Slashdot Mirror


Sun Launches Instant Messaging Server

theIG writes "According to this article at geek.com, and another one at InternetWeek, Sun has shipped the first part of its new enterprise collaboration platform to compete with Exchange and Domino. Dubbed 'Sun ONE Instant Messaging 6.0,' this server will work with other products to be released in May, to allow a single login for all of its services that allow connections from outside a corporate firewall." Instant messaging is becoming increasingly popular in the workplace. Local messaging servers like this were only the next logical step for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging.

37 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. What's Wrong with Jabber? by redcliffe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can run your own Jabber server, and it can also message other Jabber users. Some of the clients support encryption too.

    1. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by the+uNF+cola · · Score: 5, Informative
      Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's other enterprise utility servers.


      The platform, which consists of several separate server packages -- Sun ONE Messaging Server, Sun ONE Instant Messaging, Sun ONE Portal, Sun ONE Calendar Server, and Sun ONE Identity Server -- is available now and takes aim at rivals Microsoft and IBM/Lotus in the lucrative collaboration arena, said David Ferris, analyst with Ferris Research.


      It's like wanting jabber to integrate with yahoo mail and yahoo calendar, along with the privacy.

      Not to slam jabber at all, just the right tool for the right job, eh? Just one that requirs sun software :)
      --

      --
      "I'm not bright. Big words confuse me. But Wanda loves me and that should be enough for you." - Cosmo

    2. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by redcliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but what's wrong with using it's protocol. Jabber is a protocol, not a program. Interoperablity is always a good thing.

    3. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by redcliffe · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you've got your own Jabber server, then it's your fault if it goes down. That's the whole point, the server is freely available to download, I could run one on my LAN if I wanted to.

    4. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by hpavc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There isnt anything wrong with it that I have ever found. Its easy to extend and scale and making a client is very easy and can be as sexy as you want or need it to be (c, java, .net, perl)

      Not that its proof of anything but Oracle has gone down this path as well on the integrated IM services.

      --
      members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
    5. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by kevlar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you're going to use the protocol argument, then you should stick with the IETF's SIMPLE protocol.

    6. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by rgraham · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you go to Jabber.org you'll see there has been a lot of large investments/installations of the Jabber protocol (usually from Jabber Inc.) recently, from companies like Intel, France Telecom, EarthLink, etc. So I think headway is being made, but there aren't large annoucements being made that Joe AOL user would notice. And maybe that is where the problem is. When a city government I was contracting for was looking for an instant messenger solution I instantly suggested Jabber, since I had worked with both the open-source Jabberd and Jabber Inc servers. Fortunately, with Jabber Inc being a local company (I live in Denver) getting them to come out and show-off their wares wasn't a difficult thing to do. But, I'm sure that outside of my boss at the time, very few, if any, of the city's IT people were aware of Jabber and were all probably thinking AOL, MSN, Yahoo!, whenever the topic of IM came up.

    7. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful


      It's like wanting jabber to integrate with yahoo mail and yahoo calendar, along with the privacy.

      Not to slam jabber at all, just the right tool for the right job, eh? Just one that requirs sun software :)


      Why not? Jabber is *not* an instant messaging protocol. It just happens to be useful for instant messaging ;-)

      Jabber is a protocol for streaming XML. In this paradigm, why NOT use it as a transport for all sorts of other services, such as calendar information, etc.?

      Ok, now for the privacy portion-- authentication and encrtyption are both supported by many Jabber clients and it would not be hard to impliment an X509-based encryption structure along with a directory service (AD, NDS, OpenLDAP, etc).

      The problem is not with Jabber. It is with the fact that there are no open-source enterprise groupware servers to compete with Exchange. I really wish Sun would take the lead with open standards, but they have not because I am sure they want to create lockin.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by demaria · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jabber (from the commercial Jabber company, not the generic protocol) has a server user interface that makes sendmail configs look fun, no polls, no surveys, no screensharing, no whiteboard and no moderated chat rooms. Sun has all of those, and some are very useful.

