Slashdot Mirror
Gaim Speaks Out on MSN Ban
joejg writes "As FootNotes is reporting, the developers at Gaim have responded to the ban Microsoft is placing upon users of third-party clients accessing the MSN protocol. It appears that starting October 15th I will not be able to talk to my MSN friend in South Korea." Gaim's site is more optimistic, saying they may still be able to connect, only without a license to do so.
I don't understand why people are all pissy about this.
Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
MS, obviously, incurs a cost for maintaining this network/service. They have also been at the forefront of any legal liability for activity on the service. The chat rooms may be virtual, but the computers and bandwidth they use are quite real. They are now seeking to fix these two problems by:
1. Limiting who can connect and how
2. Probably charging a fee for third party clients
If you think this is a bad thing for MS to be doing then let me ask you this:
Do you allow just anyone to walk in to your home unannounced, without permission and do whatever they want? Why should MS (or the cable or telephone company) be any different? Private property is private property.
If the government thinks the property would be better used in the public interest, they can condemn the property and pay a fair and reasonable price for it as compensation.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
As is many times the case, whatever protocol MS decides to come up with will eventually be reverse engineered and incorporated into a later release. We know this from CIFS (Samba). They can't win. They might be a step ahead because it's their code, but its nothing to worry about. The people at gaim will figure it out. I have faith in them.
I think one could argue that this is a beginning step to eventually charge for the service. Initially, the Messenger has an open network to encourage alternative clients to increase use in their battle to unseat Instant Messenger. Now that MSN has it's own foothold, it seems they are going to shun what helped make them popular. I wonder, too, if this has anything to so with the fact that so many alternative OS users access the MSN network via the alternative client software.
It's difficult sometimes, but this is yet another reason that anyone who can, should move to Jabber posthaste.
The realm of those who "can" (ie: people that are able to leave their current instant messenger for something like Jabber) has gone from very slim to very wide, thanks to Gaim - Gaim is a hell of an IM client, and it provides a great bridge from the current proprietary world of IM, to the way it ought to be - decentralized, and based on open standards, just like email is now. Imagine if email wasn't a universal, open standard, like it is now [insert stupid spam joke here] - imagine what an open IM standard could do for IM's usefulness...
The Free desktop that Just Works
What about:
Lots of people run multiple message systems. Setting up an extra account to bypass those petty limitations really isn't THAT hard. I know it would be nice if more people opted for an open standard like Jabber, but unless South Korea has some kind of weird nationwide ban on using anything besides MSN, I don't see what the big deal is.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
MS did NOT build a private system for communication. This is NOT a BBS, or a network. Or a service. This is a piece of software that uses a P2P communication protocol. MS incurs no cost to "maintain this network/service". The only costs they incur are in the maintenance and improvement of thier client. Just like MS Office.
The house analogy is flawed. The MSN clients that are being denied access to are NOT hosted at MS, nor is there a central server at MS managing them. This is pure P2P.
Telephone and cable companies, OTOH, are very relevant examples. Not very good ones for the point that you are trying to make. The telephone companies are specifically REQUIRED to allow people who are not thier customers to connect to people that are, as well as lease out thier spare capacity. The cable companies are specifically required to share thier capacity.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
MS stole an idea from ICQ (bought by AOL later) and tried to muscle in on something that would have functioned perfectly without them.
What did they add that we didn't have from ICQ/ AOL?
Now they think ther are big enough to go it alone using it's Windows monopoly to "Reduce choice"
It's like the phone companies after the break-up of Bell suddenly decided not to allow other carries on their turf. Back to the good old day where you had multiple phones in the house depending on carrier. It did happen (mostly in Europe I believe)
Help fight continental drift.
As of 2000, Microsoft has been bundling MSN Messenger with Windows XP. It is naive to think that they aren't charging the customer for it.
BAM!!! Someone cries DMCA!
I know, most everyone here has to see that as a realistic possibility.
Oh, wait...
The sole reason for them to do this is to push usage of their proprietary client, duh. Also, to the "would you let people wander around your house for free" analogy, that doesnt quite fit. All they have to do is dress a little differently(use a different client) and no one cares. Off topically, I am vastly dissatisfied with all of the PC chat clients. The proprietary ones are all ad laden or crap, and the multi protocol ones leave a lot to be desired. Both gaim and trillian seem a little klunky to me, and far less configurable than they should be. Oh well.
