Slashdot Mirror
It's Time To Take Back Instant Messaging
Enigma5O writes "The TechZone says the world of instant messaging is a disjointed mess, and it's time for a citizen's revolt. From the article: "The obstacles in this case are three big companies: AOL, Yahoo! and Microsoft. Each wants to keep their networks closed, thereby forcing consumers to use their brand of software and effectively using their size to eliminate competition. Five years ago, Yahoo! and Microsoft were calling for then-leader AOL/ICQ to open their network to allow others to compete. They even successfully petitioned the FCC to restrict AOL's future developments before approving the AOL/Time Warner merger. When it was convenient for their business goals, Microsoft and Yahoo! waved the interoperability flag, but now that both companies have built substantial IM communities with their own closed networks, they have lost their passion for open networks.""
How do you take back something you never owned in the first place?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Which is why I like to use Trillian. It's pretty convenient, and you don't have to have 3 separate programs. It works well with AIM, MSN, Yahoo, and a host of other protocols/clients/whathaveyou.
The free version is good, but if you're willing to fork up $25, then the Pro version is worth it as well.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Add Skype to the list, for there are many people who use it as an IM app. It would be great if we could unify the different protocols and have one big IM network. I, for one, hate to need different accounts here and there to be able to talk to my friends.
Global warming is a cube.
Go peer-to-peer, using each other's IP address.
To discover someone's IP address, just e-mail your contacts a special message from which their IM will update it's table of address. Polling will check whether one is available or not.
Yes, it's time to take back our IM!!!
Its a big business conspiracy to become an uncompetitive monopoly. Just like GM, Ford and Dodge have a monopoly on U.S. Produced cars, Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have a complete monopoly on IM services. Just look at how much they charge for their monopoly service!
This guy is totally right. Instead of these 3 expensive monopoly services, we should instead switch to one single service that we know is far more competitive than three monopolies. It is wonderful that he's so unselfish, I'm sure the time he spends working on his company's (check the link on that tirade) software is donated.
While we're breaking down the IM monopoly, we should also tear drop the fruit monopoly that all those grocery stores have, and just grow and share fruit amongst each other in a free and open way. Come by the farm I work for, get a free orange while you peruse our other items for sale. Screw big bad grocery stores! My company gives away oranges!
There's no problem here. This guy is posing his rant in order to generate interest in his company to better secure his job. We should make every car part interoperable between manufacturers, and make every TV the same size so that everyone sees the same picture. I'm sure it won't stifle development.
Microsoft and Yahoo! waved the interoperability flag, but now that both companies have built substantial IM communities with their own closed networks, they have lost their passion for open networks.
Well duh! Microsoft definitely doesn't care about openness except when it benefits them (and only while it benefits them). Both companies want a larger share of the market, they're willing to do anything to get it (even to form a temporary alliance to wage war against their enemy). I doubt this comes as a surprise to anyone really. Justice would be to force them both to open their networks or to be forced to suffer limitations in development. Unfortunately, Microsoft in particular again, justice seems to be something they're good at avoiding.
But does anybody really use IM progrmas when they could just use email?
jabber
I think that we can expect interoperability to take a much greater role in the next few years as the number of net users with an instant messenger increases. The number of users that have an IM account today is huge; I don't think I know a single person with Internet access who doesn't.
Typically someone looking to choose a network will want what their friends (etc.) use, which poses a problem for the major networks; once somebody's entrenched within a network, it's very difficult to convince them to switch. Client 'A' may offer some new form of user picture, or so on, but the end user is unlikely to make the switch unless they can convince most of their friends to make it too.
What the networks would love is for people to make an impulse switch. If they can guarentee a user that they'll still be able to contact all their friends, as existing pan-network clients such as Trillian or Adium do today, then the likelyhood of a user making a spur of the moment choice is far greater.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
One major problem is that people tend to have their "IM Cliques". Meaning that some people (and their friends) usually have a preferred client. They usually don't want to switch over to anything else, because their friends are all on AOL/AIM/MSN/Yahoo!. One solution is like Trillian which consolidates everything into one interface. The other suggestions made by the article are good, but I still think it would be a little hard to migrate people from their "cliques" over to something new.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Wow, this article is right on the money, what with Microsoft and Yahoo announcing that they're going to link their IM networks.
We can call it...
Internet Relay Chat
It will be HUGE
Join the Federation To Take Back IM!
