Slashdot Mirror


Basic Internal Instant Messaging Solution?

sk8dork asks: "I am pretty much _the_ internal IT person at the company I work for and I am recognizing the need for internal Instant Messaging more and more each day. While email is quick and easy to send, it's not always the quickest way to get your message to someone when they're not monitoring their inbox every second of the day. Having come from a position in Dell tech support I've experienced the MS communications solution but was put off by the instability of it and, now that I've looked into purchasing it, the steep price as well. For more stability we often used an internal IRC channel, but most people would either not login or they'd just be put off by its complexity. In this new company, where close to no one is 'computer savvy', I am in need of an Instant Messaging solution that is easy to use, secure, limited to our network, and inexpensive. I'd like to stay away from the mainstream IM clients such as Yahoo!, AIM, ICQ and others. We're running Windows Server 2003 for Small Business (sorry) and will be soon upgrading out of the SBE to regular Windows Server 2003. Any helpful information will be greatly appreciated."

155 comments

  1. Open Source by packetmon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Jabber along with Exodus works wonders. When I worked at a small/mid sized (200 employees) business I configured this across the board along via VPN. It was secure, fast, stable and as good as any IM client and server I've come across. I configure employees into groups in accordance with their office (e.g. NY, Miami, Mass, etc.). Workers were able to transfer files when necessary, vent gripes without worrying about snooping, etc.

    1. Re:Open Source by jrockway · · Score: 1

      The other advantage of Jabber is that you can setup your server to be able to interact with other jabber servers on the Internet. So for example, you@yourcorp.com can send a jabber message to your.friend@gmail.com, without having to log into the gtalk server (actually Google might be blocking this, but it would definitely work to foo@jabber.org).

      I wish I could get more of my friends over to Jabber. I can have the power of running my own server with the flexibility of being to talk to anyone on the Internet. Just like e-mail, but with instant messaging.

      --
      My other car is first.
    2. Re:Open Source by wordisms · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I recommend giving the IRC servers you have now a try, but use Gaim to access them. It works very well and is very familiar to most users who use other IM clients at home.

    3. Re:Open Source by gi-tux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or pickup the software from JiveSoftware. They have a client and server. The server can even tie into you Active Directory Domain if I remember correctly. I used an earlier version of their server with both Exodus and Gaim (before they had their own client).

      --
      I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
    4. Re:Open Source by packetmon · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I had employees using their AIM, Yahoo accounts on Exodus as well. Well, those employees I trusted. There are a slew of other functions as well including group chats, broadcast messages (via plugins), etc. I stood away from clustering with any servers though since it was meant to be an internal messaging system. The configuration is easy and the only issue I came across was having to explain to the older employees how to accept files and send them. Yes it was as simple as reading the prompts, but hey! We all know how comp-phobes can get... It's definitely worth looking into though. Exodus was the client I chose because it was clean and simple... As for the server I chose Jabberd2 and had it running on Windows SMB 2003 before I tossed it the Windows version for the Linux version since I was doing LDAP, VPN's, and a slew of other things...

    5. Re:Open Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second the parent's choice. I had a jabber server (ejabberd) running for our small group of 5 people. The boss is so happy with it he wants it installed for the whole company (about 800 across several continents). Exodus, Psi, Gaim, Tkabber were all the clients we tested including LDAP integration, C2S and C2C encryption.

    6. Re:Open Source by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      Indeed, ejabberd is a fantastic server. It's the first one (and possibly still the only) to feature full XMPP compliance, and offers features that others don't. I run this one myself.

      For your solution, look no further than Jabber.

    7. Re:Open Source by ZephyrXero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I also suggest using some sort of local jabber server with Gaim, it'd probably be a good idea to install some sort of encryption plugin, like Off The Record, to make sure no one's intercepting conversations from the inside of the network even.

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    8. Re:Open Source by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Nope, Google works with the wider Jabber net. No group conversations though.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    9. Re:Open Source by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Another huge advantage of Jabber (on top of having several clients & servers, most IM functions of the concurrence and the ability to bridge to the global Jabber networks including GMail as well as to Hotmail and Yahoo servers) is that it's the only IM with ICQ that can still send messages offline...

