AOL-Yahoo-MSN Messaging Unified... in the Workplace Only

bakreule writes "Microsoft, AOL and Yahoo! are teaming up to link their separate instant messaging services for use in the workplace, 'the first major step by the industry leaders to enable computer users to communicate with one another no matter which of the three systems they use.' Sound to good to be true? It is. 'What this does not do,' Root said (yes, that's his name), 'is the holy grail of instant messaging, which is to allow anybody on any network to send a message to anybody on any other network.' It seems that the system, which is aimed for corporations, involves some MS software which acts as an intermediary between the different systems. Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there."

Comments

Why not an Open initiative?

[garcia]

Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there."

No, it doesn't sound like gaim or any other client. It sounds like a centralized control center for tighter watching over employee's IM conversations. gaim doesn't automatically forward my AIM messages to someone on MSN or Yahoo without me having an account on each. This seems like it would do that. gaim doesn't log all my conversations from all networks and store that information in one spot so that my boss can watch what I am sending across the networks.

Why does MSFT need to be the one doing this? How about an Open initiative that wouldn't require the three IM giants? It would likely be less money, better for the employers, and operate with more features and less bugs.

Too bad the employers only trust those that shouldn't be trusted.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Jahf]

If it uses middleware to translate between them, then it most certainly does sound like Jabber. GAIM, no, Jabber yes.

However even though this uses MS middleware, it could still be a good thing as it might make MSN/Yahoo/AIM less likely to break their protocols just to stymie the open source clients. Maybe not, maybe they will just tell MS to update their middleware, but no way to tell just yet.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[-stax]

gaim doesn't log all my conversations from all networks and store that information in one spot so that my boss can watch what I am sending across the networks.

oh yeah? check ~/.gaim/logs

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just a matter of the employers. In some industries, like finance, law requires that all instant messenger communication be logged centrally.

You'd think that the people of GAIM, Trillian, or similar would have figured this one out long ago. They understand how the protocols work, so why not write a server?

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[WormholeFiend]

It sounds like a centralized control center for tighter watching over employee's IM conversations

And who will do the watching? ECHELON-like servers with software to crunch through every conversation for specific words and phrases?

E-mail is already being "monitored" and you rarely hear about anyone being caught, disciplined or otherwise fired for their inappropriate use of the system...

Ok, now back to work in my Faraday cage...

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Guardian of Terra]

There is a jabber server out there, being widely user in corporate networks.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[baudilus]

I think what he meant is, somewhere "in one spot" where he has no control over the logs. I use trillian, which keeps logs of every conversation, but you can delete them at will, or encrypt the ones that you want to keep. You can even change read permissions for that directory. You can't really control that when it's stored somewhere else on the network - what if daily logs are sent to supervisors / managers at their request? You can't really do anything about that.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[ePhil_One]

However even though this uses MS middleware, it could still be a good thing as it might make MSN/Yahoo/AIM less likely to break their protocols just to stymie the open source clients. Maybe not, maybe they will just tell MS to update their middleware, but no way to tell just yet.

Unless MS is paying them for access to their protocols, I doubt anything will change. I actually think that even if MS is paying for access to their protocols, they will still want the software broken every so often by the other guys, since it forces users to buy the software subscription, while they remain innocent.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

so why not write a server?

Because Jabber already did it?

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[baudilus]

Correction: E-mail in most corporate environments is not usually actively monitored, which is why you never hear about someone being caught for something they sent. Separate from the government, corporations have to justify costs. Spending any amount of money for someone to read through e-mail is counterproductive (read: cuts into the bottom line). E-mail is usually monitored after someone is already suspected of something.

On a side note, we don't have a centralized IM chat server at my office, but I do know that MSN conversations are logged. IM messages are plain text, being sent over a network, over known ports. So just because you company isn't opting for the MSFT solution to chatting, doesn't mean your conversations aren't out in the open. Any network tech with 2 minutes of free time can do the same thing that you fear so much from Microsoft, without the added cost of the software.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Senzei]

Sure you can, don't say anything you shouldn't be saying at work anyways. Private conversations have no place in the office. If you don't want someone in the office to know your personal business, leave it at home.

Then again I am at work right now..... and on slashdot.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I will leave my private conversations at home when the companies stop harassing me with advertisements on my free time :-)

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[dschuetz]

If it uses middleware to translate between them, then it most certainly does sound like Jabber.

Except that Jabber doesn't allow an AIM user to talk to a Yahoo! user. Unless that's changed in the last couple of years (since I abandoned Jabber for Trillian). The problem isn't multi-system clients (like GAIM or Trillian). The problem isn't centralized logging (which Jabber "proxies" certainly can do, as another poster recounted). The problem is trans-system communication.

What's needed is something like this: "aim:david" or "yahoo:david" (yes, I'm avoiding using my real IM ID's :) ). But to do this, we'd need:

• Clients that can have trans-system buddies
• A server that can accept a message from a client bound for a different system, and route that to the different system
• A server that can accept a message from a different system's server, pull the IM destination out of it, and pass it on to that user's client

This isn't even beginning to address the question of passing presence information across systems.

Having not read the FA, I'm not sure exactly what they're talking about now. If they're coming up with their own implementation of such a system, and just expecting everyone else to modify their servers/clients to be compatible, then I'm not sure it'll work. If, though, there's a cross-provider effort to standardize on some of the above, then there's a chance it might just work.

Unless, of course, I missed something glaringly obvious. Wouldn't be the first time :)

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[blixel]

oh yeah? check ~/.gaim/logs

Those logs are on your own machine. And you can tell gaim not to log locally anything if you want.

But if your messages are passing through a centralized server, you can't control what gets logged other than to just simply NOT send messages that you don't want your boss reading. Which is arguably what you should be doing anyway.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[OhHellWithIt]

gaim doesn't log all my conversations from all networks and store that information in one spot so that my boss can watch what I am sending across the networks.

I don't see this as a replacement for gaim. It sounds to me like it's intended for the corporate environment where secure messaging is needed, but also accountability. In some environments, you need tracking (or the perception of tracking) to keep people honest, even if you are already pretty sure they are honest. I agree, though, that I don't like seeing Microsoft becoming the purveyor of all "secure" instant messaging. I'm sure they will make it a pain in the neck to support under Linux.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[evangellydonut]

Um, I am under the impression that there was a recent court ruling which stated that instant messaging logs, without expressed consent of the party that sent it, cannot be kept. So Employeers are now going to make people sign agreements saying "we have the right to monitor your IMs"?!?

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[HFXPro]

Or use something like gaim encryption. Of course you don't want to leave your private keys laying around on the box (floppy maybe?).

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Jahf]

If you use a Jabber server, you have to use a Jabber client (I believe). If your Jabber server has the right transports it can handle Yahoo, AIM/ICQ and MSN.

However you're right, this only solves -your- end of it, your friend on the Yahoo server can't have non-Yahoo buddies (you just appear as a Yahoo buddy to them using your Yahoo account through the Jabber transport), but it will solve the problems on your end.

Jabber does at least the first 2 items you mention (trans-system buddies in the client, server can route between systems). If I read it correctly it also does the third. In fact, those things are exactly what Jabber is meant for and also does presence notification.

Yes, it means you have 4 different accounts for each of the 4 systems, so it is not exactly what you want, but it is a reasonable approximation and could be used in a scenario where a company didn't want to pay MS for their middleware. The biggest problem you have is when one of those systems changes their protocol.

I also am waiting for that time when I can use a generic client without a middleware server (Jabber or MS) to send messages to a multi-system address space. Unfortunately for now that system is email.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[magefile]

Gaim does log everything in one spot by default. And we don't need another open initiative - we've got Gaim, or, if you're internal only (and thus don't have to worry about what others are using), you can get better features, more security and so on with Jabber.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[cosmol]

With jabber an AIM user may not be able to send messages to a Yahoo user. But a jabber user with an AIM or Yahoo transport configured properly( having an account on both AIM and Yahoo) can send and recieve messages from both systems. Does not trillian require you to have accounts on each IM system?

Your aim:david scheme sounds alot like what jabber already does, when I am logged into a jabber server my friends on AIM appear to me as jabber users with nicks like david@aimgate.jabberserver. Presence information works just fine.

Logging will always be a problem, but jabber lets you transparently encrypt messages with gpg. Its EASY

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[mcovey]

I read elsewhere that was in competition with Jabber, which is gaining in the workplace. Although I cannot verify this as I am not a Jabber user, it seems plausible. If your workplace needs jabber, I would still suggest Gaim.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[SnowWolf2003]

Use something like simp to encrypt your messages before they are even sent over the IM network.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Pendersempai]

Basically what you'd need for Jabber interoperability with AIM, YM, and MSNM is consent of AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft. That is the missing component, has always been the missing component, and will probably continue to be the missing component for years.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[dschuetz]

Yes, it means you have 4 different accounts for each of the 4 systems, so it is not exactly what you want, but it is a reasonable approximation and could be used in a scenario where a company didn't want to pay MS for their middleware. The biggest problem you have is when one of those systems changes their protocol.

That that's exactly the problem that I was getting at. Jabber doesn't provide "any user on any network to talk to any other user on any other network" functionality. That's still going to require real buy-in from the other services (which is what I thought this might be about).

The Jabber *protocol* might have solved all the problems I mention, as far as addressing, routing, and presence information, but they'd still have to get the other IM systems speaking and honoring that protocol (and all the associated client-side issues would have to be ironed out). But as it stands today, *nothing* lets me fire up an AIM client (AIM, GAIM, Trillian, or even Jabber with an AIM transport) and send a message to someone who's only on Yahoo!. That's the Holy Grail, and to solve it will require cooporation from all the players.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[4A6F656C]

From a corporate perspective, it is still a risky business communicating business related information via instant messaging. Even if it is integrated so that one can easily talk between AOL/Yahoo/MSN, it is still going to be in the clear and easily accessible to those who have access to a network path (tcpdump anyone!) or access to the servers.