    9. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by sporty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.

      That's like blaming MS for not using Linux's drivers. They don't work together.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    10. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.

      What Jabber are you referring to? the core protocol or the many proprietary or opensource implimentations?

      It doesn't integrate with sun's suite.

      Sorry, but that is like saying that TCP doesn't integrate with Windows 98. In reality, it would be a bit different-- one would have a program that would *use* TCP and integrate with Windows 98, but TCP by itself does not integrate with anything other than IP :-P

      The point is I see no reason why an Exchange connecter could not be written to allow a groupware client to access calendar, email notifications, etc. via the Jabber protocol. It would probably be relatively easy to do. Same with any other server that has an SDK associated with it. This connector could be a jabber client itself, or could be a plugin to a jabber server (and act as a gateway).

      Jabberd today integrates with MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, AOL, SMTP(!) etc. and also can provide many other services.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    11. Re:What's Wrong with Jabber? by sporty · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It doesn't integrate with sun's suite. The problem IS jabber. It won't work with software someone MAY want.


      What Jabber are you referring to? the core protocol or the many proprietary or opensource implimentations?


      Either. Sun see's it more fit to use a certain protocol as well as software to work with their suite. They may do a better job than Jabber, i can't say.

      Point is, they don't want to use jabber, that's fine. The protocol they develop becomes their thing. WHo cares if you have to use it? If they did, they'd have to modify it to their whims and close source it anyway, since they probably won't offer support contracts for opensource software they didn't write.


      Sorry, but that is like saying that TCP doesn't integrate with Windows 98. In reality, it would be a bit different-- one would have a program that would *use* TCP and integrate with Windows 98, but TCP by itself does not integrate with anything other than IP :-P


      No, it's like using analogies to say what you really mean. Jabber doesn't integrate with the whims of Sun for whatever reason they know of. Does jabber protocl support calendar's and email notifications better than something sun cooked up? Do the jabber clients out there (which I doubt they'd use) support the functions they want? It's a right fit issue, not a "it's crap or not" issue.

      The point is I see no reason why an Exchange connecter could not be written to allow a groupware client to access calendar, email notifications, etc. via the Jabber protocol. It would probably be relatively easy to do. Same with any other server that has an SDK associated with it. This connector could be a jabber client itself, or could be a plugin to a jabber server (and act as a gateway).


      because they don't see it fit. For instance, why don't i use the jabber protocol for DNS? It's too heavy. A UDP packet is a LOT smaller than a bunch of tcp packets carrying jabber.

      Jabberd today integrates with MSN, Yahoo, ICQ, AOL, SMTP(!) etc. and also can provide many other services.


      As much as jabber is a great protocol and all, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      --

      -
      ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  2. irc? by terminal96 · · Score: 4, Informative

    we have a company irc server where i work. works well enough.

  3. It doesn't matter... by ajuda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't matter how great the software is... frankly it's too late for a new entry. Because of network effects, messaging software is only as good as the number of people who already use it.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That hardly matters for corporate users, at whom this product is aimed. The idea is that employees use it mainly for interoffice messaging, not yapping all day to their pals.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  4. It's not for kids' chatting by wirefarm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a server that you run in an office, not a competitor to ICQ and Yahoo.
    The data never leaves your private network, unlike Messenger, which routes everything through Redmond or wherever.

    Cheers,
    Jim

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  5. Jabber's interface sucks by nigel.selke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The last version of Jabber I downloaded had an absolutely awful interface. It was usuable, although I think that for Joe Sixpack, it wouldn't be a serious option. I am quite computer savvy, (Java, PHP, Python, Perl, Linux, FreeBSD, Windows 2000) but I couldn't get to grips with it. The most popular system in South Africa seems to be MSN Messenger, followed by Yahoo Instant Messenger and ICQ's Messaging System.

    --

    We hang the petty thieves, but appoint the great ones to public office. - Aesop

    1. Re:Jabber's interface sucks by tzanger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I went through practically every Linux client I could find before finding one that I was happy with. Psi is a Qt-based client that acts and feels very much like the original ICQ client. No ads, sidebars, topbars, navbars, barbars... just a regular clean and simple IM client. There is an extensive client list for Win32, Linux and MacOSX which lists the features of each. Psi works on all three, which is another reason I chose it. That, and the fact that, at the time, it was the only NON-Gtk client that looked half assed presentable and the ONLY Linux client that didn't take up a lot of screen real estate, and the ONLY Linux client that did NOT pop up the incoming message, stealing focus from whatever I was typing into.

      Psi's Jabber client lib (and ssl comms) have been adopted by KDE for their IM clients too, which is a nice bonus.

  6. FFS! SUN needs to get with the Program!.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    Dubbed 'Sun ONE Instant Messaging 6.0,'
    That is _so_ 90's!! They should have called it Sun ONE Instant Messaging XP or MX or something..
    This way they'll never get JoeSixpack to buy a single server!.. Come on!..
    1. Re:FFS! SUN needs to get with the Program!.. by slashd'oh · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you mean joesiXPack? That's the new title for our sysadmin who buys all of our servers.

      Or was it JoePack 6.0? Hmm...

  7. Cost and offering by rf0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this costs $30 per user and no mention of the client software requirements. Will they just be Solaris or Linux/Windows/Solaris? As other people have said why not just role out jabber?

    With Sun: For a 100 person organsiation cost = $3000 + implementation time
    With Jabber: implementation time

    BIt of a no brainer?
    Rus

    1. Re:Cost and offering by Henry+Stern · · Score: 3, Informative

      $3000 for 100 users is not only on par with the competition, but is small potatoes. A few years ago, I helped with a Domino/Notes/Sametime rollout where the server software before the CALs was well over five figures.

      Jabber is only an IM service. Sun ONE is a whole enterprise collaboration environment. Comparing the two is like comparing KWord and Microsoft Office.

  8. Re:Jabber by wirefarm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The appeal to me is that Jabber is an open standard with well thought out open protocols. Anyone can write their own Jabber client in any language. Same for interfaces.

    There are libraries that let you write integration code for any program you have. Search CPAN for Jabber and you'll see what I mean.

    Can I interface Sun's product with my company's homebrew scheduling system and the online shop I wrote? I know that I can with Jabber.

    Jim

    --
    -- My Weblog.
  9. We need Open messaging by Organic_Info · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging"

    They may not wish to rely on outside systems for internal communication but connections to outside IM systems may be essential. I won't lie I've not read the link yet. But my first though is how it would interact with other messaging systems.

    The current biggies AIM, MSN, ICQ and Yahoo are no good as fragmented seperates - think back to BBS systems. Until they all sit down and decide to play together and use an Open standard it's not going to be as usefull as it could be. Untill then people will use what ever "frigs" they can to get them to interoperate such as Trillian (recommned the pro version by the way) or Jabbers connections.

    Of course being HW focused if Sun push for an Open messaging standard touting their HW to power it all we could see some action but unfortunately they are a bit late in the game to weild that sort of power.

    IM should interoperate and be as widespread as e-mail but it won't while everyone diggs in and backs their own standard.
    .

    --
    "Things that you own end up owning you" - Tyler Durden (via Diogenes of Sinope).
  10. Sun and version by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the first part of its new enterprise collaboration platform to compete with Exchange and Domino. Dubbed 'Sun ONE InstantMessaging 6.0

    First the abrupt jump from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 8, and now the first version of a new product is dubbed 6.0! Someone needs to smack the marketroids at Sun upside the head with the news that version numbers aren't just there because they make a pretty sound when you say them, they're meant to convey information to the customer. Sun's engineers seem immune to this, Solaris 8 still reports itself internally as SunOS 5.8, which kinda makes sense. Microsoft are Sybase are also guilty of doing it.