      Which allows you to get pretty much rid of e-mail for anything but the cases when e-mails are required.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    10. Re:Open Source by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      I'd like to mod this +1 informative but need to add something. IRC with gaim gives you more control than the other options plus clients that work on all platforms. Used with a vpn (OpenVPN) its very secure.

      There is also citadel if your business isn't a starchy corporate invironment. http://www.citadel.org/

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    11. Re:Open Source by riffzifnab · · Score: 1

      I use Wildfire (the server from jive) for this exact same thing. However I wasn't a big fan of the client (Spark). I wanted a native windows app because we have some older computers (sorry java fans). So I deployed Pandion and my users love it.

      But I would highly recomend Wildfire, I love it and its easy to set up and administer. I put together a server on a Win2k3 box in an afternoon.

    12. Re:Open Source by Wokan · · Score: 1

      We've had fantastic success with Jabber and Exodus where I work as well. It's too bad Exodus seems to have stalled though. We haven't been able to get the Jabber User Directory service to work, so Exodus's auto-accept reciprocating account addition has been a necessity. Unfortunately, Exodus 0.9.1.0 has some kind of memory leak issue and will eventually freeze Windows XP for less-than-apparent reasons. Still, a kill and a double-click later, it's back up and running. Jabber itself has worked flawlessly.

  2. Well, you could use by Who235 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Net Send and find a gui?

    1. Re:Well, you could use by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "Net Send and find a gui?"

      Heh. At a company I worked at a couple of years ago we had net send disabled becaues we kept getting ads through it.

      Well, since I'm wasting space with this post, I'll ask a question: Did Microsoft finally fix that in XP, or did they just disable the service by default?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Well, you could use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a firewall, not MS to to fix that...

    3. Re:Well, you could use by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Heh. At a company I worked at a couple of years ago we had net send disabled becaues we kept getting ads through it. Well, since I'm wasting space with this post, I'll ask a question: Did Microsoft finally fix that in XP, or did they just disable the service by default?

      It's called "use a firewall".

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Well, you could use by dwatling · · Score: 1

      The parent post's idea actually isn't that bad. If it's for an internal Windows-only network you've got the benefit that all computers have it installed already. It doesn't sound like the submitter needs anything fancy, so why go through all the trouble of downloading and installing another IM tool? This is what my company uses and it works great. If you need to send files you've still got e-mail. As far as a GUI client goes we use Net Send by RJL Software (http://www.rjlsoftware.com/software/utility/netse nd/).

      -Dan

    5. Re:Well, you could use by Jakob777 · · Score: 1

      To really answer your question, no they did not, but if you were in the AOL bunch,they felt the need to turn off the service for you, not telling you about it at all. Sorry that was a sore subject with me, I had alot of fun playing with net send with every noob on irc :( those were the days :P

      --
      if you are what you eat , then I could be you by tomorrow.
    6. Re:Well, you could use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may jest, but there was a group of support staff who did just this at my previous job.

  3. DBabble by Doytch · · Score: 1

    Have you heard of DBabble?

  4. Jiveserver by s0abas · · Score: 5, Informative

    We use JiveServer (Wildfire) and the associated spark client.

    It uses the jabber protocol and as such, can be used with a variety of IM clients.

    1. Re:Jiveserver by #undefined · · Score: 3, Informative

      let me second jive software's wildfire jabber server.

      it's java so it runs anywhere. i'm currently running it as a service on a windows 2000 workstation.

      the web admin interface is nice.

      i'm running the old version (jive messenger) as the newer plugins and expanded database support haven't been reason enough to upgrade and i don't consider security a big enough issue on an intranet. don't let my downplaying of the new plugins discourage you, but instead it should speak highly of how well the basic server fulfills communication needs (instant messaging & chat rooms).

      my only other suggestion would be to use psi as the client. it's cross-platform (windows, macosx, linux), coded with qt, so that should easy your it support if there's multiple platforms. of course spark is cross-platform too, being java, but i don't have any experience having found psi sufficient for ~4 years.

    2. Re:Jiveserver by MTgeekMAN · · Score: 0

      We also use the Wilefire http://www.jivesoftware.org/wildfire/ server and spark.

      I do have one problem with spark though, its fairly slow to load on our machines (I work as IT at a high school 400mhz - 800mhz is our average machine speeds...)