Unless of course you plan on adding encryption to the grand scheme of things, which introduces the usual world of authentication and identification problems.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

E-mail in most corporate environments is not usually actively monitored, which is why you never hear about someone being caught for something they sent.

The bank I worked I certainly did actively monitor e-mail traffic going in and out... true, nobody was sitting there reading every piece of mail, but it was scanned for content to determine if anything was leaking out. Encrypted mail automatically raised a red flag and was set aside for examination unless it was authorized.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[ObiWanKenblowme]

They may not even have to do that. As I understand it, and IANAL, employees have little to no expectation of privacy at the office. Which means not only does your employer have the right to monitor your IMs, but your email, browsing habits, paperwork on (or in) your desk, etc. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of the law in this area than me could clarify?

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[SquadBoy]

I don't know about where you work but here when somebody starts they sign an agreement that says that the network in general and Internet access in particular are for work purposes only and that we (meaning the networks dept) have full rights to monitor and record everything they do. This is pretty normal.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[hpavc]

exchange has a instant messenger ability (msn compatible client), this tool would be ehchanced to proxie the other im clients. much like jabberd can be enhanced with other im transports.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[anethema]

Here Here!

I am also a simp user and i can vouch that its amazingly easy and transparent software, with very strong encryption and identification.

There is also a nix program for people to use, but it doesnt support the key authentication..only the AES encryption

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. Maybe Jabber guys will invest their millions of dollars to the hardware, people, training etc... and built one such system themselves. As you know, yahoo, msn, aol put money into these systems. I guess you will not get this, but you can't steal from people just because they have money and you don't. The real life is not like your bittorent downloading files illegally.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[marcansoft]

If your Jabber server has the right transports it can handle Yahoo, AIM/ICQ and MSN.

Actually, you can use any transport you want, you aren't restricted to your own server in any way: This is Jabber's beauty, that many servers can coexist instantly and (as long as it isn't deactivated, of course) talk to each other. Transports are just "servers" which you see as having all Yahoo/MSN/whatever users, with @ changed to % (e.g. fred%msn.com@msn.thetransport.net)

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[chefmonkey]

Actually, it is (relatively) open. Microsoft has a press release discussing the initiative. The passage of interest is:

Standards-based architecture. Live Communications Server is built using industry-standard protocols Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and SIP for Instant Messaging and Presence Leveraging Extensions (SIMPLE), enabling a broad partner and developer ecosystem.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Hawke666]

There's no reason that yahoo, aim, or msn couldn't simply set up a gateway to let jabber servers communicate with their network natively...they could just be (jabber addresses) david@aol.com, david@yahoo.com, or david@msn.com

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which server did you use, I was looking at this one recently:
ejabberd

It is supposed to be fault tolerant and high throughput.

TIA for any advice.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Koguma]

Sounds like Trillian to me! And it's free...

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think so. Maybe Jabber guys will invest their millions of dollars to the hardware, people, training etc... and built one such system themselves. As you know, yahoo, msn, aol put money into these systems. I guess you will not get this, but you can't steal from people just because they have money and you don't. The real life is not like your bittorent downloading files illegally.

Right, that's why it's impossible for someone using AOL to email someone using MSN--doing so would be stealing.

To clarify: This isn't about advertising views or something--it's already possible to use any of these protocols with free, open, non-ad based clients. AOL even has the TOC service explicity for that purpose.

This is about interoperability between services--letting AIM users talk to MSN. I know you're just trolling, but in case anyone is confused--interoperability has no relation to theft, bittorrent, downloading, or anything--it's just how everything is supposed to work on the Internet and the real world--like standardized train rail widths.

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[kelnos]

i don't particularly understand why this is necessary. in a corporate environment, i don't see why it's a problem to just mandate that everyone use a particular service. why waste ridiculous amounts of money on an overpriced, most likely buggy, MS product, when you can solve the problem simply by saying "everyone will be required to use AIM for IM in this workplace". the only thing you lose is the centralised logging, which you could probably implement yourself with a proxy.

personally, i don't know why they want to use the commercial IM systems anyway. anything the employees say via an IM get sent to the IM network, in most cases in the clear. i wouldn't want this for possibly-sensitive communications. it would make more sense to me if i were a corporation to put up a jabber server and have it be for company use only. that way the traffic never leaves the corporate network (assuming we're not talking about WAN links). even if it does, i believe jabber supports SSL now, doesn't it?

Re:Why not an Open initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're so weird... even for a troll.

Jabber anyone?

[nhstar]

Isn't that kinda what jabber does? I know it's not spot on, but it's close.

Re:Jabber anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

So with Jabber I can log on with my MSN account and it will show me that my friend who uses AOL is logged on, I can open a text window and send a message from my MSN account to my friends AOL account without me having an AOL account? Cause that's what this will do. Currently all the open source guys will show you 3 big networks and let you talk to everyone, but you have to be logged on using your AOL account, Yahoo account and MSN account to do that. Not just one centralized account that can talk to everyone.

I tought everybody knew...

[hummassa]

Jabber is the holy grail of the IM.

Re:I tought everybody knew...

[tcopeland]

Right on - Jabber and Jabber4R (or JabberPy). Word.

Re:I tought everybody knew...

[Anonymous Coward]

No word is MS's text editing software, not chat software.

Re:I tought everybody knew...

[hey]

I agree. Jabber is a terrific protocol and server.
Miranda is the best Jabber client I have used (for Windows), GAIM for Linux.

No ICQ????

[Dak_Peoples]

Does anyone even use ICQ?

Re:No ICQ????

[andrew_j_w]

Does anyone even use ICQ?

Yes.

Re:No ICQ????

[trompete]

ICQ is very popular among German youth. Last I saw, their registration numbers were past 250,000,000. I'm still using my 3,000,000 number ;)

"These people look deep into my soul and assign me a number based upon the order in which I joined"
- Homer Simpson

Re:No ICQ????

[Anonymous Coward]

No. ICQ is filled with ads and spyware. All my friends switched to Jabber.

Re:No ICQ????

[SeanDuggan]

I haven't seen many new signups in the people I know, but a lot of the people who started with 7 digit numbers are still there. *wry grin* Then there were the people my sister's age and around there who would sign up for a number, forget the password a few months later, then sign up for a new account. Most of those people seem to have moved to AIM where it's easier to quickly generate a new name and ID (I'm up to 4+ IDs for some of these people which vary according to mood and which stalker they're avoiding). Also, I suspect they're aiming for more support of emoticons and formatting.

Personally, what I miss from ICQ was their real-time chat method where you saw the other person's message as they typed and you were told if they switched windows on you. There was a much beter sense of immediacy there. *shrug* Eh, but I used Gaim nowadays anyhow to aggregate the 4 different IM services my friends use, so I probably wouldn't even notice if they added that instanct chat back as default functionality.

Re:No ICQ????

[The_Real_Nire]

Interesting..

Are there 250 million people in Germany?

Re:No ICQ????

[trompete]

No...around 85 million people in Germany. They just happen to use ICQ a lot. When I was over there in 2001, they were just discovering it and asked me "hey...have you seen this cool new program?". I laughed, having used it since 1998.

Re:No ICQ????

[RealErmine]

ICQ is owned by AOL. They recently allowed interoperability between AIM and ICQ so it would be silly to exclude ICQ. I'm not saying they won't exclude it, just that it would be silly.

Re:No ICQ????

[trompete]

Not the protocol, the 3rd-party clients. I don't use AOL's clients to connect to AOL's network.

Re:No ICQ????

[LighthouseJ]

My UIN used to be 267466 but someone hijacked the number and changed the password somehow. However, I can go to their password recovery service and enter the email address I originally registered the number under and acknowledges the email address as correct and it sends the email. Too bad it sends it to an old Mindspring email address that was deactivated when service was canceled several years ago.

Re:No ICQ????

[nbensa]

Oh, yes. I know that feeling. UIN 55,555,557 was mine, but some fscking idiot stole it; yeah, password was too easy. Why didn't I got that UIN back? Well, the number was so cool, I thought "hey! Why should I ruin it by puting my info there?"

Re:No ICQ????

[Phisbut]

I got you beat... I still have my 1,700,000 number :-P

Re:No ICQ????

[suffe]

Silly late adopters, I'm still using my 17xxxx nbr.

Now hold on to your hats. In five minutes we will have a new winner =)

and a way to get paid

[PDAToday]

It also sounds like a way to institute a payment/subscription service similar to OfficeOnline offered by AT&T Wireless and other types of "corporate" services.

That's cool, but it doesn't affect me

[trompete]

I was a trillian user for two years and have now been a Gaim user for a year. The only thing that would change for me is the number of sockets that my computer would maintain.

I wonder if this movement would also spark a movement toward disabling 3rd-party clients. That would NOT be good.

Trillian
Gaim

Re:That's cool, but it doesn't affect me

[garcia]

I wonder if this movement would also spark a movement toward disabling 3rd-party clients. That would NOT be good.

The system that they outline would only be feasible of they did. What could would centralized control be if the employers still allowed third party applications that would get around their gateway?

Re:That's cool, but it doesn't affect me

[draevil]

The thing I think that we need to fear most is that it really does start to affect us.

I'd draw a parallel here with the recent announcement that Cyberlink PowerDVD is available for Linux (albeit as part of Turbolinux).

