Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Instant Messaging Ever Unite?

Posted by Hemos on from the probably-not dept.

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?"

3 of 423 comments (clear)

  1. CenterICQ by dmarien · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  2. AOL's proposal by Phroggy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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;
  3. Re:Jabber? Try SIMPLE. by chefmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to Peter Saint-Andre (member of the Jabber Software Foundation, who was at this year's IETF meeting), SIMPLE is about two years away from defining the protocols, let alone implementations, for a full-featured IM system. Jabber only recently had an RFC written (earlier this year), as the focus before that has been on implementations. The difference is obvious: people are using Jabber right now, while SIMPLE is basically all talk.
    Okay, in this respect, I'm afraid you (and Peter) are sorely misinformed. Jabber has had its first internet-draft written about it (first internet-draft to RFC usually takes about three years), while SIMPLE is rapidly approaching RFC status (I'd be surprised if it is not published as a full-fledged RFC by year's end). It's stable enough that the most recent versions of Microsoft Messenger have included SIMPLE support.

    While you don't seem to personally care about widespread support, the endorsement of an open standard (which SIMPLE is) by such IM giants as AOL and Microsoft certainly seems to give it a certain amount of credibility.

    SIMPLE has a client on every Windows XP box in the world, and will soon be joined by every AIM client in the world. What's Jabber's total penetration?