This type of thing is exactly the reason I have de-microsoftized my personal computers. I am sick of the stupid way Microsoft tries to make everything they own into this elite club for Windows/Microsoft users only; the moldy puds that they are.
The friends I use IMs to communicate with mostly use AIM or Yahoo. I think I only have 2 friends that use Microsoft's messenger, so I really don't care that much since it will impact me little. However, I still think Microsoft doing this is like Panasonic creating a phone that only accepts calls from other Panasonic phones. It's completely stupid.
Post a good patch that won't cause any problems, and we'll look at it. Don't complain until you're willing to contribute positively.
Was anyone really surprised? Sure Microsoft cried foul when it looked like AOL had complete dominance but now that Microsoft has a foot hold they want to change the rules.
"Whereas previously, Microsoft has let third party clients connect, they now require a license for doing so."
Do you really think that they care about the small revenue that they might bring in from such licenses? Of course not! But they know that such license will lock out any products made that support operating systems that compete with Windows. In particular it locks out open source products that support Linux; their greatest fear. It's just a small measure to help protect their OS monopoly. A lot of small measures could add up to big frustrations to Linux users.
They're just pulling out all the stops knowing full well that the current legal system under our current administration is too spineless to bitch slap them like they deserve.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
true, it is given away for free. on the other hand, internet explorer was "given away for free" (bundled with windows) a while ago, too. and the department of justice definitely did not allow them to "do whatever they want with it." they have a monopoly on operating systems. including a proprietary instant messaging client that uses a closed standard can be seen as an abuse of their monopoly in the OS market, especially since they get revenue from the ads and stuff.
so, in conclusion: yeah, it's free, but that doesn't mean they have carte blanche to go do what they want. i'm not saying they are or are not doing anything wrong; i'm just saying that they can be held accountable for the actions they're taking. personally, i'd prefer it if every im client used the same, open standard, and we could all choose which one was "coolest" and they'd all work together and everyone would be happy, but things don't always turn out the way i'd like.
Your analogy does not work. A proper one would state PacBell/BellSouth/Qwest refused to allow Uniden to manufacture phones that used their telephone lines to make a phone call. The problem with MSN compatibility and licensing isn't about reverse engineering the protocol. Indeed Microsoft can't tell you you're not allowed to reverse engineer it. As long as your implementation is clean they can't say much to you. The issue is with third party clients connecting to MSN's network services, akin to the previously mentioned phone companies' trunks.
MSN owns the network you have to connect to in order to talk to MSN users. Every user on MSN has to connect to a notification server, all conversations take place over one of MSN's switchboards. A third party client then is using MSN network resources without license to do so. Reverse engineering a protocol is not the same as using a network without permission.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Typical. And the reason open source isn't beating the crap out of MS on the desktop right now. "Oh, you want a feature? Add it yourself, fuckface!". Get a clue. End users, the people who make end user products sucessful, are generally NOT coders.
Weren't MSN whining about AOL banning them when they needed the subscribers? But now they have millions of subscribers, it's apparantly alright to ban others.
They're moving MSN Messenger exclusively to a new protocol and requiring a license for everyone else .
Can somebody point me to somewhere where a MS representative has said that a license will be required. The articles I read said that MS will assist 3rd parties to interoperate with the new protocol if there is a contractual arrangement (read NDA), but didn't mention anything about requiring a license just to use the network.
But then, I've been unable to find any MS press releases, only a couple of articles based on them.
I think we need to move to a distributed IM architecture on free software. This way, everyone owns (their) piece of the pie, and no one company can control who accesses it.
The interesting thing about the crackdown on distributed systems (napster for example), is its exposure of how these large companies are evolving to gain/maintain control over what we have access to, and how we access it. The more their grasp slips, the more harsh thier attempts to force people to stay.
Microsoft, for one, has made no bones about wanting to manufacture the entertainment and information equipment, control access to entertainment, information and games, and become ubiquitous in every household.
They will succeed if they can force people to buy their systems by breaking interoperability with the free systems out there. This is just a variation on what they have been doing with their software for years.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain