Slashdot Mirror
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."
Jabber is the holy grail of the IM.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
My $0.02 ... Nate
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.
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?
For the workplace? Great, integrate 3 different plain text protocols and ask your employees to do business over them.
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).
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
- 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
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.
Zapman
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.
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?
Scott Carr
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.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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.
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.
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.
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