      I just tried teh Exodus client from http://exodus.jabberstudio.org/ and i have to say im really likeing it just for the load times.

      btw even here on my home machine spark seems slow :/ (athlon 64x2 3800+ 2gb ram ... )

    3. Re:Jiveserver by gbobeck · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would also recommend Wildfire (formerly Jive).

      I set up a Wildfire server at Loyola University Chicago, and it was exceptionally easy and secure. Since we use LDAP authentication in our computer science, we were able to instantly have user accounts pre-loaded. For Windows users, Wildfire should integrate with active directory very easily.

      I would also recommend using Spark or Gaim as a jabber client.

      Of course, the Spark admin plug-in for Wildfire is a good addition, as it provides a localized download area for the Spark Client and it helps to keep users up to date with the client.

      --
      Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
    4. Re:Jiveserver by uhoreg · · Score: 1
      Wildfire won a ServerWatch product award in the Real-Time Communications category, ahead of MS Live Communications Server.

      It may also be worth looking at ejabberd (which is what jabber.org now uses).

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    5. Re:Jiveserver by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

      I would also recommend Psi as the client. Besides all those goodies you mentioned (cross-platform, easy to support, free and open source, open standards) there is the big advantage of Psi being, along google talk, pioneering the jingle protocol.

      For those who don't know, jingle is an extention to the XMPP protocol which delivers voice chat, which is nice.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    6. Re:Jiveserver by Nurgled · · Score: 1

      I can confirm that integrating with Active Directory is easy. We use Wildfire at my office and it took me about five minutes to get it talking to the LDAP service on our domain controller. It then take a few more minutes to get it providing VCards based on the directory information. It worked like a dream.

      We have users here using all sorts of different clients. I use Psi, while our single Mac user uses iChat. Some guys use Miranda IM so that they can use MSN Messenger as well. One lovely thing about Jabber is that it can support multiple connected clients for the same user too, meaning that when people are working from home (which happens quite a lot at my company) they can log into the Jabber server without disturbing their in-office client and chat with everyone as normal.

    7. Re:Jiveserver by bernywork · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that...

      Wrote some documentation:

      Wildfire server with SSO and MS SQL

      I recently had to do an implementation of Wildfire with Single Sign On, with a backend in Active Directory and Microsoft SQL server. This is with the Pandion client and pulling all the data from Active Directory and populating the client. Even if you think the documentation sucks, at least look at the links on the end if you want to know more information.

      --
      Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    8. Re:Jiveserver by aminorex · · Score: 1

      The medium-sized enterprise where I work has dynamic and often rigorous requirements, including
      - end-to-end security
      - the option to log centrally for multi-user chats
      - multiple client platforms
      - interoperation with external partners and collaborators who may use other services
      - alert delivery to external endpoints
      - sms integration
      - integration with internal groupware user administration

      I found all of this easy to do using GAIM as a default client with a Jabber server, AIM/Yahoo/MSN/IRC plugins on the server, and a very carefully written routing script. Now if only it did voip, and GAIM would stop crashing on file-send when using the Jabber protocol, we'd have a total solution. As it is, everyone runs skype or firefly as well.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  5. The classic paradox. by billcopc · · Score: 0, Troll

    Work, money, time.. you need at least two. Either pay up for internal Windows Messenger, whose client is already on all your desktops, or develop your own simple IM server and client putting in your own sweat and blood.. or pay someone to develop a non-MS solution. You have to weigh the potential benefits of an IM solution. For most people, just keeping their email open and minimized is good enough. If they don't reply to you quickly enough, well that's not email's fault, they can ignore IM windows just as easily.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:The classic paradox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, as others have suggested ... just grab a Jabber server and client and go.

      Jabber ( http://www.jabber.org/ ) is a mature, stable and cross-platform instant messaging tool. No need to roll your own.

    2. Re:The classic paradox. by RevDobbs · · Score: 1

      I've got your MS solution right here: Using Windows Chat in Windows XP. May work for Win2k3, YMMV.

      You're welcome.

      :-)

  6. Jabber by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Informative

    I mean, honestly.

    http://www.jabber.org/software/servers.shtml

    Yes, you can get a server for a Windows platform, yes you can pay for it too if it helps.

    --
    Deleted
  7. The old-fashioned solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I use this novel instant communication technique called talking.

