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
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.
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.
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.
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.