Today the world of instant messaging (IM) is a disjointed mess, and it's time for a citizen's revolt. Like many people, I use IM throughout the day for business and personal communications. It's maddening when I want to send an IM to a user only to realize that they're unreachable because they happen to be on a different network. IM should function like email or the phone system where one address/number lets you communicate with everyone.
The obstacles in this case are three big companies: AOL, Yahoo! and Microsoft. Each wants to keep their networks closed, thereby forcing consumers to use their brand of software and effectively using their size to eliminate competition. Five years ago, Yahoo! and Microsoft were calling for then-leader AOL/ICQ to open their network to allow others to compete. They even successfully petitioned the FCC to restrict AOL's future developments before approving the AOL/Time Warner merger. When it was convenient for their business goals, Microsoft and Yahoo! waved the interoperability flag, but now that both companies have built substantial gay IM communities with their own closed networks, they have lost their passion for open monogomy.
There's no technical reason IM systems can't all work together, and consumers should pressure the big three to make this a reality. The only thing preventing interoperability from happening is consumer actions. To begin mobilizing consumers I started the IM Federation - an initiative designed to encourage use of open standards and open directories.
Recently, Google announced their intention to federate their new IM network with SIPphone and Earthlink. Although it's not yet in effect, it's a positive step. Now we need consumers to take action to put pressure on the big three to open their networks.
Here's how you can help:
1) Use an open standard-based IM software like Gizmo Project.
There are several good Jabber based IM clients such as Gizmo Project, GAIM, iChat, and the nifty web-based Meebo. By using one of these software programs, you can communicate with anyone on any gay Jabber-based system - you are not restricted to just one system. You simply have to include the other user's entire address (such as user@IMnetworkName.com), similar to how you would address an email message. You will even see the online and away status of the user even though they are on another network, so you'll always know when they are available. This makes it possible for the world to communicate seamlessly.
Disclaimer: Gizmo Project is the VOIP my company SIPphone develops for high-quality PC-to-PC calls and low-cost bumsex to any phone. It now supports Jabber, an open standard for IM. This means you can IM any other Gizmo Project user and anyone on an open directory
2) Use an open directory for your Instant Messaging service which agrees to freely connect with others.
Unlike MSN, Yahoo!, and AOL, which are islands, there are more than 100 IM networks that permit other directories to send messages to their users. This means consumers are not locked into one service, but instead can choose the one that is best suited to their needs but still communicate with users on other networks. MSN, Yahoo! and AOL are locked into the proprietary mentality, wanting to keep everyone walled off from others instead of letting them connect to anyone. Make sure you're using a network that has an open directory policy.
Note: Google Talk has promised to open their directory, but has not yet implemented this policy.
3) Consider using Jabber as your corporate IM solution with an open directory.
Linspire recently implemented its own corporate IM system and selected Jabber (they previously used AOL). With the new Jabber server, Linspire employees have complete control of their IM network and can allow connections from other Jabber networks. There are many quality servers, and most have handy features - like saving a corporate roster on the server that is immediately loaded for all
I have used GAIM with Yahoo & MSN. The only thing I don't like about it is that
with Yahoo Messenger you can sign in as invisible - but this option doesn't seem
to be there with GAIM. Does Trillian support this?
Really, why should I want this? Do we feel handcuffed because one friend likes to chat on Yahoo! and the other likes MSN?
Personally, I love the fact that I have both. I have my work contacts (I work from home) all on MSN, along with a few friends that I know won't just jabber at me constantly as I try to work. My friends are all on my Yahoo!, and they can see me pretty much anytime.
I don't have to have log out of one account to log into the other. I have both.
And I like it that way.
Geez, all this whining about proprietary half-assed IM networks. Show people how to use irc! They can use it with GAIM or any other various GUI client. (Or text if they prefer.) It's been around for decades, anyone can run a server, there are a multitude of clients on every platform, and it's entirely open. You can transfer files, and even have stupid graphical smileys and sounds if you want (or filter them if you don't).
Seriously, if people want an "open IM network", fire up an irc server, give everyone GAIM or Google Messanger, and be done with the AOL angst.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
More to the point 95% of those on the internet not only don't give a damn but don't even know any of this. people are stupid, they don't realize that they have a choice. thats why people develop their 'im cliques' (see below, another comment). people don't realize because people are content. it works. the fact they use windows is probably evidence of this as well...
I always wondered where this setting was...
They want to keep their networks closed? If that's the case theyre doing about as good a job of it as they are at securing windows. The myriad of clients that are fully functional on each of the networks is evidence to this...