    I can imagine the meeting now:

    Marketer: Version 2 is better than 1 right?
    Engineer: Sure
    Marketer: And version 3 is better than 2?
    Engineer: Umm, usually.
    Marketer: Great! So the higher the number, the better the product!

    Ah, I remember the good old days when Sun competed on technology, not hype. Most people I know are still running 2.6 in production, there's simply not enough new stuff in 8 to justify anything more than calling it 2.8, but while it's easy to get sign-off on a minor version patch, major versions need a lot more regression (on paper at least) and who's got the time for that?

    1. Re:Sun and version by bmetzler · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Someone needs to smack the marketroids at Sun upside the head with the news that version numbers aren't just there because they make a pretty sound when you say them, they're meant to convey information to the customer.

      Um, hello? That's exactly why this version number is 6.0. It's because it's not just a pretty sound when you say it, it is because it is meant to convey the concept that this IM product is meant to integrate with the SunONE platform, which, coincidentaly, has a version 6 label. Wild, isn't it?

      -Brent
    2. Re:Sun and version by Surak · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, SunOS 4.x is the older, more BSD flavoured, version of their operating system. SunOS 5.x is the version of their operating system that we normally associate with the Solaris environment. So, Solaris 2.4 would be running SunOS 5.4, not SunOS 4. Solaris 2.5.1 ran SunOS 5.5.1, etc. Note that Sun did eventually rename the older SunOS 4.x operating environment Solaris 1.x just to confuse people even more. :-)

      Thanks for clearing that up. :) You can clearly see why even I, who had more of a clue than the parent poster, was still confused. :)

    3. Re:Sun and version by christophersaul · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not version 1.0. There was a previous version which was around under the iPlanet and then Sun ONE brand and is used by various customers. It was version 3 then, to fit in with the fact it was an add-on to Portal Server 3.0. We're now at Portal Server 6.0, hence the numbering match.

      http://wwws.sun.com/software/products/portal_icp /h ome_portal_icp.html

  11. Market is wide open by LinuxXPHybrid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > ... frankly it's too late for a new entry.

    I read many comments like yours on Slashdot, and I can understand why you say that. For typical slashdotters, yes, Sun's announcement feels like too late. If you live in a major city in US or its metropolitan area, perhaps that's how you feel. If you work in the IT industry, more so. But the reality is that we are still at the beginning of the information age. I truly feel that the market is wide open.

    If you look beyond US metropolitan area (and other, what they call, developed countries), there is a huge opportunity. There does not seem to be a wide margin in the IT industry in US, but there is China. There's large part of EU. Potentially, Middle East, now that Iraq war is pretty much over. Just that... it's over 5 times bigger that the whole US. Market is wide open.

    In addition, Sun does have competitive edge over Exchange and Domino. The fact is that MS is stuck in the world of 32 bit. They say IA-64 is coming, but even if it arrives tomorrow, how long do they take to make it really functional AND get support from other ISVs? Domino is a competitive product, but Sun is really kicking IBM's ass in high end because of its quality, openness, and price.

    I am not a marketing analyst and I cannot or dear not predict the future, BUT I do say that "... it's too late" sounds a little premature.

  12. Real insightful, CowboyNeal by p3d0 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Instant messaging is becoming increasingly popular in the workplace. Local messaging servers like this were only the next logical step for businesses which don't wish to rely on an outside network for their messaging.
    Yeah, it was the next logical step several years ago. IBM has been using the Sametime IM internally for as long as I have worked there.
    --
    Patrick Doyle
    I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
  13. This should be alright...as long.. by Quass · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work at a major corporation, and we use "Lotus Sametime" as our messenging client. At first I was put off by the lack of features (ie. timestamping, etc..) but it has interoperability with AIM, so I find it quite nice to use.

