uses ncurses, and color themes.
It supports AIM, Yahoo! ICQ, MSN Messenger, and IRC.
cICQ has the best interface of any console app I have ever used, and the developer Konst, reponds to almost anything posting to the mailing list... I myself have had almost a dozen of the features I requested added to the program.
The program is completely stable, supports chat mode for all protocols, full history, ignore lists, contact groups, non IM contacts, collapsable groups, hide offline users, etc.... honestly -- this program has almost every worth while feature I've ever seen in any IM client -- not to mention that it supports every single protocol seamlessly, so the user (unless he/she organized contacts into groups based on protocol, wouldn't even know what protocol their contacts were using...Mbr>
whatever, enough rambling... download this program, and support Konst's development!
download link
dmarien
Before more people post "Just use Jabber!" or "Trillian already does this!" keep this in mind:
:)
With these clients, you still need an account (and a software interface) for multiple IM services.
That is, you may have a single client, but you've still got multiple AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo! accounts. Maybe even a jabber account (and that one isn't even universal -- it's based on wherever your account's server).
What is needed is, essentially, SMTP for IM. A way to embed a service name/address into the message traffic. So that, for example, a user "harry.truman" on MSN could send, using MSN, an IM to "aim:dcooper", and have it go through. A little quiet reflection should convince you that this is a server-side problem, and one the current services haven't addressed. (I'll leave the question of why, be it technical, political, or economic reasons, to others).
Anyway, I've already seen a couple "just use trillian" sort of responses and wanted to head 'em off.
Just building a better protocol, client, etc. will not guarantee a monopoly shift. I consider myself a die hard IM user, and I've tried switching several times away from my mainstay IM provider, AIM. Until a critical mass switches, you're fighting a losing battle.
However, each time, it was derailed by AOL blocking the interoperability that allowed this new procotol or client to reach my existing buddies still on AIM. For Jabber, AOL first blocked the connections form Jabber's AIM-t, then just started blocking the Class C of Jabber servers. For Trillian, they started blocking users found using Trillian clients.
Fortunately, Trillian is working now, and has been for a few months. But if it gets blocked again, I'll have to switch back to AOL's (crappy) client.
What I need is for my buddies to switch to something (say, Jabber). But they won't switch until their buddies switch. And so-on.
Maybe someone should introduce a Burn-AIM day or Burn-ICQ day, much like the Burn GIF day. It would require a lot of pushing for it, and plenty of readily available and EASy materials for users to switch. Maybe even a latter cut-off day when people stop dual-IM'ing.
BUt I'm not even sure if I'd participate!
Ever heard of Eyeball??? http://www.eyeballchat.com Eyeballchat.com
Gamblers Forum
Jabber as a messaging platform/gateway fails in the respect that multi-protocol clients fail. You still need different accounts for each of the messaging platforms.
Why can't my friend stay as rootuser@hotmail.com while I use thebigsteve@mac.com while my l33t friend uses bigbunsguy@jabber.slashdot.org and we should be able to talk, exchange files or whatever with our friends on AOL and others.
Having to maintain separate accounts is a pain. And in this day and age it's a joke.
There are current standardization effortsa rters/simple-charter.h tml
going on in the IETF, for IM based on specific
protocols.
http://www.ietf.org/html.ch
'K
I already run a server for my email and web pages, why not just add an IM service to it. It could store messages recieved when i'm not connected and proxy for me from anywhere. This puppy could also subscribe to all known IM systems for me kind of like a personal jabber.
One Word: TRILLIAN.
Sure, it's usually buggy as hell and takes up all your system memory, but if your main purpose in life is to chat then Trillian is for you
Deal with it.
It has been by far my favourite client for Linux.
I realize that so many ppl are lazy and want direct links, so here goes...
Screen Shots
Konst's HomePage for cICQ
Mailing List Archive
Did I mentioned that being text based it works great accross SSH connections. I've been using this program for years, and I have full history for hundreds of contacts going back to late 1999.
All in one window too! Everything is allways visible on the main screen.
dmarien
I'm usually logged into 5 different servers concurrently using gaim:
ICQ
AIM
JABBER
YAHOO
and
MSN
it work's great!
I even wrote a perl script so that it SAYS that buddy name of the person IMing me, instead of beeping. Now I can decide if I want to talk to someone without even walking over to my computer.
http://www.ceruleanstudios.com/
I first learned of trillian off of slashdot (the last time IM wars were being discussed). The application is absolutely fantastic. I have converted all my friends over the last year or so, no spyware, no adware, just an incredibly flexible application.
Hell, it even has IRC (which is a fantastic bonus). Anyone who uses more than 1 of the following should try it.
MSN
ICQ
IRC
AIM
Yahoo
Yo Grark
*remember, not all IM's are created equal, but with Trillian, they sure look equal!
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Actually gaim CAN recieve files for AIM users, it just can't send them.
The problem is the AOL and MSN centralized servers that everyone logs into. In my opinion it is way worse that we are locked into horrible client interfaces that never evolve, additionally to the fact that we can't talk between services.