It's all about vendor lock in, no connectivity, squeezing out the competition and screaming for regulation when you competitors get too far ahead. Each of these companies would like nothing better than every IM user on earth using their networks, and anyone who might dare choose a competing product will be forever locked out of their private club. Of course as the article states, as soon as they become that competing product they kick and scream for government regulation.
And don't think Google is a shining paragon of interconnectivity and open standards either. Yes, Google talk uses open protocals, but as far as I'm aware, their servers still don't talk with the othre jabber servers.
Basically for me, all this underhanded locking out and incompatable standards has made IM unusable. For tweens and teens with close knit groups who can all arrange to use the same client, this is a reasonable approach. However I'm sticking to email.
With email, I know that if I have an email address, I can send an email to any other email address on the planet.
With IM, if I have an IM account, I can only send an IM to those on the same network as me. I've already excluded the majority of IM users, simply by signing on.
Sorry IM, you're less than usless to me.
May the Maths Be with you!
MSN and Yahoo are cooperating
I agree that this article is kind of a mute point. Why whine about it when there's already workarounds like Trillian (which has absolutely no ads or pop-ups). Just switch to Trillian and laugh at all the people that whine about ads on other IM's like AIM.
for copyright infringement
Jabber is the way to go. It's open, scalable, distributed and simple.
The problem are social connections. People are on MSN because their friends are on MSN. Same for Yahoo!
But who from your contact list/roster, in the first place, came on MSN or Yahoo!? Well, users who were advertised by their Yahoo! account or using the MSN client being shipped with Windows. Compare to "Who made you join ICQ, or IRC". No ads, only because it was the way to go, because some computer techies back then told you it was great (well, it WAS indeed).
Slashdot crowd and others, being [...] computer and technologies aware, should be the first link in each of our own socials network to tell others to go Jabber. Non-techie people should trust us on the technical side: Jabber is way better designed than others major IMs services. The Jabber community, for now, is mainly composed of geeks and free software hobbyists. Let's tell our friends to make the switch. It's a little time consumming the first time, but it's free. Tell them to use GTalk (which should be openly federating soon, even with some restrictions to avoid 'spim'..) or any other Jabber server.
There are tons of great clients for Jabber. Under GNU/Linux, you may try Gajim, Tkabber, Gaim or Psi. Under Mac OS X, Gush, Psi or of course iChat. And for those still under Windows, Miranda, Exodus, Gaim or Psi. Google for them.
And they will soon ALL support the feature you want, just give it some time More info
It's time to repeat my old IRC rant. IRC was there first, has long had the most features (now that voice and video is common on the alternatives, that's not really true anymore), uses a protocol that is not only open, but also an Internet RFC, and probably has more implementations than any other protocol; both clients and servers.
So, if the world had just stuck to using IRC, instead of jumping on the (at the time) overhyped, closed, and advertisement-infected instant messaging, you wouldn't have gotten this mess. As it stands, IRC is still around, and you can even use IRC to access the other networks through services like Bitlbee.
Popular software (among the intelligentsia of the net) like Gaim, Trillian, Opera and (I think) Mozilla (the suite) supports it, so you might already have a client installed.
So, no more excuses, break the proprietary chains and maybe you will be the one to write the next big popular extension. Yes, that's right. IRC is fairly easy to extend, and there are innumerable bots that do just that. You're not a proper hacker until you've written your own.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Blocking *mediafarm* and *intellitxt* in your adblock settings will eliminate the advertising on that page.
Welcome to the new century, while you're at it, we have these things called "spam filters" which do a fair effective job on email, and DVRs/HTPCs which do a fair effective job on television advertising.
I don't understand why people watch advertising anymore, with all the options out there... Maybe if I had money to buy ANY of the products they're pushing...
what is the current situation with instant messaging
is what was the case with email back in 1993-1995.
namely -- compuserve had their email, and didn't talk with anyone else.
genie had their email, and didn't talk with anyone else.
aol had their email, and didn't talk with anyone else.
it was often the case that you would have to have accounts on three
different systems (as well as a host of bbs') just to get email to
someone -- depending on which incompatible system they were on.
('can't get there from here' was often the case!)
then slowly, they started offering a new service 'internet gateway',
which allowed you to send email not only to their own internal service,
but to a universal 'internet' email address -- this became a tidal wave,
and now there's nothing but internet email addresses.
open standards and protocols are necessary for a free internet.
best regards,
j
Or you could just use DCC and automate the whole process.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
..they have lost their passion for open networks.