In both cases the argument used by those of us (I'm a gaim and bitlbee user) that connect to multiple IM networks with third-party clients (in a situation where the companies' licenses make such action questionable) is that we have to do it as the proprietary companies haven't released a commercial alternative. The use of libdvdcss and DeCSS is justified on similar grounds.

Well, if MS et al do release a for-payment client with a restrictive license that can connect to multiple networks, that argument could be rendered defunct. This is particularly so if they strengthen their licenses and start sending cease-and-desist orders to the third-party clients' developers.

Could be that soon, we'll have to persuade our MS-friendly friends onto jabber...

Re:That's cool, but it doesn't affect me

[siphi]

Can you repeat your post using correct English grammer please? I didn't understand any sentance in it.

AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

[tpgp]

AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

Man I'd hate to see the baby.

Re:AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

[Anonymous Coward]

AYM :"(

Re:AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

[tweek]

So the AOL guy would have a Y-shaped penis and fly around with his rainbow wings?

Agreed.

[mfh]

> No, it doesn't sound like gaim or any other client. It sounds like a centralized control center for tighter watching over employee's IM conversations.

I agree. There are plenty of open clients that can do what they're planning on doing. The control center concept seems evil, so it must be true.

Fearing with probable Google's Messenger??

[sridhar.g]

Seems M$ and other messenger biggies are worrying lot with googly... Hope for Messenger war..

It sure would be nice...

[Iphtashu Fitz]

If gaim supported all this. My company standardized on Microsofts corporate IM system but all our operations people use linux exclusively. We use gaim to IM with each other but can't access the corporate IM system since there's currently no linux client that supports it...

Not to sure about this ...

[auburnate]

If I were AOL or Yahoo, I'm not so sure i would want Microsoft providing the software to provide the intermediary connections. In the light of all the wonderful IE exploits and such.

My $0.02 ... Nate

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[Mr_Silver]

If I were AOL or Yahoo, I'm not so sure i would want Microsoft providing the software to provide the intermediary connections.

If I was AOL or Yahoo I'd be happy with MS doing it.

Why? Because neither AOL and Yahoo probably have the development resources to do this and, by having Microsoft, you're almost certain that it'll gain widespread adoptance as soon as they bundle the service into the default install of their server or integrate it into Microsoft Outlook.

In addition, if it all falls apart, it's Microsoft that has put the most time and resources into it.

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[Epistax]

Of course you're entirely correct. However if there's any lesson I've ever learned, it's that people don't learn their lessons.

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[craigmarshall]

If I were AOL or Yahoo, and 99% of my customers had a Microsoft Operating system and of those, probably 80% had MSN installed, I'd do as much as I could to *increase* interoperability, to stop me being locked out! I too wouldn't "want" Microsoft providing this intermediary software, but I wouldn't have a great deal of choice.

Craig

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[le_lotus_604]

u'r damn right man !!! Yahoo and AOL rely on Microsoft ... it sounds like a bad joke

Re:Not to sure about this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, AOL and Yahoo are smarter than you. You live in slashdot (well physically your mother's home basement), they live in the real world. That's why AOL let Mozilla go, because it was piece of crap with no chance of competing with Microsoft. As the Google's statistics show mozilla has no chance. Only, through FUD it is able to get market share, but on the long run this will never work. Let's all use the best system in the world so that nobody has to listen to the bullshit from fanatics, sick minded people. We don't need technical advice from idiots.

Step toward the future?

[RyoShin]

They need to merge all of the IM services in the future, anyway. Having to hastle with 4 different messengers is a pain, regardless if you use the clients or not.

Imagine if you had to have four different telephones, one for each telephone system. No one would put up with that. No one at all, but everyone finds it the norm with messengers.

Oh well. Trillian rules for the time being.

Re:Step toward the future?

[ACNiel]

You see, one company charges another to carry their call, and the first company, in turn, charges you.

With all this money floating around, coming out of your pocket, these companies are more than glad to route each other's calls. It all happens for a price.

If you don't want to have to worry about 4 different clients, there is always email, with its highly standardized protocols that anyone can route anywhere.

What we really need is a ubiquitous standard like SMTP, for IM. That way, any person can start up their own service, and everyone else could still get the messages. And then a whole new spam threat would emerge, the main downside.

The fact that we need centralized servers to be logged into is part of the core problem. If anyone could set up a server, it wouldn't matter what messages Yahoo would forward to where, someone else won't be such a prick.

Re:Step toward the future?

[BinxBolling]

What we really need is a ubiquitous standard like SMTP, for IM. That way, any person can start up their own service, and everyone else could still get the messages.

Such a thing is already on the way. Incidentally, Microsoft's Live Communication Server (which is the basis for this new interoperability) already uses SIP/SIMPLE as the basis for the protocol. From what I've heard, IBM is going in that direction for its next enterprise IM product, too. The standard isn't completely defined, yet, and every vendor has quirks. It's about like HTML was several years ago. But it's coming.

Re:Step toward the future?

[bigpat]

"What we really need is a ubiquitous standard like SMTP, for IM. That way, any person can start up their own service, and everyone else could still get the messages."

Just use SMTP for transport. Put an extension in the header. And code up an IM like client for reading them in an IM window instead of an inbox format. That way anyone can send Instant email messages and if the person does not have a IM enabled client then it will be received as regular email. Treat buddy lists as a seperate service and protocol that can be integrated in the client.

IM is just a specialized email service and should not be a completely seperate and unique protocol. Buddy lists are seperate, but could be treated in a decentralized way by just enabling a ping/ announce messaging for people on your buddy lists.

Re:Step toward the future?

[Igmuth]

Yes, but the problem with that is that you would have to have it connect with the server quite frequently (say 1/second at least).
Many places get upset with > 1/10 minutes..

Re:Step toward the future?

[bigpat]

not a problem, just a requirement. I often send email messages back and forth like IM only the emails show up in my inbox instead of the message body being displayed inline like IM is. So, this wouldn't be much greater than a typical email back and forth conversation.

But you could also just use direct end to end smtp, so that you could modify the email client to start sending direct smtp to the client's host once the initial email handshake was made for IMing.

this would all be very doable and relatively simple, probably just need to narrow down the options a bit and do it, and far more likely than any other alternatives that are being proposed.

Go ahead and read http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.htm l

"Instant messaging differs from email primarily by requiring relatively short delivery latency guarantees and, typically, less robust transport service. In addition, instant messaging includes the notion of presence information so authorized users can determine if their correspondents are available."

I disagree with the first part. There is no assumption that email will be delayed, it is assumed that email will be delivered as soon as possible, this is no different than IM. And if you simply add a standard announcement mechanism, such as the manual email message "are you there" to which you could add an automated responce "yes" which could also contain client information for direct smtp.

Simply, it is foolish to artificially disjoin instant messaging from email when email already provides a globally addressable identifier which can be easily reused.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they say that a simi-monopoly (oligopoly?) works best with 3 main players... Glad to see they are playing a little together.

AOL/Yahoo moving out of Enterprise IM

[j0217995]

I just read recently that Yahoo and AOL were dumping all of their "Enterprise" solutions for instant messaging and chat. Does this go against that?

Re:AOL/Yahoo moving out of Enterprise IM

[drawfour]

Not at all. Microsoft is the company writing the code and selling the product. AOL and Yahoo!, however, get a chunk of change from licensing agreements. They make money and don't have to do anything, just not actively block Microsoft from interoping. I'm sure there's SOME level of work AOL and Yahoo! need to do, but they can focus on the users and not on their Enterprise solutions.

ICQ? Jabber?

[Guardian of Terra]

What will be with ICQ (or it's included into AIM)?
What will happen to jabber now, i wonder? :)

Re:ICQ? Jabber?

[timts]

gaim, trillian already can handle those. well, my friends use all those different things. including some other stuff,which none of gaim/trillian can handle. so I have to live with 2 IM clients now.

Is this good news for Trillian???

[Dissenter]

For years these three have been defeating even the basic initiatives of companies like Trillian, but when the M$ giant steps in they all seem to fall in line. With standards in place for communication like this, does it mean the end of the weekly protocol changes that plague Trillian users? This could work out very nicely indeed.

Open Source versions

[Saven Marek]

Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there.

I think don't you that this kind of thing can be better done by open source means? ok large corporations like say MS and say AIM and any others have so much organising to do they are bound down by bureaucracy. politically Yahoo might not want to mingle with say Apple or somethng, but with open source servers acting as a go between gateway we dont have to worry about getting official tacit approval we can just do it. we have the smartt people who can backwards engineer what these clients need

A world where aim yahoo aol apple talk irc and email all intermingle as if they were the same service?

sounds like a dream come true

the largest adult anime gallery on the net

Scary.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the workplace? Great, integrate 3 different plain text protocols and ask your employees to do business over them.

Competition vs. Conflagration

[grunt107]

I get the need for dominance, which is why interoperability is rarely persued by corporations, but IM itself would be best served as a 'generic' message medium. If it is impossible/difficult to IM 'Bill' 'cuz he uses Yahoo and I use MS, email/phone will normally get the nod.

To use the over-hyped XML paradigm, standard tags would allow every IM vendor to talk with each other. Then more would use IM, allowing the vendors to add features and lower pricing (economy of scale).

Re:Competition vs. Conflagration

[JimDabell]

To use the over-hyped XML paradigm, standard tags would allow every IM vendor to talk with each other. Then more would use IM, allowing the vendors to add features and lower pricing (economy of scale).

The Jabber protocol is based around XML, and is in the process of being standardised by the IETF in the XMPP working group. It's also decentralised, so ISPs can offer their own servers and still have people communicate cross-network.