Napster was a centralized server, and that was replaced with the Gnutella network that has many client apps all competing against eachother and can't be shut down by the Music Monopoly (Industry.)
So please consider with me what it would take to make IM over a decentralized protocol. Seems gnutella with built in PGP certificates or SSH certificates would do the trick. Then changing the routing so that it goes along with our needs.
So there are separate networks like AOL/AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo!, and others. But does bringing them together really matter? Sure you have users who coexist across them, but don't they do that as a choice? Users gravitate to where the friends/coworkers are and, at least in my own experience, you choose one network and then stick to it. Having separate networks enables you to be unique, at least in terms of your screenname. If an MSN user really wants to communicate with an AIM user instantaneously, then I'm sure that MSN user will sign up for an AIM account right away (and vice versa). Yes, I realize the argument for joining these networks is analagous to joining phone networks so you can always talk to someone in another country. But yet again it looks like separating existing reasoning from reasoning in an online community hits our decision making.
If AOL can't even make ICQ and AIM interchangeable, this will never happen. ICQ is superior in all ways to AIM (it can handle offline messaging, it uses numbers for accounts instead of screen names so you don't have people called Some_Guy__456574, etc). AOL bought ICQ many years ago and has not yet been able to make them interoperate.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
My concern would be that connecting them to Microsoft's network would enable exploits, viruses, spam, and other fun to cross IM clients (sort of how Klez affects everyone, not just Outlook users). Anyone else share this concern?
I fear the massive amount of IM harassment that would come from allowing rowdy young people to contact every other IMer in the world.
Any now I'm stuck with the handle. And I'd never use any chat system instead, only in addition, since I don't want to have to re-create my buddy list. This is why multi-protocol clients are so successful.
If someone didn't say this I was going to.
Let's see the logic of this whole article and debate:
Let's try to get mega-corps with proprietary software and protocols to play nice with each other EVEN THOUGH there is already an existing protocol and network that is a standard, open, and mature.
Logically it will be much easier to make IRC easier to use and beef up the network as opposed to making direct competitors who individually seek world domination to hug each other.
C'mon man, supporting and trying to influence proprietary software and protocols that are entrnched in "megacorp strategy" is hedging back to the days when you either had Prodigy or Compuserve and that's it -- neither would talk to each other and neither shared content. The Internet fixed that and now we're pushing back to it again with the MSN/AOL battles. Yet the average stupid American support one or the other because it is 'easy to use' or 'I can IM'.
What was that recent article about 'user friendly' is sometimes a consumer laziness issue?
Purly and simply, the IM services will become interoperable when AOL includews webcasting in their service. When the AOL-Time/Warner merger went through, there was a lot of push for the FTC to require AOL to open up their IM service. The compromise that was reached is that they are required to open it up, once their IM service incorporates video, be it webcastiing, integrated movie trailers or what have you.
It's likely that AOL will take this step and make this compormise around the end of the year. Both MSN and Yahoo's support of webcams is too much of an ongoing advantage for AOL to stay out of the market due to stubbornness.
When that happens, expect a lot more ongoing innovation for each service to make themselves unique. Things like Yahoo's IMVironments are there in part to keep customers loyal to a single IM client even after the platforms all become interoperable.
In short, it'll all be about the innovation.
Kevin Fox
With Fire, IM has already been united. Fire "is a Multiplatform Instant Messenger client based off of freely available libraries for each "service". Currently Fire handles ICQ communication, and Yahoo! Pager communciation. All "services" are built off of gpl'd libraries, including firetalk, icqlib, msnlib, and gtkyahoo (linux libraries).
Fire looks somewhat like AIM [..] but is much much more. It can handle similtaneous connections to AIM, ICQ, Yahoo , IRC, MSN and Jabber IM."
Nothing to see here. Move along now.
Ahh... an easy question to answer.
AOL Instant Messenger has fallen prey to the Microsoft-style feature-bloat problem. The client attempts to be a file transfer system, an advertising console... etc. The result is that users are left open to virus attacks. Do you remember a little while back the AIM vulnerability that allowed attackers to execute arbitrary code on the user's PC?
I don't know about you, but I find that ridiculous. All I want out of an IM client is IM and IM chat, not ads, scripting, file transfer and other "features" that open up my system over yet another protocol.
Regards,
Murph
Quote:
=== Cut ===
That is, you may have a single client, but you've still got multiple AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo! accounts. Maybe even a jabber account (and that one isn't even universal -- it's based on wherever your account's server).
What is needed is, essentially, SMTP for IM. A way to embed a service name/address into the message traffic. So that, for example, a user "harry.truman" on MSN could send, using MSN, an IM to "aim:dcooper", and have it go through. A little quiet reflection should convince you that this is a server-side problem, and one the current services haven't addressed. (I'll leave the question of why, be it technical, political, or economic reasons, to others).