    See I get up, or just raise my voice (depending on the situation) and talk to the person I want to have an instant communication with. It is pretty easy to have one-to-many instant messages, too.

    It is nice in that this instant messaging technique continues to work even if the server or network goes down.

    One the down side, it only works for short distances, but you can get the phone plug-in for longer distances. But with the phone plug-in it is tough to see if the person you want to send an instant message to is "on-line".

    The other downside is you can't change your avatar (aka buddy icon), and I don't like the way mine looks. Some people try to hack this sometimes (Halloween for example) but it rarely looks right. You can get your avatar professional altered but that cost a lot of money.

    1. Re:The old-fashioned solution by carpeweb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not trying to be flamebait here, but I would have modded this up.

      How big can the place be if the guy is the only internal IT person?

      A shovel and a backhoe are both "technology" solutions. If you're digging a swimming pool, the backhoe is the better technology match. If you're planting two shrubs in your back yard, the shovel is the better technology match.

      Why can't a cell phone work here? Does the "instant" message need to be in text and not voice? I'll grant that it might be too difficult to teach people to text message. If that's the case, I'm pretty sure a significant fraction of them will refuse to use IM and leave voice mail.

      What's the magic of IM, as opposed to anything that will solve the underlying problem?

    2. Re:The old-fashioned solution by cos(0) · · Score: 1

      Non-repudiation.

    3. Re:The old-fashioned solution by iabervon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sure, it seems like a reliable solution. But it doesn't work when you need it the most, like when all the air has been sucked out of the office. What are you going to use then?

    4. Re:The old-fashioned solution by arkaino · · Score: 0
      Why can't a cell phone work here? Does the "instant" message need to be in text and not voice? I'll grant that it might be too difficult to teach people to text message. If that's the case, I'm pretty sure a significant fraction of them will refuse to use IM and leave voice mail.
      That may be due to "conversation richness". I think text conversations make people rethink before saying anything.
    5. Re:The old-fashioned solution by solid_liq · · Score: 1
      Actually, it can be quite usefull even in a small company with only one IT person. I used to work for a company where I was one of several programmers, and there were a few electronics engineers there as well. We had multiple office rooms and offices, and we only had one IT person. We used IM for communicating on our designs. It's rather difficult to copy and paste lines of code, URLs, chip docs and schematics with speech! ;)

      We might have had more IT people if the majority of our employees weren't so technically savvy, though. :P

    6. Re:The old-fashioned solution by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Sure, it seems like a reliable solution. But it doesn't work when you need it the most, like when all the air has been sucked out of the office.

      Correction, sir. That's blown out.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:The old-fashioned solution by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I kind of agree, for a company that's small and decidedly not tech-savvy. My company made an attempt with Skype, with these results:

      • About half of the old codgers were cool with the VoIP side of it.
      • Less than 20% figured out the text-based chat mode. And these were engineers! One guy thought it had something to do with online dating.
      • Everyone still uses phones and the intercom system.

      So, if you're willing to put some effort into training everyone on Jabber, go for it. Otherwise, just make sure everyone has a phone, and let the managers play with their BlackBerries if they have them. (Just my humble recommendation.)

    8. Re:The old-fashioned solution by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

      Why can't a cell phone work here?

      Maybe the reception in the building is horrible.

      Maybe the company doesn't want to purchase service for those that don't have phones already.

      Maybe it would be more efficient to be able to real-time IM someone while one or both of you are on the phone at the same time.

      Maybe they want to be able to give group annoucements without calling everyone's individual phone, waiting for them to check email, posting flyers, or disrupting workflow to have a meeting.

      Maybe it's useful (for whatever purpose) to keep searchable logs of conversations or to be able to quickly share links or code. In my previous job, being able to do so was invaluable, especially when you were on the phone with a customer and needed something fast.

      Maybe the employees need to communicate in real-time and non-audibly at times without people eavesdropping.

      Hopefully you get the idea.

      Does the "instant" message need to be in text and not voice?

      I fail to see how constant phone calls or leaving voice mails in place of IM'd text would be more efficient. Even checking and replying to text messages on a cellphone would often be slower.

      What's the magic of IM, as opposed to anything that will solve the underlying problem?

      There's no magic to it, it's just simply more efficient in a lot of cases.