Unfortunately, that means that the existing heavyweights (AOL, Microsoft, etc) lose a hell of a lot of control, so they are unlikely to support it. I'd expect them to compete with each other until it becomes clear that one is going to win, and then the others will throw their weight behind XMPP.

Re:Competition vs. Conflagration

[Anonymous Coward]

"so ISPs can offer their own servers and still have people communicate cross-network"

I think you hit on something great there. I haven't talked to many people that ever considered ISPs running jabber servers, but that could possibly help to swing things. Imagine if the majority of cox, comcast, and RR users out there could get IM names that matched their email addresses.

No spam jokes, please. I believe most jabber clients allow you to accept messages only from users you've authenticated. Perhaps that's enough incentive to keep the spammers out? (I shudder to think it's that easy, if it caught on they'd probably write worms to message everybody in your jabber roster).

Re:Competition vs. Conflagration

[ttrafford]

Unfortunately, that means that the existing heavyweights (AOL, Microsoft, etc) lose a hell of a lot of control, so they are unlikely to support it.

But what do they lose, really? These companies gain back server time and bandwidth they have been using for essentially free services.

uh oh...

[IGnatius T Foobar]

"This lays the groundwork for instant messaging to become as widespread and useful as e-mail is today," said Taylor Collyer

If it becomes as "widespread and useful as e-mail" then that means I'm going to have spam popping up on my screen every three seconds. Goodbye, Instant Messaging.

In any case, this is all nonsense. AOL, Yahoo, and The Beast should all just implement the server-to-server protocol used by Jabber. It's on the IETF standards track and will eventually be used by everyone who isn't one of those three.

Actually, if one of the big three (probably the smallest of the big three, whichever that is) implemented the protocol, the other two would pretty much have to.

Re:uh oh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo!

Re:uh oh...

[rjstanford]

In any case, this is all nonsense. AOL, Yahoo, and The Beast should all just implement the server-to-server protocol used by Jabber. It's on the IETF standards track and will eventually be used by everyone who isn't one of those three.

While this is true, "those three" still move the vast majority of IM traffic across the 'net. It would be like coming up with a proprietary email system - sure you can do it, but you'd still need gateways to talk to most other people (just like MSFT had for Exchange at first, which probably (guessing here) had a higher userbase than Jabber does).

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't use it, don't get me wrong, just that they're not going to feel much market pressure to do so. At least the first one to shift isn't.

Re:uh oh...

[radisec]

The strength of IM is the ease of real time communication and better signal to noise ratio. You can use Email like IM by sending a message that your recipient has a short reply to and simply continue replying with one another. We see this metaphor in how GMail presents our messages and links the ones with the same subject line.

Email allows someone to communicate with most anyone else who has Email as long as you have their Email address (gotta love that Spam! grrr...). Some providers allow forms of spam filtering including whitelists, blacklists, baysian filtering, automatic deletion of known spammer IPs, etc. Still, some get through so if I see a "You Got Mail" icon on my systray, I do not put as much priority into reading that message because it could be from just about anyone who knows me or just harvested/guessed my Email address.

Now with Instant Messaging, you have the ability to lock down the number of people who can contact you. Yes, you can set Yahoo!, AIM, or ICQ to reject all messages except from people on your contact list. Of course, you might lose messages from some random person not on your list but all major IM protocols (MSN, Y!, AIM, ICQ) have an authorization feature.

When you lock down the number of contacts who can send messages, that signal to noise ratio is extremely nice. Besides, someone sending you an IM should be able to contact you over Email or by phone since most of us don't care to add complete strangers to our contact list!

IM might be a very immediate form of communication that could be abused but atleast I can select the people who are going to be able to abuse it!

-Dan

Normally I'd agree with you on this but...

[garcia]

If you had done some recent reading on the subject you would have seen this.

Jabber already does this and is an open protocol

[josevnz]

Hello to all,

This is welcomed news, but the people at Jabber (http://www.jabber.com) did something like this first. Using a Jabber client you can talk to the three other networks by using an special plugin installed on the server (http://www.jabber.org/user/userguide/).

Also Jabber is a very extensible platform that can be used almost for anything (like System monitoring, for example):

http://www.jabber.org/about/overview.php?PHPSESS ID =2517926c4f71caed9f6bff1af6843dbd

Also as the original poster mentions, Gaim already does this without problems (even when Yahoo decides to change their protocol, which is almost every 6 months :)).

Regards,

Good first step-rendezvous?

[Dibson]

It's about time that these three are at least considering coming together in some manner. Could lead to some more competition and better messengers (I think AOLIM has been getting worse) not to mention the possibility of open protocols. The article doesn't go into much depth - does this at all seem like a corporate version of Apple's Rendezvous?

Re:Good first step-rendezvous?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Apple's Rendezvous is an implementations of ZeroConf, a multicast DNS and network service lookup protocol. Maybe you're confusing this with Apple's iChat which uses Rendezvous to "discover" other iChat clients that are online on your local segment.

This Isn't Anything Revolutionary or New.

[whfsdude]

It's almost exactly like Jabber except I guess a little better. It's just a bunch of transports that sit on a server.

It appears apple is going to do that with ichat. You can connect to a copy of Mac OS X server using the ichat protocol and it can handle ichat and jabber.

This is exactly what they are doing except with more popular protocols.

In general this isn't anything too new, and it's not decentralizing instant message. You still have 3 big companies in charge which I think is very bad and dangerous.

Re:This Isn't Anything Revolutionary or New.

[gral]

It's exactly like Jabber, only AOL, Yahoo, and MSN will provide their protocols, and tell each other when they change the protocols.

This already works in with Jabber, but the devs at Jabber, GAIM, and Trellian have to work together to reverse engineer every time AOL, or Yahoo, or MSN decide to change their protocol.

Now, I have to ask the question, how is this Open Source NOT being innovative? ;-)

it's already done

[Twid]

AOL, MSN, Yahoo, iChat, ICQ, and Jabber are already unified ... in Japan

Net Send

[Anonymous Coward]

If your on windows you can allways just use net send ;)

-Ian

Re:Net Send

[stratjakt]

net send is a source of great fun in an office full of morons.

Name your computer something ominous like "SYSTEM_KERNEL_DAEMON", then do some creative net sends, like:

net send * This machine has performed an illegal instruction and will self destruct in 45 seconds.

etc, etc, and so on.

Hours of fun for the whole family.

Or, when one new employee was fired around here, the next day I named my machine to his login id and sent some:

net send * You cant fire me! You are all fucked now! You'll be sorry!

And watched the panic stricken manager types run up and down the hall screaming "he's in the computer! he's in the computer!".

Aah.. Good times.

Re:Net Send

[agraupe]

Once me and a few friends at school stumbled upon this. My friend did "net send * hi you are gay. have a nice day". After a few minute, heard the tech yell across the library "Blair!!!!!". And that's the story of why the command prompt is now forbidden.

Re:Net Send

[goddess32585]

the tech dept at my school decided to forbid IM programs when they issued everyone with laptops because, of course, they're for academic use only! never mind that since everyone had a laptop, we were now forbidden to have personal computers in our rooms...so anyway, no IM for us. but there was net send, which they couldn't or didn't disable, so they simply forbade any of us to use it. we all ignored it, they attempted to crack down on it, etc. etc. so one evening during study hours, i needed the math hw from my friend and was waiting for her to send me back. ta-da, in walks my counselor. as jenny's msg pops up on my screen.

her: what's that?
me: it's a message from jenny.
her: huh?
me: i needed the math hw, so i net sent her about it.
her: what?
me: *sigh* we had that meeting, remember, when you said anyone using net send would get detention?
her: oh! is that what that is? how do you use it?
me: *proceed to show her the command prompt, etc.*
her: how interesting. ok, well...stop in my office tomorrow to discuss your punishment.
me: ....
*she leaves, i close my door and indulge in some loud and creative swearing*

so that's the story of how i showed my idiot bitch counselor how i was breaking the rules, and how i got detention for using net send.

Mindshare

[eddy]

Why is it that Trillian has such enormous mindshare over Miranda?

Re:Mindshare

[Malnathor]

Miranda requires a slight bit more PC knowlege than Trillian (installing plugins and the like.) I have peers that love Trillian but balk at the sight of my Miranda.

Re:Mindshare

[iamsure]

I'll be honest - I've used both, and while philosophically I leaned towards Miranda, I've given up on it.

Why?

Because on multiple occasions, I've reported bugs with great detail regarding issues with connectivity, and after six releases, the issues never got better.

As it is even today, I can load Trillian or Gaim and have no problem connecting to the four corporate networks, but Miranda WONT. Thats pitiful.

Thats why I switched to GAIM - There are *many* plugins and options I really miss from Miranda, but those don't come close to comparing to the simple issue of protocol support. If I cant chat, I cant use the features (duh).

I'm not alone in it either - the threads I reported my issues in became some of the most-responded-to threads they have.

Yet still no fix months later.

Re:Mindshare

[twiggy]

Trillian gets mindshare over Miranda because it offers a lot of the features that common, every day users want that Miranda doesn't have.

For example, the Miranda webpage says NOTHING about things like File transfer support (does it?), Yahoo! Webcam support, AIM Direct Connect support, multi-user chat support for the various clients, etc...

Re:Mindshare

[LePrince]

Because we all know that Slashdotters are shy with the girls ? :-)

(Mods : this isn't a flamebait, it's supposed (and I say supposed (god I hate imbricated parenthesis)) to be funny)

Re:Mindshare

[VoiceOfRaisin]

this has confused me as well. i used to be a trillian user years ago, until i tried miranda. its better in every way except skinning. is skinning really that important in a messaging program? (its very graphically configurable, just not fully "skinable") miranda is completely free, and open source. and has tons of plugins that do just about anything you could ask for. i guess we gotta keep plugging away about it until more people try it and see for themselves that its better. btw, when aim or others change their protocol and screw these multi clients up. guess who has a fix first? hint: its not trillian..