=== Cut ===
Huh? Isn't that exactly what jabber do? There are several jabber servers on the net and you can run your own if you like. It works very much like email and your address looks like an emailaddress. You don't have to be on the same jabber server to talk to each other.
(/me wonders what all this says about the make-up of /.'s readership.)
I've been using a great encryption product that works with AIM, Yahoo, and MSN instant messengers at the same time... IMpasse uses 3072 bit encryption for exchanging keys, and 448 bit encryption for conversations... If you use IM frequently and don't like having your conversations monitored or available to prying eyes, check out IMpasse. http://www.im-passe.com
Everyone is complaining about AIM not opening up its network. Why? I have no desire to talk to AOL users anyway. They aren't gamers and they aren't programmers. (I admit, they are family members, but who needs family anyway :D)
AIM can stay shut since I am not an AOL user. M$ can stay shut since I am not a MSN user. Yahoo can do what the hell it likes.
The protocols do not need to unite, the people need to unite.
AOL's proposed solution, which was submitted to the IETF. Nobody, including AOL, really takes it seriously. I'm not entirely sure why.
Basically, the concept is this: anyone - AOL or Microsoft or Yahoo or Joe Blow down the street - can run their own IM service. Every IM user has a username/screen name, and every IM service has a domain name (aol.com, hotmail.com, yahoo.com, joeblow.net). All you need to send an IM from one service to another is the username and domain, which would look like an e-mail address and might actually be an e-mail address.
When you send e-mail from one address to another, you send the message to your (ISP's) SMTP server, which looks up the domain name you're sending the message to, gets the SMTP server defined in the MX (mail exchange) record for the domain, and sends the message there. Under this proposal, a new record type would be added to DNS, an IMX record that specifies which server can handle IM connections.
So, say you're on Yahoo Messenger. You want to send an IM to another Yahoo user, Yahoo takes care of that and it's nobody else's business. You want to send an IM to an AOL user, you send it to Yahoo's servers, Yahoo lookup aol.com and contacts the server defined in the IMX record. For security AOL looks up the IMX record for yahoo.com too, and they do a three-way handshake. The message is sent, and it appears to the AOL user like an IM that came from joebob@yahoo.com.
Of course for redundancy and load balancing there can be multiple IMX records, just like there can be multiple MX records for e-mail. It's been awhile since I read the proposal; there's more to it than that. It may not be perfect, but it would have been an open standard that anyone could use, not limited to just the big companies.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
why would we want all IM standards to unite?
if you really want to talk to someone on another protocol, use trillian, gaim, or whatever multi-protocol client you prefer.
but if they were all converted to one protocol, think of what we'd lose. what are your favorite features of any given protocol? if they were all poorly binded together, I guarantee you'd lose most of them.
Microsoft could probably find the legal loopholes and make a cross-service messenger that'd take over your computer and make it easier to catch viruses (like MSN messenger). It could also convince you that you need this piece of software, and look, we'll give it to you for free! Just ignore the ads....
Since I can't see anyone but Microsoft doing it, and if anyone else tried Microsoft (or AOL) would snap 'em up, I'll stick with Gaim and Trillian, thank you very much. The probability of a cross-service instant messenger being benificial to actual users is just too low.
On the other hand, SIMPLE is every bit as interoperable as Jabber, with the added weight of the fact that AOL has agreed to interoperate with other vendors using SIMPLE once it is complete.
I see a lot of talking about Trillian for Win32... but there is a sweet little app for MacOS X that does the same thing, called Fire.
Has all the major IM apps and IRC, all in one client.
Maybe someone could port it to BSD... uh-oh, I think I'm entering TrollLand, better shut up now!
SlashSigTheorem: Humorous, Political, Critical, Constructive- If you have a
Since Trillian needs to log you onto AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, MSN, etc. Trillian must store your usernames and passwords. If you are sensitive to identity theft, conversation monitoring, etc. I suggest you try the IMpasse encryption gateway: http://www.im-passe.com - It encrypts your messages using 3072 bit encryption for its key exchange and 448 bit encryption for conversations. IMpasse will allow you to communicate in a secure fashion from IM network to IM network in the near future.
It will merely take AOL and MSN merging. This will be a glorious thing, because, as we all know, people love massive companies that control everything. When everything is standardized, it will be a glorious time, in which all of the people on AIM, all of the people on MSN, and yes, perhaps those on ICQ- can come together to spam us all at once.
Quoting an article from ABC News: "AOL recently announced that it has begun testing a SIMPLE-compliant AIM"
The newest version of MSN messenger (the one that ships with Windows XP and can be downloaded for the other MS operating systems) also supports SIMPLE (although they use the obscure term "communications service" to signify it).
It looks to me like interoperablility -- even with the guys you predict will never be interoperable -- is on the way.
Legislation.
Anyone who is into the previews and betas of MacOS X (currently 10.2 beta) can dispute all the slashdotters who have thus far mentioned the close-mindedness and stubborness of AOL to help unite. Now, yes, iTools/mac.com is not currently an IM service - but it will be with the next release. Heck, I can even log into AIM right now with my mac.com account. Sure it may not be uniting the major services, but it is a sign that AOL is starting to allow others in on theirs.