They just need to try and relate more. If the passion has gone, a new shared activity or interest can help bring them closer, and allow each to see the other in a new light. Microsoft/Yahoo should try and pay more attention to Open Networks and, say, compliment her when she wears a new dress. Similarly, Open Networks should consider allowing Microsoft/Yahoo more nights out with the companies down the road. Reciprocity can help build new bridges between them, to bring that all-important passion back into relationship.
-- type 'failure' into google.com and hit 'I'm feeling lucky'
I think the biggest thing lacking with IM seems to be the lack of a corporate tool for IM. Most of them require you to route all your messages unencrypted through some server you don't own. Most of them are marketed at 13 year olds, with things such as nudges, winks, and other such annoying stuff. I think jabber could probably really make it's way into corporate networks, if they showed companies the advantage of controlling their own instant messaging. Most employers don't allow IM at all, because using available networks allows employees to talk to anyone, not just other employees, and therefore, are missing out on something that could greatly impove productivity.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I don't understand why people watch advertising anymore, with all the options out there...
I prefer to give websites a fighting chance at me clicking on a link (and thus helping to support their business method). If they're ads are so obnoxious that I want to resort to an adblocker, I merely stop visiting the website.
Screw instant messaging. First lets take back email.
It means what it means. You can type in someone's AIM account in ICQ and message them and type in someone's ICQ number in AIM and message them. They're compatible, although you cannot warn people across each other.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
I mean the basic model hasn't seen any real innovation in the years it's been with us. Was I the only person who was completely underwhelmed by google chat - shouldn't the IM networks be extending their products and doing innovative stuff. Look at Imeem.com they've got an instant communication application that's does chat, blogs,file sharing, multimedia - and supposedly it all runs over an encrypted network with all hte content decentralised for speed and efficiency - like a distributed version of google.
So leave IM and head for the next gen.
"Microsoft and Yahoo! waved the interoperability flag"
/sometimes Trillian, and Gaim user speaking.
But they both included the Evil Bit, so I don't understand why they don't work together already.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
How is asking for a useful summary (because the link provided is unreadable to anyone who values their sanity) a troll or offtopic? It discusses the article (on topic) and unless you're a lover of ad companies it can hardly be considered a troll.
Typical slashdot mods smoking weed once again. I have a theory some mods mod down anything that contains swearing. I've found the likelihood of my post getting modded down increases when I use expletives. Fucking mods.
Oh yeah, if imeem isn't your thing then you can take a look at grouper, which is largely the same feature set wihtout the distributed search technology.
I'm sorry but the entire gamer community would have to disagree with you. Also, anyone who uses IRC disagrees with you. I'd go as far to say anyone who talks to other people on the internet through OTHER MEANS than IM disagree with you. It's really stupid when you're talking to someone on a forum, and ask them their ICQ number or AIM screenname, only for them to say they use Yahoo!
XMPP is based on XML messaging and is used by Jabber. Google base their service on XMPP, but have not shown any intent of interconnecting with others.
SIMPLE is derived from the dominant VOIP signalling protocol, SIP, and is used by several enterprise products of Microsoft (Life Communication Server, LCS), IBM (Lotus Same Time) and others. The enterprise servers can be interconnected much like e-mail servers, i.e. by resolving SIP URL over the DNS. Microsoft also proposes a SIMPLE based solution for connecting LCS servers to MSN, Yahoo and AOL. The interconnection between MSN and Yahoo is most likely based on SIMPLE.
I guess the first thing we need is some kind of gateway between XMPP and SIMPLE...
They're proprietary pieces of software. Where does it say that all services that perform the same function should be linked and interoperable? I just don't get the logic here.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
I thought it was an optional component you could remove at install time. I've gotten rid of MSN and windows messengers. Doesn't bother me with annoying reminders because I don't use outlook and use opera as default browser. No problems with passport either. Gaim takes care of all messengers.
What exactly prevents the removal? Specifics?
'tis but a scratch.
Ok, it seems you and me are very much on one line when it comes to what we want, but not when it comes to what protocol to use.
You like Jabber, and think IRC suffers from lack of extensibility. I like IRC, think it's very extensible, and think Jabber is just a bloated (yes, I care about those few bytes) protocol, developed in a spirit of either ignorance or NIH syndrome, that does basically the same thing.
Yes, Jabber has some good features, but it's nothing that couldn't have been done as an incremental improvement to IRC, at least that's how I see it. Any extension you make to Jabber is only going to take off with software supporting it, and that's how it works with IRC. IRC has proven that it can handle this, just look at things like Nickserv, DCC, and filesharing. So what's the great benefit of Jabber?