    9. Re:The old-fashioned solution by carpeweb · · Score: 1

      Great replies, pointing out a lot of useful/valuable features of IM. I didn't mean to imply that I don't think backhoes have value. I just still don't know if the underlying problem is more like a swimming pool or two shrubs in the backyard. So, all I was suggesting is that cell phones might be on the short list, absent information defining the problem in terms of requirements like non-repudiation or simultaneity with other voice conversations or sharing of code (all good reasons the solution would need to be text) or working in a building made of electrical tranmission cables (OK, I know lots of buildings have poor wireless reception).

      The replies here filled in the "strengths" column for IM in the evaluation scorecard. Certainly, I agree that cell phones would have entries in the "weaknesses" column, too. I'm not a huge fan of voice mail or "texting" without a real keyboard. But I am a huge fan of saving money and using solutions that leverage technologies already in place, which might be the case for cell phones. It sure seems that way in restaurants and movie theaters, anyway!

      This could actually help sk8dork; where's our fee?

      Oh yeah, that karma thingy ... cool!

  8. Rendezvous? by ZachPruckowski · · Score: 1

    However you spell it, isn't Rendezvous basically what you're looking for? I mean, that's the simplest way to do messages and file-sharing over a LAN, right? I think it's called Bonjour on a Mac. I've only used it once or twice, but it seems pretty simple.

    1. Re:Rendezvous? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Rendezvous is no more. It's called Bonjour now. Those are just Apple's fancy names for what everyone else calls "zeroconf".

      Zeroconf has nothing to do with IM or file-sharing. It's a network service configuration protocol. Think LDAP-helper here.

    2. Re:Rendezvous? by fatty13 · · Score: 0
      Zeroconf has nothing to do with IM or file-sharing.
      This may be true, but what he's talking about is "Bonjour" messaging that is built into iChat, and is only on the Mac. You can "Log in to Bonjour" in the iChat menu, and anyone else who's on your network and is logged in will be visible in your buddy list. In college, it was great since you could easily see who else was 'near' you (dorm, library, etc).

      iChat does support encrypted IM when both users are on iChat. I'm unsure if this applies to 'Bonjour' messaging, but I can't imagine it doesn't.

      Has anyone made an IM client for Linux (or win), that supports Bonjour (zeroconf)?

  9. IRC ... by packetmon · · Score: 1

    /slap boss

  10. Jabber by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 1

    Even if one assumes that "we have a windows server, so everything must be on Microsoft's platform no matter what", I'm pretty sure there are a few legally free servers available that run on windows, in addition to the reference implementation and a few others that could easily be run on a scavenged box running Linux.

    XMPP is well documented, and it's easy to set up an "internal only" server for in-house use. You can also add more servers and link them together later if you end up needing to, for example, set up servers in widely separated offices.

  11. Wildefire is the best by penfern · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.jivesoftware.org/wildfire/

    The best jabber implementation that I have used is Wildfire by Jivesoftware. It was really really easy to install and setup (even with LDAP support), and our company has been using it for months and months. It's really great to have an internal IM server.

  12. Telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Odds are your office already has them, and guess what everbody knows how to use them. K.I.S.S.

    1. Re:Telephone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The good part about about IM is that you can set up your IM server to log everything and then be able to search it through a wweb interface. This is extremely valuable for finding those little bits of information dropped in a chat and never correctly documented.

      It is extremely expensive to that with telephone calls.

  13. e/Pop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. ICQ Groupware by bstrunk · · Score: 3, Informative

    ICQ offers a groupware product, designed to be used on internal networks only. Best of all, its freeware. http://www.networkingfiles.com/Communications/Icqg roupware.htm

    --
    --BSOBN--
    1. Re:ICQ Groupware by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 2, Informative

      The ICQ groupware beta - which is abandonware, and has been for years - is buggy, limited to 200 clients, and has absolutely no support. Go for something Jabber-based - I use jabberd2 and GAIM in our environment, but we're a mixed shop - FreeBSD/Samba (with OpenLDAP for the userbase), with Win2K/2K3 Servers where necessary. Jabberd works nicely in this, since it can use the LDAP database for authentication.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
  15. More of an adversarial company than a software co. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "I've experienced the MS communications solution but was put off by the instability of it..." [and] "... the steep price as well."