Using the Afghanistan example, the fragmentation of IM clients/networks can be solved by a heavily armed IM coming in, indiscriminately picking an "Evil IM", destroying it, and accidentally killing innocent MSN/ICQ/AOL users.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
Microsoft Messenger already has support for an interoperable standard built right in. It's called SIMPLE, and it's being developed by the IETF. Best of all, it's being supported by both AOL and Microsoft. Once the IETF gets done with SIMPLE, you'll start seeing AIM, MSN Messenger, and probably a whole slew of other systems talking to each other seamlessly.
Whoever said it was bad having different networks? It's competition, you know, the same thing we all want to happen with Operating Systems. If all the networks united into one big monolithic network, chances are eventually someone would use that to their advantage and we'd be back here, again, bitching that there are no instant messaging alternatives. I say keep it the way it is.
..There's a-dooin's a-transpirin'
Here's the usable standard that both AOL and Microsoft have agreed to use in the future. It's still under development, but almost complete. Complete enough, in fact, that MSN Messenger already includes a working implementation.
I stand corrected then!
Standardising on a standard would be a Good thing, and I don't think it would result in less choice. What it would mean is that you could choose your service provider and client by the quality of their services and features, rather than by the amount of your friends that are on that service - just like email. It's a royal pain in the ass having to have three different clients on my machine at once, or go to a multi-system program that invariably breaks whenever the protocol on one of them is changed....
Imagine a world where you could only talk on email to other people on that email system!
Huh? Isn't that exactly what jabber do? There are several jabber servers on the net and you can run your own if you like. It works very much like email and your address looks like an emailaddress.
:) ), but it only works for people using *jabber*. The "big four" IM systems don't support this, and until they do, we'll never see the united IM system that I thought we were talking about.
True, the approach is very like what I described (and is probably where I channeled my post from
Plus, one downside to Jabber is that, if your server happens to go down, it doesn't "route around" it in any way. Granted, neither does AOL (except in terms of local-to-AOL round-robin or hot-spare servers), but when you've got a bunch of lesser-funded servers with less reliable performance, having some way to temporarily "move" your profile to another server (and have people be able to find you transparently) becomes critical. This may have changed, I haven't used Jabber in a while, 'cause everyone I talked to uses AIM and AOL hates Jabber servers, it seems...
It's a Good Thing (TM) that all the IMs are kept seperate (TM) this is because if we were to integrate them all, we get SPAM (TM) from oh so many Networks (TM) comming at us. It's liek opening the gates to Hell (TM).
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
why don't we just let them decide everything for us. then everyone will be happy happy happy.
seriously, unless the big 3 or 4 or whatever have incentive do unite their IM's, there will be none
but, if you unite, there is a security issue. of all people, the readers of /. should know this. it's one reason why M$ gets targeted by virii... they're the baby seals with big eyes just looking for a beating. this is what would happen with such a unified system. but, if it were open-source... (*gasp* says the big companies! heresy!)
besides security, the issue of servers comes into play. who will host this crap for cheap? will people pay 2 bucks a month for IM? i doubt it, knowing those who only have something like 5 - 10 people on their list. will there be advertisements like there is now? will there be run-arounds like ther is now? it'd be nice if everyone just got along, but what's the chances of that happening, huh?
On the contrary, both AOL and Microsoft have agreed to interoperate using an IETF protocol currently under development, called SIMPLE. It's already shipping in the most recent version of MSN Messenger.
From this article: "AOL, the leading provider of instant messaging services, says it will use the IETF SIMPLE protocol to support interoperability with third-party vendors."
Thank you! Someone who actually gets it...
The whole point of a unified IM system isn't to allow use of a single client; as we are all repeatedly reminded by Trillianites, that already exists.
The point is to avoid the redundant accounts. I've got an ICQ account, but I would like to talk to some friends who only use AIM. I refuse to sign up for a separate AIM account, however, if only because both programs are owned by the same frickin' company.
Throw us a bone, here, AOHell.
Run your own chat service built on accepted and open protocalls, hopefully with free software. Use, IP6, Xchat, or similar, kick the stupid propriatory habit and invite your friends to play. There's no concievable way to deny service to everyone everywhere. Of course the sensible thing won't happen if comercial interests continue to turn the web into another form of TV with 80% of all traffic heading to 4 websites. Everyone assert yourself, please.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I run trillian on my windows box. I also run jabber since I need to use it and trillian will not support it. In x-windows there is GAIM which does everything and in MacOSX there is Fire which does everything. If anyone knows a single client for windows that can run AIM, ICQ, and jabber please post it here.
And, in fact, there's an IM standard under development in the IETF, called SIMPLE, that both AOL and Microsoft support. In fact, Microsoft already has SIMPLE support in the latest version of MSN Messenger
As you suggest, the addressing uses multiple domains (like "chefmonkey@aol.com") to route between systems.
Is that kinda what you're looking for?