Sorry if this posts sounds a bit strong; I'm a bit bitter when people ditch a perfectly good technology for the new hype, and I'm feeling rather down today. What I really meant to say is: can you try to convince me that building on Jabber is really a better idea than building on IRC?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Yahoo_to _Link_IM_Networks/1129075667
Just recently Yahoo and MSN linked IM programs. What is this guy talkingg about? You can search all over the internet for articles about this.
Untill GTalk gets it's ass in gear and makes it where you can connect to all of them, then I'm ditching Trillian and running to GTalk, full steam ahead.
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
Well irc is definatly good for places where you can/allowed to use it. I know for sure that my last job at a state building for what ever reason IRC was not ok. GAIM by name was totally ok, the I even helped the boss set up his GAIM stuff. My suspisioun is that ambigious programs that support open standards will do the trick for IM'ing. For just random chat-IRC is ok. For my self with a hand injury IRC is not the ticket cause with GAIM/iChat I can talk with my girlfriend without risking reinjury-She's fairly inept when it comes to text chat----actually mor like a total retard
I wish I had the points right now. GJ.
Don't the editors of TechZone read Slashdot? MSN and Yahoo are merging, leaving AOL the only "isolated" network. Skype and GoogleTalk, and the little players (which aggregate to a lot of IMers) are also somewhat disconnected, but even there the momentum is to interoperation. Clients like Trillian unify networks without their cooperation. But a global unified IM network with the Internet economies of scale is in everyone's interests. As soon as the providers exhaust the Compuserve scale of benefits of captive networks, IM will no longer support proprietary exclusion. That's when the Microsoft pendulum will swing back, and "proprietary extensions" will compete for the attention of segments of the unified network.
--
make install -not war
1) Use an open standard-based IM software like Gizmo Project.
There are several good Jabber based IM clients such as Gizmo Project, GAIM, iChat, and the nifty web-based Meebo. By using one of these software programs, you can communicate with anyone on any gay Jabber-based system - you are not restricted to just one system. You simply have to include the other user's entire address (such as user@IMnetworkName.com), similar to how you would address an email message. You will even see the online and away status of the user even though they are on another network, so you'll always know when they are available. This makes it possible for the world to communicate seamlessly.
Works on Jabber too...
Using Jabber will fix all your IM problems.
If less idiots used IM services controlled by idiots then their wouldn't be a problem.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
i shouldnt have to run 6 IM appz to talk to everyone on different platforms, trillian and GAIM are great, but i know they will close the networks and that will be the end, they need to create a rule that people dont have to use that particular companies software to be able to chat. Its a monolopy!! we need to keep politics and big business from changeing the internet
Microsoft, Yahoo Reach IM Partnership
clip:
Is it just me, or are MS and Yahoo trying to do exactly what this windbag says?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One step, that I haven't really heard much talk about is to give people ways to share their Jabber/XMPP contact info. /. has a slot, but most other places do not... (phpbb, and other bulletin boards, for example). I have been running my own Jabber server for a while and have gotten several of my friends on it, but in general, I have few opportunities to communicate that I use Jabber other than just directly telling someone.
I know this can make a difference, for example, facebook.com, which is all the rage with those young college tykes these days, only has a slot for AIM, and none for Yahoo or MSN. This has been a major blow to Yahoo and MSN's market in the college demographic, as even those who have been using MSN or Yahoo for years have to switch so they can talk to all their new facebook friends on AIM... (although, one could say that this just because it is an exceptional point in their lives in which they're suddenly thrown into a brand new social environment, and so are willing to make the switch)...
Yeah I know I'll get modded down for this, but what's the point in IM software anyway? What can it let you do with the people you talk to that IRC and IRC clients can't ever possibly achieve? Is it just because IM software is a little more "user-friendly" than IRC and its typically commandline-based structure (which, of course, isn't a must -- nobody's stopping you from writing a heavily GUI-based IRC client)? I just don't like to be told by my friends and coworkers, "hey if you need to contact me, download this blah-blah-blah and IM me", when I can just use the software that came with my system, on an IRC network.
Of course, you can argue that the trillions of IRC networks out there right now make this a moot point but hey, there are IRC clients that let you connect to any number of networks at once as well.
So why is IM more popular than IRC? Is it for the better? Does IM prevent IRC from being torrented by newbies and computer-illiterate soccer moms?