    As long as Sun goes with something like AOL compatibility for outside-the-intranet communication, they should be sitting pretty. Why would this even be necessary? Well the obvious is chatting with friends/family - without having to install a secondary client - but, also I know in my company we deal with outside agencies and businesses, and its much easier being able to IM them, than to send emails, or phone.

  14. Also Messaging for Customers, Partners and Remote by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't just for internal use... it works specifically with your firewall to provide secure authentication for Customers, Partners and Remote Employees around the world so you have a single sign on Messaging system for EVERYONE in your business.

    My company could use this.

    Of course to really see all the benefits you will want to use the other components as well which all use Liberty spec and SAML (Security Assertion Markup Language) for completely single sign on to messaging (e-mail), calendaring, instant messaging and web portal / content management.

    Remember that this is just the latest incarnation of iPlanet.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  15. Re:heh, erm by Sven+Tuerpe · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I cannot imagine this increasing productivity. really cannot. People will be able to interrupt your legitimate work from the convenience of their own cube! and I doubt you can hide yourself (invisible) because that would totally be against the whole point of INSTANT messenging.

    Looks like your experience is limited. Ever had coworkers more than a few cubicles away? I did, and instant messaging was quite a helpful tool. It is less intrusive and distracting than the telephone, especially if one has more than a single machine around. Doing software development, I use to have two machines on my desk, one for actual hacking and one for reading documentation, running tests, etc. -- and instant messaging.

    Of particular importance to developers is the ability to easily exchange code snippets. Compare to reading them over the phone, or sending e-mail messages then waiting for a reply. IM gives instant access to coworkers' knowledge while making it easy to talk about technical matter that would be hard to express in voice.

    And of course if you are serious about it you will allow people to make themselves unavailable.

    --
    http://erichsieht.wordpress.com/category/english/
  16. So I read a bunch of the replies.. wtf? by sporty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Did you people bother read the article? Jabber doesn't integrate with sun's suite. If they foudn the technology usable, the may have used it.

    It's not about SUN making IM softare. It's about their IM/Collaboration/Calendar/Email suite. It's about them releasing software, that integrates well with their software. Being redundant there. It's about cool little popups from their IM program telling you about a meeting or about email, muchlike yahoo client does

    If you wanna keep talking about Jabber Protocol, why not SOAP, or XML-RPC? Cripes... As if that's what the article really is about.

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

  17. Wrong by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 3, Informative

    As far as RH going straight from 8->9

    If you were at all familiar with RedHat versioning, you'd know that all revisions within a major version are binary compatible with each other, and major versions are not guaranteed to be binary compatible with each other. (Some may work fine, other binaries won't. Mostly this pertains to C++ apps, but in RH9, this pertained to anything that used threading.) RedHat decided that it was best for the distribution to move to a new threading architecture. It happened that this new threading system broke binary compatibility with RedHat 8.

    As a result, consistent with RedHat's versioning policies, it was called RedHat 9.

    I will admit that it does have a fringe marketing benefit, but the main reason for 9 was that it broke binary compatibility with RH8.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  18. Domino? Please by tmasssey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I cringe every time I hear something like this being compared with Domino. Yes, Domino does e-mail. Yes, Domino does calendaring. But Domino is so much, much more.

    Anyone who has ever used Domino's document management tools or developed an application for Notes knows exactly what I mean. You have the ability to develop highly advanced applications, not just folders full of sticky notes (e.g. Exchange). You don't have filing cabinets full of sticky notes, do you? Why should your database?

    The biggest disadvantage of Domino is the fact that developing for it is kind of its own little world. I'm looking forward to Domino R7's integration with WebSphere. But even until then, Domino gives you a document management development environment second to none.

    The weird thing is that the feature that everyone looks at Domino most closely for, e-mail, is its weakest point. That's what comes from building e-mail around a document-mangement platform, instead of building document management around an e-mail platform.

  19. FINALLY! by Big+Nothing · · Score: 2, Funny

    Another IM service is just what I've been missing!

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!