IMUnified (which is what I think you're trying to refer to) is long dead. However, AOL and Microsoft have both thrown their support behind SIMPLE. The SIMPLE development effort is alive and well. Expect to see this protocol published as RFCs before the end of the year...
but it only works for people using *jabber*
This is fine, and should be expected. When the email standard became widely adopted, it's not like there were any sections in the RFC about being compatible with AOL mail. It should not be a requirement of a standard IM protocol to interface with AOL OSCAR. Rather, the requirement should be for AOL to support the standard protocol. This doesn't mean they have to ditch what they use now, it just means that they need to "talk Jabber" to the outside world (they already do this with email: SMTP on the outside, proprietary on the inside).
IMO, Jabber does what it does, and does it good. All the problems people have with it are all related to interfacing with proprietary networks, to which I just yawn.
So that's what that is....
So does that mean that using MSN I can talk to AIM users? I didn't manage to find any information on how to get that set up...
it is real industrial standard
It's quite stable, works great, and supports the latest ICQ protocol.
Licq download page
c'mon GUIDs aren't that hard to remember! just call me 3A8321F126BB4FC98858943945EE279E
would an e-mail address be sufficient enough? people usually don't share an account, and they are sometimes anonymous.
THERE IS NO DATA. THERE IS O
Palladium! "We regret to inform you that AIM is no longer in your interests. You will use MSN Messaging. Have a Nice Day"
Is instant messaging really that important? I don't know about you, but I don't spend my valuable time waiting for some dolt to send me an instant message (friends included). I'd rather read a book, work out in the yard, weld something, or continue tweaking that cool program I've been working on for the past five years. Instant messaging - who needs it? Okay - someone out there may feel its important. But until the big guys get it out of their collective heads that they can make big money with instant messaging, it will never come together. They all think their's is the one to have. Can you imaging if NBC, CBS, and ABC thought the same way 50 years ago? Everyone would have had to either choose a single channel to watch (the NBC TV) or have three TV's (one for each broadcast standard). These companies are whacked in their thinking and can't figure out how best to capitalize on a good thing so they bastardize the standards and make their own flavors. If people would just take control of their own fates and ignore the AOL's and MS's of the world and support open standards, perhaps we'd have a better time at things. Oh well - the people may never learn.
-- Knuckle Blood : Official Lube of Team Rusty Nuts.
...It's making a good client. If you have this great protocol and you want people to start using it, give them a good client! They've been used to sending files, images and colored text to others for _years_. If your client doesn't offer at least that, they won't switch. Jabber's got a great protocol, but for however long it has been out, nobody has made a client that works as well as AIM or Yahoo.
As our Carmack says, "Make something really cool first, and worry about the spec after you are sure it's worth it!"
The only way to arrive at a standard IM protocol is the same way every other major internet protocol has been decided: users overwhelmingly use a standard protocol that is outside the control of any one big company. I like jabber for its openness, easy to install servers and readily installed clients. It may not be perfect but neither are any of the other protocols on the net today.
I remember a time when there was just good old...
...you know the old faithful way of communication between two entities in the early days of *nix :)
TALK
yes..that's right..."TALK"
although it appears that it has gone by the wayside with all this damn GUI interface stuff springing up all over the place...*grumble*
Here is a little quote from the man file =(
"The protocol used to communicate with the talk daemon is braindead.
Also, the version of talk(1) released with 4.2BSD uses a different and even more braindead protocol that is completely incompatible. Some vendor Unixes (particularly those from Sun) have been found to use this old pro-tocol.
Old versions of talk may have trouble running on machines with more than one IP address, such as machines with dynamic SLIP or PPP connections.
This problem is fixed as of netkit-ntalk 0.11, but may affect people you are trying to communicate with."
Oh well all in the name of progress I guess.
--Huck
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
i still see a lot of new features developed by different message programs, and i would not like to see that these new features are not being used, because you would never know if the other person runs the same a program that has the same feature as you need (e.g. desktop sharing and similar).
a commitee or organisation for unity would only prevent this development. look what happened to unix in the old days.
Gaim supports AIM, ICQ, Y!, MSN, Jabber, IRC, Gadu-Gadu, Zepher, and Napster (though why you would want to use napster via an opennap server just to talk is beyond me). As such, supporting 7 protocols, it suprasses Trillian as an all-in-one messanger (besides the fact it vastly pre-dates trillian), and is open source to boot. Its amazing that gaim's only mentioned a handfull of times while trillian is in almost every other post it seems.
I miss the good ole days of just having an IRC client and a room to talk in. IM is overrated anyway. Sure, some of these fancy clients can transfer files (IRC has been doing it for years), make funny smiley faces (quick hacks can easily make this possible in X-Chat if they are out there), and make 'bling bling' noises when you send and receive messages (all of which you can do with a good IRC client). But my friends, I ask you this: which one of these instant messanger gimmicks can give you access to all of the warez, pr0n, and movies you could ever want? IRC as a means of communication is still better than any messanger, in my book. And its double feature, as many of my not-so-computer-literate friends are finding out, as a file-sharing client, still pulls through for me more times out of 10 than any of these crappy ones we have now.
Apparently someone has not thought of trillian (http://www.trillian.cc). However it's only a Windows binary, I have not tried with Wine or any other to get it to work under Linux.
The only problem with Trillian is that you can't use AIM and ICQ at the same time (it logs into the same server, but it's all TCP, so 2 connections with different IDs should not be a problem).
Hmmm.. who cares? Why unite the IM services? They are individual and should probably stay as such. If you want to talk to random people in real-time, try IRC on a major net. If you want always-on accessability for your friends/colleagues, etc, pick an IM service your friends do. I'm quite interested in jabber, for its open protocol offering plenty of clients and roll-your-own solutions, but I don't need my AIM to talk to my MSN or my Yahoo or my ICQ. :|
Come on people.. do you really want to talk to some moron on AOL or MSN?? Think about it, if they are using either of these as their provider they are pretty much a waste of space! ICQ is really the only logical choice as an IM, after all i have my ICQ number on my cell phone, so when i'm not at my computer i'm still on ICQ.
As for yahoo.. who uses yahoo anymore??
I miss sending messages the real way :)
There exists a simple instant messaging system that works well regardless of what client you use. It has been in existence for decades. And...it is often ten times faster than AIM et. al.
To wit: the telephone
If you want to talk to someone immediately, pick up the GD phone. Unless you're deaf, (in which case you're typing on TTY) you can communicate way faster and clearer than over a stupid "chat" program anyhow.
Stupid geeks.
If half of the effort that went into developing 8 million different "all-in-one" IM clients that support the various and sundry proprietary IM protocols out there went into developing the open-source Jabber codebase, we wouldn't be having this debate, because we'd already have a usable IM standard -- Jabber.
Go to jabber.org. Read the documentation. Download a client. Install a server. Report bugs. Write a client. DO something.
People complain and complain about the lack of IM standardization, yet seem to have their heads in the sand and to be completely oblivious of people working for just that.
--Chris http://chris.quietlife.net/
For those of you running Windows, look at Trillian. It's basically like Everybuddy, except with all the bells and whistles (file sends, chats, etc). Although it's not open source, the developers had hinted that they might open the project up when it is more mature (although I think it's mature enough :))
Flame me, mod me down if you will, but I think that people here might be more interested in everybuddy, which not only works under Linux, MacOS X and BSD, but is open-source as well.
I might also mention that everybuddy has been around longer, and they are working on a Java version as well.
Of course, I'm probably talking to deaf ears, seeing as how a large majority of slashdot readers are using Windows (*sigh*).
Nathan's blog
who cares, just download trillian http://www.trillian.cc/
::i visited slashdot and all i got was this lousy sig::
why does everyone seem to assume that the final evolution of IM will be on these centralized systems? Seems to me if some of the big time producers of email servers would get together and adopt a standard for combined email/IM functions they could take over the market easily. Think about it, who needs AOL if most of your email accounts have an associated IM screen name which is as easily accessed by anyone as your email account. This would also take care of the unique screen name problem and improve reliability (because if anything goes wrong, messages can always be re-routed to your email acount). No banners either, unless your company wants to bombard it's own employees with their advertising...
Thats like saying you prefer Microsoft have a monopoly instead of seperate companies.
Competition between the IMS bring innovation.
We need them to be seperate entities to ensure innovation. SO, the best thing you can do is make a client which connects to all of them so people who want, can connect to all of them, however expect AOL and all of them to block you because you wont be supporting their business (no ads)
Thats why trillian is always being blocked and really I want trillian to be blocked because it keeps AOL from profiting on IM, and if AOL doesnt profit on IM AOL wont keep innovating and offering new features. AOLIM wont improve.
Same with ICQ I hope most people do use the real ICQ and support AOL.
This way with AOL generating revenue eventually they'll port their IMs to Linux just to generate more money. They will also improve and innovate, believing they'll make more money with more users.
So please lets not try to make jabber and others STANDARD but keep them as a working alternative for techies and other professionals.
Let the average joe keep using the seperate clients.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Be precise: It took ten years for everyone to dump their proprietary e-mail systems and adhere to the RFC standards. So, SIMPLE will be simple in 2012.
You see, it used to be that someone would come out with a protocol and client and server implementations, and would release them into the wild. Then, people would either use it (like IRC) or not (like UNIX's talk command).
:(
No one uses talk? Oh great-- no I feel like a real UNIX geek
Though I agree with you to a large extent, I think that there is a good chance that AOL will have to interoperate with others to keep pace (i.e. they cannot add advanced features to their IM until they do, according to the FCC). Also, MSN IM, is facing some anti-trust scrutiny, so it is likely that they will do so in order to preserve their competitiveness free from gov't scrutiny.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Anyone know when they are going to integrate Lotus Sametime in that "possible holy grail of IMs"?
I can still log on to AOL and Sametime with the same application. (version 1.5.5)
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
Whoever wrote this article is way behind the curve. Fancy little free and advert free program called Trillian works great for me - tying Yahoo, MSN, AOL, ICQ and even IRC into one neat little app. http://www.ceruleanstudios.com/
Believe it or not, MS is coming out clean on this one. MS has published APIs so that you could write your own IM client without ads using an language you want. In fact, when they wrote their client it did work with AOL but AOL changed their APIs (as Trillian users know :).
Any jabber client using the right gateways (the right server) will do it.
You have to ask yourself, "What exactly is the problem I am trying to solve?"
I'm really not seeing what the big deal is here. You want a proprietary, members-only protocol, you run AIM or whatever the hell Microsoft is pushing this week. You want an open protocol, designed by geeks for simplicity and interoperability, use IRC. Done deal.
Right now, Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo IM clients are very easy compromosize to cause them to download anything I want to your machine, and make you run it.
If there were a united Instant Messaging protocol, this would make the attacks a lot easier, since there would be no need to maintain one tool for each of the services, and attackers could own your machine without having to work as hard.
The disadvantage of an open protocol would make it very hard to keep these hacks working, since it would be possible for a third party to fix the race conditions (e.g. the race between audio session setup and text session setup in Yahoo;s Chat client that allows systems to be easily attacked).
Luckily, all of these vendors tend to license their voice components from Windows software vendors who have no idea how to secure anything.
Thus, we would still be able to weasel our way onto "friends" lists and get notification when you log in, so we can use your machine as a DOS robot.
It's annoying that we have to compete with Yahoo and MSN "playfully" using each others chat customers to attack each other, instead of being able to dedicate these machines to attack our own targets, but, hey, what are you going to do?
If someone does build a "unversal client", or "universal chat protocol", could you please make sure to keep in the holes that Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo have known about for a yyear and a half now, and still haven't fixed?
K PLZ THX
Some of my acquaintences switched to AIM. I don't speak with them anymore. Not for lack of trying, but I found the interface of AIM too.. dumbed-down to be useable. It has no features, damnit, you can't do anything.
;) One of my friends seems quite happy with it.
Maybe ICQ is the subject of feature bloat, but those features are nice. Aside from the random banner ads (which can easily be stopped) at the bottom of open messages, eh.
I'd consider WM, if they had a Linux client.
... 3 bullets ;)
One for Mr. Case, one for Mr. Yang and a silver bullet embossed with a cross for Mr. Gates.
That's what's needed to get the protocols to unite!
If AOL is gonna use Mozilla as a web-client, there should be a chance they accept Jabber instead of AIM/ICQ. Why not?
With Jabber on my Linux box both AIM and ICQ are interchangeable. If AOL will publicly ask for help I will do that. And of course a lot of other Jabber users can help :)
Less is more !
I use Trillian daily, it includes AIM, MSN, ICQ, Yahoo Messenger, and IRC all in one. I switched over about 6 months ago and haven't had a second thought since. It has never crashed on me, or conflicted with any other running programs (Unlike what AIM has done since the day I installed it). My friends, sick of AIM crashing and having to run MSN and AIM all the time, switched over as soon as I explained it to them. The NO ADS and the simplicity were very attractive to them (important, since they are the average joe user, unlike me) and they haven't had any trouble using it...plus it's extremely nice to have standard buttons (i.e. filesend) for every buddy, even though then send process is (under the skin) different for each messenger.
It includes every feature I've wanted in a messenger, and left out those that I didn't. Plus, I love the idea of not supporting AOL or Microsoft's low-quality, overdone, irritating products.
If I had a sig, this is where it would be.
Trillian has one (1) buddy list for all its buddies, on every network. When you talk to different single buddies, you open separate windows for each buddy (the same as every other client). You can chat with multiple buddies in the same window, as long as they're on the same service (also same). It has a neat feature called a 'container', which lets you put all your IM windows in one big window (like Opera, or Word 6), so they become client windows. There's a mini-taskbar at the bottom of the 'container' which highlights the name of the IM that has been updated, but not yet seen.
It can't combine chats between different protocols, but in order to do that, your computer would have to translate and relay the IMs, like some sort of server itself, so it's clear why that isn't a feature. Trillian still looks like the best option out of the other IM progs to me....is that enough for you to switch back?
If I had a sig, this is where it would be.
What will it take to get all the chatters to be able to talk to each other you ask? Well the answer is clear for all to see - M$ bullying everyone into using Netmeeting!!!
Trillian=3 or 4
Gaim=11
Trillian=free as in beer
Gaim=free as in a beer recipee
Gaim also has kickass features like spellchecking, and it sends the data raw, so you can send script tags to netscape messenger users and run js on their client. BTW, you don't need to sell your soul to download.cnet.com to get Gaim.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
as evidenced by the plugins/modules for Jabber which are theoretically able to allow a unified interface for the user for various other messaging formats (not just human readable either), one of the biggest issues is when companies purposely create problems and incompatabilities. While I can shake my fist at the developers of these modules, it is very frustrating for them as well when AOL decides to change its protocol just to screw these services up. (of course the solution is to quit using AOL, but that requires mental discipline and self control instead of whining about evil corporations)
The problem with Jabber IMO is the lack of co-ordination within the community. With many of the projects, they're usually left in a half-baked state, and no one is left to clean up after the original developer. Take a look at the MSN Transport or the Yahoo! Transport. As a result, we're left with shoddy implementations of gateways to existing IM systems.