Re:Mindshare

[Anonymous Coward]

I quick look at the screenshots and perusal of the plugins would have answered most of your questions.

Re:Mindshare

[canon006]

I've used Trillian, Miranda and Gaim and I use Gaim now. Trillian was nice but felt a little awkward coming from the official AIM client(IMHO). Miranda was great but it seems to still be using the TOC protocol for AIM instead of the much more featureful OSCAR. Trillian and Gaim use OSCAR, is there a reason Miranda can't? If they added support for it, I'd probably switch to Miranda on my Windows box, and I know a bunch of other people that would as well.

Re:Mindshare

[twiggy]

Thanks for the tip.. Maybe the makers of Miranda should list such things on the features portion of their website... as a "customer", or whatever you'd want to call me, I want to see the information right in front of me - not to have to research it just to find out if it's what I want - especially when I know of other products that have all those features...

More Features for AIM?

[MCron]

It would seem that through this initiative, if all 3 platforms were merged, they would each get the features of the others. For example, AIM users under this project would be able to finally send offline messages! That would definately be a boost in security vs. having offline messages sent through services like DoorManBot, which while it works wonderfully, does not support encryption.

Then again, would Microsoft really put offline messaging for AIM into their "hub", or would it just get transfered from AIM to Yahoo, wait for the hub to see the AIM user sign on, then tell Yahoo to send it back, where it would send it to the AIM user? I don't know, that seems pretty messy, and considering Microsoft, I doubt this project will result in much more than a basic connection between the three, leaving AIM users without those much-needed improvements

RE: Sounds like a MS version of all the os. ......

[rcamans]

No, not a fancy version, unless the M$ meaning of fancy is bug-ridden, broken, exploit-vulnerable security hazard, MS lock-in crap you definitely do not want.
We would have to wait until at least ver 7.0 for something stable, reliable, open-standard compliant, secure... (note IE is only at 6.0 now, and not there yet.)
As soon as MS announces it, there will be FUD about the open source competition.
Do we really need to go throuogh this again?
I think not.

AIM/ICQ same protocol

[JLavezzo]

AOL merged the AIM and ICQ protocols a year or so ago. If you're usign ICQ, you're really using AIM with a different client.

Re:AIM/ICQ same protocol

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't ICQ still let you send messages to people who are offline? AIM won't let you do that.

Re:Jabber already does this and is an open protoco

[MCron]

I think this post was saying that there will be no need for any other clients, but the native AIM, Yahoo, and MSN clients will be able to connect to this hub, which will take care of the interconnection.

SameTime

[PktLoss]

When I worked for a larger company we all used Lotus SameTime (often called sometime, as in it should work sometime), it worked quite well, and the integration between the client and corporate lists was really usefull.

IM clients are a happy comprimise between the phone and email. A phone nesesarily distracts the contactee from whatever they were doing, while many people only check for email every X minutes. An IM message doesn't have to pull them away from whatevery they are doing, and they can respond at an apropriate moment.

IM clients also provide more granular controll over your status, and display that status to others. With a phone you can answer, check call display and let voice mail handle it, or send all to voice mail. With IM you can be available, busy, do not disturb, away, etc. The fact that this is displayed to others can also allow them to make decisions on wether or not to bother you.

All in all I am glad to see greater acceptance of IM in the workplace

Re:SameTime

[KlaymenDK]

Yeah, ST is noce (I use it too), but it's very strictly for businesses -- in other words completely incompatible with any other IM.

And yes I know it's supposed to be able to talk to AOL, but its doing a less than stellar job at it. I've tried.

Isn't this SOP for Microsoft?

[artemis67]

They're a crafty bunch... if they can't outright dominate a particular market or knock a competitor out of the way, then they'll partner with the competition long enough to get the right momentum and then steamroll them.

If I were Yahoo! and AOL, I'd be VERY concerned that Microsoft was controlling the server software.

Good new for Microsoft

[T-Keith]

Microsoft should stand to gain from this. Since you will no longer have to use the same messenger program as other users, most users will probably start using the one that comes with their system. Most won't bother downloading a new program, even if it's better. I think IE is proof of that.

His name is Root?!

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Gary Larson, "Bummer of a username, Hal."

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

BFD

[krygny]

NOT!

Two reasons:

1. I've never seen anybody in the workplace using IM for anything other than goofing off with friends in another company or elsewhere in the same company.
2. We have phones.

Re:BFD

[TwistedSquare]

I have seen IM used properly for work. It is easier and quicker than e-mail if you want to send a quick message, and it is easier to have short dialogues than e-mail. As for phones, IM is less intrusive (if someone is busy, it doesn't disturb them) and if it's not urgent then IM is just easier.

Re:BFD

[Iphtashu Fitz]

I've never seen anybody in the workplace using IM for anything other than goofing off with friends in another company or elsewhere in the same company.

Many companies are starting to standardize on corporate IM solutions. Where I work we have offices in 5 different states and we standardized on Microsofts corporate IM a while ago. Those of us in the oprations group standardized on Yahoo's IM long before that (for one thing MS doesn't have a linux client). We wouldn't be half as productive without an IM client of some sort since we're constantly trying to communicate with multiple people at different locations, and cell phones don't work well in some of our datacenters.

We have phones.

See above. Cell phones do have their uses but IM works much better when trying to communicate with multiple people, or in noisy environments like datacenters. Cell phone coverage also sucks in many datacenters because of all the interference with all the equipment.

Re:BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

Some airtight arguments you've got there. Okay guys, cancel the project.

Re:BFD

[jafiwam]

MSN is required at my company.

Here's why:

- active/inactive lets you know if someone is at the computer pushing the mouse around. A big step towards knowing what is going on in the company.

- Co-ordinated online training requires the phone to be used, so IM allows communication despite a 4 hour conference call

- IM replaces the "walk around" part of a lot of tasks, scheduling meetings, discussing lunch, etc. That saves a LOT of time.

- Is much easier to use than "paste illegible postit on monitor" so people stop doing that.

- Many users have the same account at home, so people can be reached (mostly just IT) for various resons at home.

- Allows employees to deal with their friends/family without spending money on long distance phone calls.

True, IM does not REPLACE other methods of communication and does promote some fooling around. But we are a small shop and can tell when someone is not doing their job... not like they can hide in amongst 100 other workers doing the same thing.

So for some workplaces, there are good uses for IM.

hey ! hacker !

[nsebban]

Root said (yes, that's his name)

Hey ! That f***ing bast**d has an account on my computer ! And same on my friends' computers...what a powerful hacker he must be !

Re:hey ! hacker !

[brainnolo]

Root said (yes, that's his name)
Hey ! That f***ing bast**d has an account on my computer ! And same on my friends' computers...what a powerful hacker he must be !

Yeah and he must work for Microsoft! He doesn't have an account in *any* Windows box!

Re:hey ! hacker !

[T SPIGOT]

Are you kidding? Not only does he have all those accounts, but there's that whole "survived the data gunshot wounds in the 40's" thing, too.

Re:hey ! hacker !

[CdBee]

not.. Enoch Root?

all your IMs

[jmrobinson]

All your IMs are belong to us...

our work

[Anonymous Coward]

At work here we have an internal jabber server. Free and secure thanks to gaim encryption.

Think of this from the companies perspective

[Zapman]

There are lots of really valid reasons that don't involve big brother for companies to keep an eye on IM communications. First off, I know people in my company who commit financial transactions for the company over IM. It's completely stupid that they do this, but they do it none the less. An audit trail for the company's money is required.

The second thing I can think of is corperate espionage. Companies spend lots of money on products that audit email leaving the company, looking for sensitive documents, key phrases, etc. We really need the same thing for IM, if it's going to be used in a business context for business data.

I'd also love to see a promise that the chanel between me and the person I'm talking to is encrypted. I can do that with email: force TLS encryption from my email gateway directly to theirs.

These are all good things, and don't get to the 'big brother' complaints. Those will be there, and I believe that there will always be a free IM without these auditing requirements for people who don't need them.

Re:Think of this from the companies perspective

[hackman]

GAIM has an encryption plugin that is a little quirky but pretty easy to use. I don't think it's completely bulletproof (there is some "man in the middle" attack it is vunerable to) but overall I've been very happy knowing my conversations are encrypted.

Re:Think of this from the companies perspective

[radish]

There's another reason - the law. For us in the financial industry, all communication have to be logged and archived for x number of years (about 7 I think). This includes email, IM, phones (only certain lines) etc. That's why our firm (currently) bans IM, because they can't reliably log it, and thus would be breaking the law to allow it's use. If this product allows realiable logging, it may just open up a large market for IM vendors.

Re:Think of this from the companies perspective

[slash.dt]

Our firm logs all IM Messages - I think the product is called IM Manager. You need to register on an internal webpage all of your IM accounts you want to use (if you try to use an unregistered one you will not be able to connect) and everytime you start a conversation a message is printed warning you that the conversation is being recorded. Seems reasonable to me - we are in the financial industry too. If I don't want my messages logged, I shouldn't use email/IM at work. There is no automatic right to privacy in the office.

E-mail / Chat "snooping"

[SeanDuggan]

*shrug* I only know of two cases here where people were disciplined for inappropriate emails here. In the firt case (admittedly before I got here), someone was sending out a mildly pornographic dominatrix video of a guy repeatedly getting kicked in the crotch by a lady in high-heeled boots with a subject title of "At least it's less painful than working here." It probably would have passed under the radar if the guy hadn't used the ML-ALL mailing list that included the general.

The other incident, the higher-ups found out due to word of mouth. With everyone talking, it was inevitable that eventually someone would notice. And so his email logs were requested and he was sent off for sensitivity training. *grumble* And then they went on a hyper-politically-correct workplace bent, making everyone remove pictures of wives and girlfriends from cubicle walls for fear that someone might find them offensive. Oh, the joys of federal government work...

Re:E-mail / Chat "snooping"

[eugene ts wong]

What kind of discipline did these guys get? I ask because I'm curious about the rope materials & the knots used. Have you got any pics?

workaround for poor design

[dekeji]

There is no reason at all that IM needs to rely on few corporate giants installing centralized IM hubs. The problem is self-created (out of an attempt to tie users into proprietary services).

The solution is simple: corporations wanting to use IM should take control of their IM infrastructure and install one of the open source IM systems (Jabber, IRC, etc.) on an external server, just like they install their own mail servers. Or they can outsource it to one of many hosting companies that support those services.

Re:workaround for poor design

[hey]

Fer sure. I company can use say: all IM should use XMPP and our server. Problem solved.

This Sentence

[Master of Transhuman]

"Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there."

Who says it will be "fancy"? If it's like other MS software, it will be an incomprehensible, unusable kludge.

Mod this flamebait! Mod me troll! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!

Re:This Sentence

[Slowleggs]

"Mod this flamebait! Mod me troll! Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!"

Well, since you're asking so nice, sure, just hang on...

Re:This Sentence

[Slowleggs]

Oh crap! I posted, can't mod =(

Re:This Sentence

[Master of Transhuman]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Trillian

[Egekrusher2K]

No thanks, I'll stick with trillian. It works, and it works well. Plus, it's free. Can't beat that. Also, it's not tied in to a centralized server like this POS, so you don't have to worry about your company spying on all of your IM conversations.

Yeah, we really need something else for the workplace that allows them to spy on us.

IM very important to our business

[kindbud]

That's why we run a private Jabber server accessible across our private WAN.

Open Source NOT Innovative

[gral]

Jabber protocol has allowed these types of transports for a while. It is Open. Can be put on YOUR server and still work semlessly with the rest of the Jabber community.

Nice to know MS can make innovative steps that OS just copies. Good Keynote their boys.

Something Like IRC?

[fiftyvolts]

IRC is pretty much exactly what your talking about, except that it has a host of additional features and already exists. The standard is wide open and available; it's just that no one has made a client (at least one that I've seen) that behaves like AIM

It's not an unreasonable idea, but then again 12 year old AOLers is not what I want to see on IRC.

Re:Something Like IRC?

[magefile]

How about Gaim? That's pretty much an AIM clone. Wouldn't take more than five minutes to write an extension to have the buddylist do a periodic "/whois buddy1 /whois buddy2" and set up a privmsg. Heck, it probably already does that.

Re:Something Like IRC?

[fiftyvolts]

heh, serves me right for not checking first.

Re:Something Like IRC?

[rj4x]

check out Fire, or Converation (for os x).... behave exactly like a multi-user aim chat window,

Encrypt your messages

[Pastis]

use gaim-encryption or any other similar product.

Re:Encrypt your messages

[sp0rk173]

which works great if you friend has the same plugin, otherwise it doesn't work at all, and your messages are still sent plain-text. I really wish all IM clients would include encryption support. It can't be that much development overhead, right?

Re:Encrypt your messages

[Pastis]

- gaim-encryption tells you if the other side has encryption capabiltiies. If I send something encrypted, and the other one hasn't the plugin, I don't think it is sent in plain text.
- encryption is regulated (and forbidden in some countries)

Help I've been locked in by Microsoft!

[TXP]

I want to use one application from them and now apparently when I try to close MSN messager I can't unless I shut down the first application. "There are other applications currently using features provided by MSN messenger, You must close these other applications before you can exit MSN Messenger. These applucations may include Outlook, Outlook Express, MSN, MSN Explorer, Internet Explorer and Three Degrees." Someone please help me uninstall this virus from my computer! Wait a second didn't microsoft lose a court case saying they couldn't do this sort of crap already once? Looks like its business as usual to me.

MS has been using jabber for years

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like jabber to me (what with the transports and "special ms software") and the reason I think that is that MS has been using jabber for it's internal IM system for years.

I did a phone interview for the jabber folks a few years ago and the subject came up. MS is one of the bigger customers. MSN messenger just isn't good enough for their needs (at least is wasn't then). And now that the IETF has gone and made jabber 2 their fav for next gen interoperable IM it makes sense that this is what's going on.

So I see this happening 2 ways: MS stole a whole bunch of GPL'd jabber 2 code to implement this, or they coded their own thing up from scratch. In either case, you're probably better off just using a free implementation of Jabber 2 that you can inspect for trojan naughtiness than go with a closed reimplementation of the same darned thing that could be sending keyword matched IM's back to redmond so they can steal your idea. And buggy at that.

All secuity is based on trust and here's an instance where the open 'alternative' is actually the original. There is absolutely ZERO benefit to using this closed implementation of an established open source project.

IM Spam

[fiftyvolts]

I'm already getting AIM spam. Every night I get home from work to find 5 or 6 messages asking me if I want to Get Better Mortgage Rate.

Of course I block them, but lately I get this pang of fear that I will hit my max number of screen names blocked >_<

Re:IM Spam

[Uart]

I already did hit it... its awful. Then I stopped blocking them. They never IM you with the same name twice anyway, so why bother?

Re:IM Spam

[IDIIAMOTS]

Does AIM have an option to automatically block messages from anyone not on your buddy list? MSNIM does (by default) and if there is IM spam on that network, I certainly don't get any of it.

Re:IM Spam

[AnyoneEB]

Yes, in AIM you can set it so only people on your buddy list can IM or so only people on your whitelist can IM you (I think that means up to 400 whitelisted between the two, but I've never used either feature).

Re:IM Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

man if the only im spam i was geting was Morgage rate spam i'd be annoied and afraid too.. I mean they're not even giving you all the porno spam ims? what do they think you're some kinda asexually reproducing slug? well, at least I get the porn IM spam.. have been for 4-5 years now... thank god i'm not stuck closing windows on the morgage rate spam ims... yet...

I can't believe

[ipb]

Any responsible corporation would use this.

It's irresponsible to allow employees to use a third party IM system for corporate business. Especially one over which they have no control. Just imagine all the wonderful corporate info flying around unprotected.

If I were a CEO and someone proposed linking like this I'd have their head on a platter.

An internal system like Jabber is the only way to go.

Jabber does this

[wurp]

At least as far as it is possible to do what you're saying, Jabber does it. You can't communicate to anyone on Yahoo unless you yourself have a Yahoo ID, so Jabber makes you get one. Once you have a Yahoo ID or an ID on any other IM, Jabber lets you message to anyone on that IM directly from your Jabber account. It uses *exactly* the kind of aim:david address that you're talking about, using xml.

Until you get the IM services to accept a universal namespace and messages from another system, Jabber is as good as it gets.

Re:Jabber does this

[Kiryat Malachi]

The point is that the holy grail is just that: an AIM user sending a Yahoo user a message without having to get a Yahoo account.

Kinda the same way a Cingular user can text message a Verizon user without buying a Verizon phone.

Re:Jabber does this

[Jahf]

You don't pay for a Yahoo, AIM or ICQ address. Very different model. Especially when you pay to receive messages on those phones.

If you could get free SMS reception (and yes, you pay for it, even if it is $4.99/month for unlimited) by signing up with each of the major carriers for a free account and then run a low-impact server somewhere to translate between the networks, would you? Alot of the more geekly folk here would.

There are a lot of Holy Grails out there apparently. This one seems to be pretty low on the list.

Re:Jabber does this

[NaDrew]

The point is that the holy grail is just that: an AIM user sending a Yahoo user a message without having to get a Yahoo account.

As long as IM accounts remain free and easy to obtain, and multi-protocol clients continue to exist, the grail is somewhat less than holy. Yes, it'd be nice to use my AIM account to talk to a friend on Yahoo or MSN. Until then, I just have one of each and use Trillian.

Re:Jabber does this

[Kiryat Malachi]

What about those of us who don't like the available multi-protocol clients? What about those of us who don't want to have multiple accounts, but would occasionally see a use in having an account with another service?

Really, there *is* incentive to allow this - the theoretical reason for IM to be free is that the ads in the official clients support it monetarily. Official clients are not multi-protocol. Right now, AOL loses money (ad views) when someone wants to be able to message both AOL and MSN at the same time, because they stop using the official client. If they implemented a gateway, most people wouldn't feel particularly inclined to grab a multi-protocol client, and many would stick with the official client. (Note: many meaning many IM users, not many /.ers - this is a very different crowd from that majority).

Eventually inter-network communication is going to happen. The resistance is just silly at this point.

Leave those lists alone! [n/t]

[Anonymous Coward]

All in all it's just another pure-lisp function call.

all you need is a intermediary

[nihaopaul]

wouldn't it be good for somone to setup a site and software to bring all accounts to one, all they would need is somthing to act similary to the servers used by AIM, YIM, MSN and have a site that would manage all these accounts with one, of course you'd have to sign up to them but! you could configure your favorite client to connect to this multiserver! and once logged on the server would use your credentials you signed up with to log you into all these other accounts automatically and route them to your one client... all you need is a mirc and the socket script (j/k) my peas in the pod

What about the older 'more instant' messaging?

[billsf]

The far older Unix talk, write and even mail still work the best. Understandably UDP can be hard to set up on limited "Internet" connections and most don't have their own MTA anymore. However this is all interoperatable and often p2p. Even mail used on the commandline is faster than any of the popular IM services, if you (or your company) have a MTA.

If you can't figure out how to make it work over NAT or are stuck with DHCP, get a shell account. Even in the clear, it is presumably more trusted than dealing with large companies. On a common trusted server, its all encrypted anyways. Its worked for me long before any IM services existed and its always nicer to use the commandline, though clickity-click scripts could be developed.

The problem with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am a security consultant for financial services firms, and I have written a secure messaging product for that market.

The problem with this is that security is not a part of the equation when it comes to interoperability. They should hold off until the Liberty Alliance/Federated identity/Passport stuff gets fleshed out more thoroughly. If you think email viruses and spam suck, just wait until you see what happens with the IM equivalent.

email

[Johnny Mnemonic]

This scenario and confusion is what email would have been like if standards weren't set and available for free use--imagine only being able to send an email to someone with the same service.

Instead, the selfless designers of internet protocols gave away their idea such that it could be implemented by anyone anywhere, and email is a valuable tool.

Compared to the greedy bastards that are trying to "own" IM, so the end result is that IM is barely more than a toy.

Re:email

[KMitchell]

imagine only being able to send an email to someone with the same service

Imagine it? Some of us lived it. Then things got "better" in the early '90s and you could gateway mail between services by hand:

http://www.nelson.planet.org.nz/faqs/Updated_Int er -Network_Mail_Guide

oh, now THAT's brilliant. Microsoft as gatekeeper?

[Locutus]

Are these guys as stupid or what. Didn't the MSFT/Sun Micro "agreement for Java give them a recent and visible indiactor or how much Microsoft can be trusted?

If there is any way Microsoft can control such a system, it is just plain stupid to continue. That is , if the other vendors( Yahoo and AOL ) want to have anything to do with IM in the future.

BTW, this is exactly how I felt when I learned Sun licensed JAVA to Microsoft.... These MBA's are just plain idiots IMHO.

LoB

Wow! It's email

[Anonymous Coward]

So, let me get this straight -- The IM clients will send a message to a server, and that server will deliver the message to another IM client. OMG, it's almost just like......email.

Let's design it so that it's very insecure and easy to spam.

Does your boss let you IM?

[missing_boy]

My friends working in American hi-tech companies in Canada aren't even allowed to use SSH, and anything that requires changing the registry (in their stupid Windows machines) requires a visit from the IT-guru.I doubt they'll be able to use instant messengers.

Granularity

[ear1grey]

IM clients also provide more granular control over your status.

A few years ago I saw similar granularity of availability in a Telephone product called TeamPhone, which used a Java applet to enable desktop based call routing (to desk/answerphone/mobile/colleague etc), there wasn't any IM integration at the time, but things may be different now.

IM is just email

[bigpat]

IM is just email with a different user interface. The only difference as far as protocols is concerned is the content of the messages, otherwise the addressing and content packaging are the same.

IM is just an old aol marketing trick and not a unique technology. Email is already a compatible and open protocol, which just lacks a suitable user interface for IM like interaction. The problem being that nearly everyone is using web mail accounts controlled by the very same people that use IM as a proprietary tool for controlling their users. They have no interest in making their user interfaces for email compatible with IM like interaction.

So far the thrust of open source efforts have been at either making a compatible AOL/MSN/Yahoo compatible client or at replacing IM with an open protocol. In the first case this is a mistake because these companies can block access at will to any clients that "hack" into their proprietary system, so any pursuit along those lines will only be allowed in so far as it doesn't contradict any of their business objectives. The latter approach is a waste of time, since the infrastructure for email is already in place and could be more easily expanded upon rather than trying to reinvent an entire communications architecture from scratch and trying to get people to use it. People are already using email and it provides all the facilities for addressing and transport of messages. All that is lacking would be to agree to a standard header field that could be used for IM format.

Sure there are other parts of the IM experience that are lacking from standard email, such as buddy lists and such, but I contend that these should be considered as seperate services. Or could easily be layered on top of email, for instance, an autoreply could be built into the client for messages with certain header values and from certain people, thus providing a pingability for buddy lists...

This would best be done as a mozilla project.

Umm, no, it sounds like a deeply evil jabber

[Anonymous Coward]

server.

Re:oh, now THAT's brilliant. Microsoft as gatekeep

[Anonymous Coward]

If Sun didn't allow MS to license Java, Everybody would be up in arms over Sun not allowing a decent programming language for a dominate platform.

Time to look for another IM client

[brunokummel]

the most difficult part in changing the client is to convice all my friends to change the IM with me and not just them but also the friends of my friends, the friends of the friends of my friends, and so on...

Too bad (since ICQ is very popular in Brazil).
But everytime Microsoft steps on something seems to wreck it. ( or turn it evil if you will =D )
What surprises me is AOL (who has sued Microsoft in the past and apparently Netscape's owner. The same Netscape who, in the past, has helped the open source community with Mozilla , ) joining Microsoft on this project, relaying the network on MS and having the guts to say that this will the best for the users!

Think for a minute here, if they decide to change or to create a new protocol for their so-called Middleware, the open-source users will be locked out of this IM(at least for a while). Since Microsoft means "I-dont-want-you-to-see-my-crappy-code - source".

This might be a small step for IM users, but is a HUGE step back for the Open-source community.

MSN Priorities?

[Terragen]

Shouldn't MSN work on figuring out how to send offline messages like ICQ has been able to do for years?

Sure you can go jump through hoops and crank out an email but if we're going to be that backwards couldn't MSN at least automatically send an email from whatever you type in the window?

There's nothing more annoying than losing a message because someone went offline / net problems.

Also on a side note - why is it that (my copy at least) MSN won't log history until you close the window? If I get some messages and the computer crashes (thanks microsoft) at least my ICQ messages are still there waiting for me when I reboot.

Oh wait I forgot MSN has pretty pictures!! Form over function!!! :D

Live Communications Server?

[Joe5678]

Although the article had just about zero details. My guess would be that Microsoft has simply convinced Yahoo and AOL (read: give big piles of cash to) to connect to the already existing Microsoft Live Communications Server.

I *think* that Live Communications Server uses "Session Initiation Protocol" which I *think* is a public standard. I would guess that, theoretically any IM client could implement it and connect to Live Communications Server. Although that is purely speculation, there might be licensing fees associated with SIP or Microsoft might have "adjusted" the standard in their own special way.

So why does Microsoft *want* Yahoo and AOL to integrate with Live Communications Server you ask? Probably because Microsoft's IM market share is so small that nobody really wants to use Live Communications Server. And really, there is not much money in basic instant messaging. However, at $700 for the server, and then an additional $25 per user on the server, there is a lot of money in Live Communications Server.

We recently installed the trial version and it's crap. The only real thing it gives over basic instant messaging is the ability to archive all messages on the server, which is a necessity for some business. Although they don't give you any way to search through archived messages, it's just a SQL database full of records. Not exactly worth $25 per person.

Re:Live Communications Server?

[muonzoo]

I *think* that Live Communications Server uses "Session Initiation Protocol" which I *think* is a public standard[1]. I would guess that, theoretically any IM client could implement it and connect to Live Communications Server. Although that is purely speculation, there might be licensing fees associated with SIP or Microsoft might have "adjusted"[2] the standard in their own special way.

• [1] RFC3261: The Session Initiation Protocol -- Indeed it is an open standard. You can buy phones and many other cool devices that use SIP.
• [2] True, it is a little tweaked. Mostly in that the MESSAGE messages are a bit odd in the MSFT implementation and they don't conform to RFC 3265 as well as they could, but they were an early implementation; and as such much of the standards were still being hashed out.

Selling ice to eskimos... er, idiots?

[kkovach24]

Why the hell is it that people think they need to be in bed with Microsoft to get anything done. This kinda thing could have been done by many other groups long before now if AOL, Yahoo!, etc... would just get their heads out of their asses.

Listen to Robert, you idiots!

- Kevin

ah.

[DaveJay]

Well, at least now we know exactly why Y! and AIM have fought to prevent other clients from using their services.

Sigh. And a half.

SameTime + Jabber

[David McBride]

Another solution: cheat. There exists a Jabber server backend for Sametime; simply install your own jabber server, install the backend then use that as a bridge.

However, things appeared to have moved on -- a quick google search picked up this:

http://www.jabber.org/jsf/sametime-demo.php

Nice, although it'll require support from the ST server admins.

And EveryBuddy is King Arthur?

[leonbrooks]

I wonder who's carrying the coconut halves?

I stilll say BFD

[swb]

- active/inactive lets you know if someone is at the computer pushing the mouse around. A big step towards knowing what is going on in the company.

A big step towards nothing except petty micromanagement. Just because I'm in my office and moving my mouse doesn't mean that I want to talk to you or that I'm available.

IM replaces the "walk around" part of a lot of tasks, scheduling meetings, discussing lunch, etc. That saves a LOT of time.

In my world we have something that lets us schedule meetings for a whole bunch of people and a conference room all at the same time. Using IM for scheduling means IMing the whole group of people, and Murphy's law indicates that the last one will break the schedule the N previous agreed to. As for "walking around", gee, it's nice to get a little human contact now and again.

- Is much easier to use than "paste illegible postit on monitor" so people stop doing that.

Another killer business problem solved. I think Harvard Business School is calling, they'd like you to lecture on the business hazards of monitors and post-its.

- Many users have the same account at home, so people can be reached (mostly just IT) for various resons at home.

It's called a cell phone, and it even works when you're not at home.