The best IM clients IMO for OS X that have Jabber support (along with practically every other network) are Adium and Proteus (both of which use GAIM).
You're making the assumption that the intelligence of a person's choice of video format is equivalent to the value of the content they choose to encode. This simply isn't true. There can be great content that people distribute through closed codecs because they don't know any better, and to simply say, "Don't watch that codec" is an inadequate response.
Trillian.
nuff sed
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
I distinctly remember a time when people with certain email servers couldn't send emails to each other; my mother used to complain about how she couldn't email people in the AOL network (or was it outside?) and now those barriers are completely down. If this is any indication, instant messenging will take a similar direction. The current trend of closed networks will still have some momentum for a while (mainly thanks to users who are stuck in "unbreakable" routines), but give it time.
This is an example of why corporations should not 'own' technology. They should use.
But, dont forget it is their network, paid for by them. So while their PROTOCOL should be mandated to be open, their servers do not have to be. ( Except to me of course )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Write a better IM app, with better features and interoperability, make it free. That's what needs to be done. Who cares about the Big Three? If you want a product that is free and better, you write it. Open development makes that possible. None of those three companies can keep you from creating a working, interoperable, IM app. They do have their advantages in getting an audience for it, of course, and you can't downplay that, but at the same time, many of the best things take time to for the general public to discover. If you really want to change things then what you need is code AND patience. What you don't need is to frame the issue as us vs. them. Big companies swallow up and otherwise block people that they regard as competitors, but they couldn't give a fig for a group that seems to have no designs on their turf, even if that turf will eventually be invaded by that software.
This whole issue is because people don't want to wait to have their apps be #1, so they demand that companies that actually make money off this software make their format (and therefore their audience) freely available to them to take. Say what you like about these companies, but they have put time and resources in to developing these apps. Why shouldn't they make a buck off them? Your job isn't to tell them to give in to you, it's to be better than they are, so that you don't have to be an AIM/MSN/Yahoo parasite to have widespread acceptance.
Why? Simple, anyone who is not a slashbot sheep that would use their fucking brains would realise there's googletalk.
Also, Google and Comcast are bidding for AOL. So dont think we're done yet, if google gets AOL, chances are, AIM will be opened up, or at least made to allow communications with jabber and vice versa. So googletalk would have some muscle.
If microsoft gets them, then there's some reason to be afraid.
Because then you'll have a trust over the IM field, and Microsoft would hold all the keys. They could offer crippled versions for other proprietary operating systems of their IM client, pull lawsuits on 3rd parties who crack their network, and exclude linux based systems, naturally, they could also use this power to force people into upgrading to vista. Such as making subtle changes to the protocol that will disable old clients, and only new versions would be "vista compatible only"
That also answers the crap of "oh wow, taking over IM, big deal" comments. It is a worry because they'll have a virtual monopoly over instant messenging. They know most people wont care as long as it works, and will use anything to make sure they can use it. smart people may move to googletalk and whatnot, but right now, gtalk is yet-another-im-client. People wont care otherwise.
Apple's iChat is, as far as I am concerned, the standard against which other clients should be judged. It's only shortcoming -- and it's a major one -- is that it only handles AIM/ICQ and Jabber. No Yahoo, no MSN (unless you want to use them through a Jabber reflector, which is possible). But from a usability and UI standpoint I think it beats the pants off of Adium and Proteus. Plus things like file transfer and video chat actually work, unlike any other multi-protocol client I've had the dubious pleasure of ripping out my hair playing with.
I heard once that iChat has some sort of (undocumented) plug-in interface that could be used to add functionality to the program. Supposedly there is an internal Apple plugin which provides end-to-end encryption, which it's unfortunate that they don't release or build in to the program itself. I've never understood why Apple refuses to document the plugin interface and let people develop add-in modules to it that would add support for more protocols. (Conspiracy theory: Apple has some sort of an agreement with AOL not to do this, in return for getting access to the 'proprietary' version of the AIM protocol, instead of the one that open clients have to use.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Um, Microsoft hasn't tried to keep MSN IM closed. They even released the specs for the protocol, if I remember correctly. Not only that, I've read accounts of Microsoft providing support to third-party developers using the protocol and even fixing bugs reported by those developers. They've certainly been a lot more open than any of the other IM bigwigs (Jabber excluded).
Add bitlbee and you dont have to care about those clients, you can irc, and you dont need to care about what they run after you added them.
The only problem I had during my experiment with Jabber and using it to connect to the Big-Three services is that it's tough to find a very stable Jabber server that offers all the reflector services that you need. I found a list of servers that offered MSN, AIM, and Yahoo services, and there was only one in my area. Now perhaps the list I was looking at wasn't very good, but that's what I had: one option. It worked fine for a few days but then the server disappeared, never to be heard from again.
That's the problem with Jabber as I see it right now. It's a great protocol, but it's waiting for someone with some serious resources to step behind it in order to bring the user experience up to a level that is competitive with the competition. And that means redundant servers housed in datacenters, not a box in somebody's basement connected to their cable modem.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Where Mozilla is in the middle of this? They could easily take a piece of the action, like google has.
they do when it means they have to either
1: run 4 different bits of bloatware
2: be unable to contact some of thier friends
3: run one bit of bloatware that misses major features
4: some mixture of the above
the real problem is that moving to using an open system convincing users to create yet another account etc.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Instant messaging does everything I want it to, I can talk to my friends individualy or in our own chat room, we can send links, transfer files, and even use voice. The best part of existing networks:
I don't pay a dime!
If you want to banter your open source noise, then use IRC. Just ask yourself, do you really want to fix what isn't broken? Just do what the rest of us do and abuse and exploit the system that already exists.
sorry that last line should have been
the real problem is that moving to using an open system involves convincing users to create yet another account etc.
also until recently the free version of trillian (which is probablly the number one multiprotocol im client) didn't support jabber and whatever some people try to say irc is NOT an im system.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Then-current leader? I'm sorry but AIM is the instant messaging network, Yahoo and Microsoft are nothing.
It's like comparing the internet searching capabilities of Google versus Hellen Keller.
-- I was raised on the command line, bitch
Too bad many of schools where most of the users of im are are behind nats. Not to mention most firwalls will block all incoming connections by default.
I'd have to turn off the internet, and the television, and not go anywhere (billboards... sigh)
for open standards. I use Skype and iChat. Why can't I have one chat/video/audio standard, with a number of clients trying to figure out cheaper/faster/better ways to provide that? First, I'd start with iChat, because it's free. I could instantly talk to anybody, or video anybody. Somebody would recommend Google version 4, and I'd try that. I wouldn't lose my "buddies," I'd just see, wow, their audio codec rocks, or whatever. In other words, this should be regulated by the FCC, to set the standards the same way they set the American gauge for railroads, or the voltages and other tech standards for the phone lines -- the goal is not, let the corporations find another way to rope their customers off from the world, but let the corporations figure out how best to attract people to their chat programs by DOING IT BETTER. Is that radical? Too much to ask? I don't think so.
Yes, it would be outrageous if suddenly one of your phonelines stopped working because phone companies don't want interoperability, but your analogy is completely flawed. You pay for phone service, whereas if you use an alternative client such as Gaim or Trillian, you are free loading on the instant messenger network provider. The companies that provide the service have to pay for it and get back that money through showing you advertisements.
This is equivalent to being given phone service for free if you use the company's phone and then replacing the hardware with something of your own. Or getting one of those free PCs with the constant advertisements on the side of the screen and hacking it so you don't have to see the advertisements. I prefer alternative clients as well, but by no means do you have any "right" to use a different IM client. That's absurd.
Um, Microsoft hasn't tried to keep MSN IM closed. They even released the specs for the protocol, if I remember correctly.
If by "released" you mean to anyone willing to pay for a Microsoft Communications Protocol Program License, and then use the specs only accordingly, then why, yes. In the same vein, I also heard Microsoft released the Windows source code.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
Also viable alternative for IRC users, BitlBee: http://www.bitlbee.org/
It converts ICQ, Yahoo, MSN, Jabber protocols to IRC.
wrong i recently attended a microsoft conference and it seems to me they are now joining the IM communities with their latest products live communications server 20005 and live communicator
In the case of instant messaging, interoperability is an important goal that can only be achieved through two means:
a) standardisation of protocols. This would be ideal as multiple companies and projects can provide their services and compete, and the users are happy. The technology is there (XMPP, the protocol behind Jabber and GTalk) and in an ideal world, the big companies would cooperate and adopt the standard. But they don't.
b) monopoly of instant messaging. Imagine if there were three different telephone systems, or three different postal systems. Monopoly in this case is a good thing, with the main shortfall being that the monopoly has to be regulated as there is no longer any competition.
Jabber is a good choice to hold the instant messaging monopoly. Alternative clients can be created using the open protocol, and no commercial interests will be fucking around changing the protocol. In this case, the monopoly would work for the users.
I started an IM company to "take back IM", it had everything /. users would want, it was encrypted, open source, ran from a pen drive, and had an RSS reader.
Where were all of you then? I didn't have enough subscribers to get funding and went under.
The problem with Jabber is that all messages that are part of a converstation between two parties has to go through a central server.
This current architecture has a number drawbacks :
Ideally, IM sessions between parties should go direct between the IM parties i.e. peers, rather than via an intermediary server. Intermediarly servers would only provide a directory and an availabilty service - similar to the way DNS and SMTP work together. Ongoing and existing communcations sessions wouldn't fail if the directory server fails because they don't depend on it for communications (as a DNS server failure won't disrupt existing SMTP sessions). An IM client to IM client architecture can also cope with network failures, as long as their is an alternative path for the IP packets to follow. If a router fails, and there is an alternative IP path, the routing protocols will discover it and make it available. TCP on the end-points will try for up to 9 minutes to communcate with the other peer, which should be long enough for this transient failure in the network to be recovered from - the TCP session will eventually recover, and communciations can continue. The key requirement here is that nothing "in the network" maintains session state ie. knows about the TCP session. Unfortunately NAT boxes do, which is why they also break this "peer-to-peer" or "end-to-end" model (hence the Slashdot ID, and also why IPv6 is being designed to avoid any reasons to use NAT).
When I asked on the jabber developers list why things were done this way, the answer was so that people having conversations could be anonymous - the server would hide their identity. While the ability to be anonymous is a useful feature, I'm pretty sure most people would give up this "inherent anonymity", provided by the architecture, if they were given a choice between reliability and anonymity. I certainly would, because most people I'd talk to on IM I know anyway, which is obviously why I'm talking to them. There is an old unix rule of "optimise for the common case". The Jabber architecture seems to be optimised for (pseudo - see next paragraph) anonymity, yet I doubt it is the common case. Most of the time, most p
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
I'm Mark Smith from Adelaide, Australia, just to show my anonimity behind "Anti-NAT" isn't all that important much to me.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
There's actually a new program that works similar to trillian and gaim, in that it supports multiple IM clients. But it's actually got a really cool added feature - in that it allows you to see people who are near you.
It's a pretty new service, so not all areas are populated, but I think it's great.
It's called meetro
http://www.meetro.com/
How do you take back something you never owned in the first place?
Gaim? Trillian?
I thought the rebellion was here, it happened, and everyone who rebelled walked away with a free shiny toaster.
The ______ Agenda
It's now currently Saturday or Sunday depending on where you are, but this happpened on Wednesday.
"On Wednesday, Microsoft and Yahoo announced that they would make their instant-messaging services interoperable. By the middle of next year, users of both are expected to be able to exchange instant messages, see if their contacts are online, share emoticons, add friends from either service and make PC-to-PC voice calls."
I know slashdot probably had this online already (I would hope), but why is this not even in that article?
-AT
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
*sigh* You've been listening to too much capitalist propaganda.
The fact is, we did own it. Some things, like the ability to communicate with each other without restrictions, are natural parts of human society. Even if technology comes along that makes it easier to communicate over long distances, that does not upset the status quo, unless there are faults in society that create haves and have-nots, or the developers choose to limit things so that some people are excluded.
So yes, "taking it back" is entirely the right term to use.
Ahhh, and here I was believing in private ownership.
I'll be right over to use our car, then. Make sure all of our money is in the glovebox, I'll be needing it for weed and hookers.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Hi, my name is Ray and I'm a Comcast Cable Modem user. For my basic forty beans a month I get a decently fast cable connection, but they stick me with a dynamic IP. The bottom two levels of Comcast's business choices don't even offer static - you have to go to "Enhanced" which is 200/month. I used to like running an FTP server sometimes, but it's just a PITA now for anything except my own personal uses.
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
I've never lost my contacts. EVER. And I've gone through several windows install. You're just being lazy/ignorant. Perservearance pays, even if I can't spell it.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
is to consolidate the IM machine but let everyone keep their _old_ interface.
;-)
it is removal of a known and understood interface that worries them not the underlying mechanism of message transfer which could be ethernet or telegraph as far as the user is concerned. they just want it to work. oh... and they want to keep their user icons too.
maybe 1/2 the reason there are so many IM apps is because it is the sort of program that is the first useful network app written by a noob!
"computer 1:hi this is computer 1"
"computer 2:HI! this is computer 2!!!"
and so the script was written for IM/IRCers everywhere
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.