The other problem with Jabber is the lack of quality client software for Windows. Much like on the server side, there are many different projects, but few are complete. For example, one of the most mature Win32 projects, WinJab was recently abandoned so the author could re-implement the same functionality in Exodus. I believe JIM is the most professional Jabber client available for Windows, however, I think development on it stopped awhile ago.
IMO, no Win32 Jabber clients even come close to the functionality and looks of clients like Trillian. There is no reason that this couldn't happen, but it requires hard work. Trillian has been a work in progress for at least a couple years now ... it wasn't written overnight. In order for Jabber to really take off in the consumer IM world, developers need to pool their resources so they can actually compete with the big guys, instead of just looking like a hobbyists instant messenger.
Jabber has a lot of potential, it would be a shame for it to go to waste.
there's nothing stopping you from creating a server that uses the AIM protocol and hosting that on your server sucking up your bandwidth.
So, once I get my TOC or SIMPLE protocol instant messaging server network running, how do I peer with AOL Time Warner's network so that users on my network can communicate with those users still on AOL Instant Messenger? Jabber.org tried to peer with AOL, but AOL seems to have blocked Jabber.com's and Jabber.org's netblocks.
Will I retire or break 10K?
System Resource Usage (for a quick test): 16,308k ICQ
That's RAM. The term "System Resources" under Microsoft Windows operating systems does not refer to RAM. Under Microsoft Windows 95, Microsoft Windows 98, and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition, there is only 64 KB of user.exe memory available, and there is only 64 KB of gdi.exe memory available, even if you do have 1 GB of RAM sticks seated in DIMM slots on your motherboard. All running applications must fit all icons, cursors, window control structures, event handlers, etc. into those tiny heaps.
NT-based Windows operating systems, on the other hand, pull user.exe and gdi.exe memory from the main heap (which is at least as big as your total physical RAM).
Will I retire or break 10K?
A P2P client for this might be able to change the landscape if it worked as well as Trillian. Personally I use Trillian but since other people were on MSN I knuckled under and tried to get a hotmail/passport account What a mess! After juping through various hoops, passport is down etc. I can't even sign up. Decided IM wasn't as important as I thought it was. Maybe next month.
give me a simple, secure, universal freeware (dynDNS based?) IM system. AIM, yahoo, ICQ, IRC, blah just don't cut it.
HOW COME NO ONE MENTIONED YeempEMP !?!?
No one must know about it. Yeemp is a decentralized encrypted messaging system, intended to fulfill the same functions as things like Jabber, ICQ, and AIM.
http://deekoo.net/technocracy/yeempemp/
Well, Trillian (http://www.trillian.cc) doesn't exactly get the programs to talk to each other, but it does united them under one umbrella. I've been using it for a few months and it help with the people I have who won't go to a different IM program.
As far as I know, SMTP was around before Compuserve, AOL etc. ever existed. It's not like they agreed on building it as a standard, it was already there. With so many people using it that they couldn't force their own proprietary protocols down everyone's throat.
There's not such a standard that predates all existing IM's, so I think it will be a bigger struggle to get to a standard this time.
--GekkePrutser
Whatever happened to the Balkan analogy?
Mi klopodas varbi por Esperanto.
I don't think that the government should get involved - I simply think that it's a shame that there isn't a standard for IM in the same way as there is with email, as it's the users who suffer most. Surely you can't believe that the current system, where you may have to have 3 or 4 clients open to contact everybody you know is preferable to a system where all the systems can interoperate?
... it would solve a lot of these problems. The big networks are afraid of merging due to a) lost revenue and b) server overload. Cut down on both, write a free, easily distributible p2p chat program ala gnutella but without the filesharing...
.02 credits.
Instead of having list servers and whatnot, just create a protocol that works like the human nervous system; messages are passed along in chains and each client handles a portion of the message load. Doesn't seem like it'd be that hard.
Just my
The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
Trillian: http://www.trillian.cc
HHGTTG: so why trililian its not *three*
Its amazing that gaim's only mentioned a handfull of times while trillian is in almost every other post it seems.
Is Gaim ported to Windows? If not, then it's a lot more work to set up Cygwin, XFree86, Window Maker, and Gaim than it is to set up Trillian.
Will I retire or break 10K?
0% CPU time and only 10 megs of memory on my machine.
But how much user.exe memory is it using under Windows 98/ME? How much gdi.exe memory is it using under Windows 98/ME? None of the NT operating systems have this problem, but not everybody is running NT.
Will I retire or break 10K?