- Allows employees to deal with their friends/family without spending money on long distance phone calls.

It's called "personal business." Usually a good idea to do it on your own time. But we are a small shop and can tell when someone is not doing their job... not like they can hide in amongst 100 other workers doing the same thing.

If IM status is your idea of performance management, you've got to be kidding.

So for some workplaces, there are good uses for IM.

I'm still waiting for the first one.

WebMessenger

[ksiddique]

I use WebMessenger Mobile Platform and it works rather well. I IM people on AIM, YM, MSN, and ICQ (must have an account set up on each service). The great thing is that it works on my desktop as well as my BlackBerry. And there are also clients for Palm and PocketPC.

Handy little app.

Could be good for Gaim regardless...

[Maugrim_The_Reaper]

I can see it now - Gaim working on all networks without being stymied by changes in Yahoo protocols...:) Would be a good thing if it worked that way, afterall how often could MS be forced into updating this middleware because of Yahoo? I also agree it's different to Gaim - it's less likely to be aimed at Joe Bloggs from what I read...

Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Google,

Many of my fellow slashdotters and I are patiently awaiting your unannounced release of your new Google Instant Messenger. Please release it as soon as possible.

Thanks,
Anonymous Coward

Re:oh, now THAT's brilliant. Microsoft as gatekeep

[polyp2000]

I read somewhere a while back, that Sun were going to open source java
going to open source java

Or was that before Microsoft and Sun slept together?

Nick ...

I have seen the future...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and it is called MAOLY!

In other news, maoly.sf.net project request in 5...4...3...

What It Really Sounds Like

[sabat]

Sounds like a fancy version of all the open source IM clients out there.

Actually, it sounds more like the IM gateways on a Jabber server.

I believe it is IMlogic, not Microsoft's tech

[studpuppy]

Actually, I believe that the gateway between Microsofts' Live Communcations Server 2005 and the AIM & Y! networks is actually from IMlogic (www.imlogic.com)

Yahoo News has a release today from IMLogic directly speaking to this, and IMlogic (as well as Facetime and Akonix) have been active in this corporate "policy management for IM" space for a while.

What is really interesting is the comments by Microsoft that they will use SIP/SIMPLE to interface with AOL and Y!, but alluding to continuing to use a proprietary or closed interface to MSN. This would mean an AIM client on a corporate desktop still wouldn't be on par with an LCS client in terms of cross-connectivity. Does this mean that AOL and Yahoo! are giving up on owning desktop real-estate?

When AOL dropped their own Enterprise IM system, they announced plans to transition current AOL EIM customers to the IMlogic solution (even though their original product was based on Facetime technology under the covers!).

I thought irc is unified enough ...

[dindi]

I do not know, I might live in the stone ages, but for me IRC is still the standard IM.
What we would need is just an authenticated IRC, so you could have your screen name left alone.

NO one implemented channels the way IRC did, and that is the most kick-ass feature of all IM messaging .

Videoconference? flashy html messages? animated smileys? sending pictures right into my face ?
I mean people ! seriously, send an URL, do not waste bandwidth , talk text ...

ahm yes I use AIM too, and use less IRC, but it is all because of my technically disabled business partners who cannot type /server irc.blablabla.com /msg dindi

in new clients you do not even have to type (just the message)

you have encryption, dcc chat, whatever you want ...

ahm even better: YOU can set up your IRC server in the workplace (even for remote workers over an encrypted tunnel)

than no BIG BROTHA is reading your "hey we have to do some cosmetics on our tax report" company messages ...

I am amazed how many companies are IM-ing sensitive information unencrypted over MSN/AOL/YAHOO ... including passwords and stuff ...

NAP

[nusratt]

Not A Problem.

Host the MS code in a VM, slap a proxy on each side of it (or even just a Hosts / port redirect), and Wahlah, Bob's your uncle.
No more platform restriction or only-in-the-office issues.

Your move.

"anyone anywhere" is here today

[nurb432]

This has been done in effect, if you use a client that supports multiple networks...

There are plenty of choices to do this, and while it may not be the same as integrating the actual networks at a low level, from the users point of view its close enough...

Now, if the big 3 would stop changing the their protocols everytime the wind blows...

unified...

[unics]

emerge gaim

Indiatimes Messenger Does Something Similar

[pdp0x14]

You can set up a "conference room" in Indiatimes Messenger that lets people from different networks communicate with each other. Of course, you are watching and you have to invite the participants specifically.

It's a simple download like the other services.

Strong encryption is a must-have

[krisamico]

I will never use AIM or any similar technology for business as long as conversations are still carried in-the-clear. I try not to ever chat for any reason without public key crypto because you do not have to be specifically targeted for your conversations to be recorded. I could not find any information as to whether or not the consortium responsible for this "new technology" had plans to do this. Anyone have any information?

Converge the protocols, diverge the media

[naily]

When will they learn? The essential power of IM is not just in the current text medium, but in its potential as a multimedia realtime browser. See iChat for a glimpse into the future.

You see who is currently online (the realtime bit), then decide on how you want to interact: voice, video or text. Easy-peasy. Except 1. it's part of AIM and 2. AIM on PCs doesn't do vid or voice.

So once again, it's the big boys trying to carve up their own piece of the internet. IT'S NOT REAL ESTATE, IT'S VIRTUAL ESTATE!

Sound to good to be true?

[JessLeah]

Sound to good to be true?

No. It sounds too good to be true.

It's not perfect until...

[SnoBall]

It includes Internet Relay Chat as part of the package.

none of them do what business's need

[Archfeld]

There are several enterprise solutions already nicely occupying that niche. Why on God's green and blue planet would ANYONE, even a PHB, even consider AOL IM or MSN as a possible corporate solution ? They have shaky network performance, lack any real security, zero digital cert capabilities, and the proven track record of not one, two, but THREE mismanaged, insecure, and venal companies, all willing to shoot them shelves in the leg for a few pennies as we've seen them do. What makes anyone think they wouldn't shiv any company foolish enough to depend on them.

IBM Lotus Notes

[JimmyG13]

Corporations that utilize Lotus Notes (the best email client in my opinion) have had this ability for years. It is called sametime. It is a secure local messaging system that at one time supported AIM as well with outside contacts. The messages are tracked, but it allows for virtual "white board" discussions. Pretty cool tool.

A solution to a known problem?

[sparkster812]

When I was working for my college Help Desk, we frequently used AIM to chat between Help Desk employees in one building with the Computer Center employees in another building. It's a great tool to have instead of trying to jot down notes from the admins over the telephone, and you can easily save things to share with others or keep for future reference.

The biggest problem was that we used to have frequent campus-wide problems because AOL's servers would lock us out when we attempted too many connections from our IP address. If we got disconnected from our ISP, every computer that was set to auto-reconnect [a great default option, AOL, seriously] would start trying to log in and in a matter of minutes everyone was receiving the "You are attempting to sign on again too soon" error message, even if you hadn't been connected previously or trying to sign on. There were times it took over an hour or more to be able to reconnect to AOL's network.

I wonder if something like this would allow the services to function on the internal network if the connection to the ISP is lost. It does have potential to be highly useful in a situation like ours. Of course there are other clients that can do this, but who wants to bother with those or using obnoxious pop-up Windows messages? And that of course leaves out systems that aren't running Windows.

Alternatives

[Cybrr]

BitWise and Shinkuro. They're secure and private, too.

btw

[Anonymous Coward]

Trillian > Gaim. It isn't open source, but its still better.

best of both worlds

[d34thm0nk3y]

Well, perhaps MS will cause the services to standardize on a protocol which could be reverse engineered to make an open client.

Source tech for Microsoft's IM server product...

[Anonymous Coward]

Source technology for Microsoft's IM server product comes from this company.

When did GAIM get a windows version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember wanting to download Gaim because Trillian has stability issues, but at the time it was windows only. When did a windows version come along?

I just saw it...

[Dr. Cody]

AOL-Yahoo-MSN Unified

Man I'd hate to see the baby

It was in Eraserhead, if I recall correctly.

Re:oh, now THAT's brilliant. Microsoft as gatekeep

[Locutus]

I don't believe "everyone" would be "up in arms", though quite a few. But big deal, those would only be the naive, the newbies, or the lemmings who feel Microsoft is greatest thing since the bread slicer. The fact is, Microsoft knew from day one that it was not going to actually play the game( license ) Sun had in mind. Sun should have known this too and said the heck with Microsoft and embarked on a mission to pre-install Java on as many shipping PC's as possible.

Sure, Netscape would still have been targetted, so would Coopers&Peters, DimensionX, etc. But, Java on the desktop would be far more of a reality than it is today. IMHO.

Any deal, license, or business plan with Microsoft which does not include the product/service owners walking away with cash in hand and Microsoft with the goods, is a bad deal for said product/service owners. The Coopers&Peters and DimensionX deals were great for the company owners and investors because Microsoft purchased the company and trashed product. But, the owners/investors walked away filty rich. That right there shows that Microsoft is NOT out to HELP THE CUSTOMERS and make money doing it. They sell the perception of customer support and customer awareness. Nothing more. IMHO.

Anyway, the only way Sun or any business can or should deal with Microsoft is with regard to the complete sale and purchase of product or service. Otherwise, Microsoft is going to do everything possible to disembowel said company when they decide they want that market or feel it could threaten the MS Windows/Office monopoly. IMHO.

LoB

this article got me thinking

[mattyrobinson69]

i haven't done any programming for a while. When i get some time, im going to see how feasable it is to write an instant messenging system (with asyncronous encryption) that can work without a server, like p2p. If it wasn't for authentication it wouldn't need a server at all. Any ideas would be great.