    Sometimes it seems to me that Microsoft is more of an adversarial behavior company than a software company.

    Today someone called from Microsoft, inviting people at my company to come to some kind of educational event. She had inaccurate information about my company, even though we have been selling Microsoft products for more than 20 years.

    The previous caller from Microsoft thought we were in New York. I'm guessing Microsoft's customer relations management software is no better than the communications software.

    --
    Taxpayer Karma: If you contribute money to kill people, expect your own quality of life to diminish.

  16. Jabber indeed. by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 1

    You can set up your own Jabber server behind the firewall. You can take your pick of the various IM clients to use -- most of them implement Jabber.

    When I was interested in such things (2002), I bought and read O'Reilly's Programming Jabber. No doubt it's dated by now, but it's my recollection that it was thorough and helpful.

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Jabber indeed. by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      O'Reilly's book is visibly dated, and in any event I never found its style particularly enjoyable, but Sam's Jabber Developer's Handbook published a year later is still quite usable.

  17. Bonjour by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably not a lot of Mac-heads around here, but at work our office is all running iChat via Bonjour. The greatest thing is that there are never any contact lists to manage - everyone on the subnet simply show up on your contact list. Beautiful. Just start up iChat, plug in your display name, and away you go.

    Beats registering for accounts and logging in.

  18. Jive rocks! by packetmon · · Score: 1

    I've used it and prefer it over Jabberd2 what I ended up using. :( My coworkers didn't understand that point and click web based administration (imagine that!). Jive definitely rocks. If the person asking this wants even more security along with VPN's (if he has them) he could set up proxies, etc.. Come to think of it, if he doesn't have VPN security, he may just want to use SASL or TLS. I know I wouldn't want to be sending propietary messages over the net without encryption.

  19. RealPopUp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its free and probably just what you need

    http://www.realpopup.it/

  20. Re:IRC is too complex by wall0159 · · Score: 1

    Troll?!? seems a bit unfair to me! Makes a valid point.

  21. Wildfire and Psi by plankers · · Score: 1

    Wildfire and Psi.

    1. Re:Wildfire and Psi by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Phear my psionic powers and pyrokinetic skillz!

      Uh what? An IM client you say?

    2. Re:Wildfire and Psi by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      I like yours better because, you know, everyone secretly wants to be able to blow stuff up with their mind.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  22. Good IM's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use Jabber, or Rendezvous if you're on a LAN.

  23. LanChat by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    We used to use an app called LanChat at a previous office. Dead simple, does what the name says.

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
  24. Tonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tonic. Simple internal IM. It just works.

    http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?page=1&show=toni c

  25. IRC++ by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Despite the trollish tone of the parent, the point is valid.

    Possibilities, off the top of my head...

    1) Different channels for different departments
    2) An "all" channel where you can broadcast messages to everyone
    3) Short, simple, impromptu meetings that can easily be logged
    4) A variety of clients with varying degrees of friendliness, from mIRC to GAIM; or develop your own to fit the needs of your company

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:IRC++ by uncool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we tried that where I work, except for the part of developing our own client.
      People barely used the system despite the fact that me and the other guy that was an enthusiast of the system teached them all about how to use it, after installing and configuring Gaim on their machines. Some people (friends of ours) used irssi with SSL, because we configured a special encrypted port for testing, that unfortunately we weren't able to use from Gaim because it simply would refuse to accept the certificate and make the connection. Even so, it worked and it worked good.

      When I came back from my vacation, no one used the IRC system anymore and all were using a poorly configured jabber server without encryption on a machine that crashes periodically because that used the same login authentication as the corporate email account provided for everyone.

      The motive, they said, was the complexity of IRC. This complexity was, hm, the same of the actual system or even less, since we had not installed IRC Services on the server.

      Maybe if we had developed our own IRC client and made it the most Idiot Friendly possible, we would be able all that nifty features of IRC you said. But the few people with a clue there never have time because they're too busy fixing the mistakes of that large majority of people without a clue. Pity.

  26. There is Waste too... by wingfoot · · Score: 1

    Waste may be an option: http://waste.sourceforge.net/ I haven't implamented it, but a while back I was looking at it to use for my dev team. It's opensource and I believe it was created by the NullSoft (Winamp) guys. I haven't looked at it in a while, so I don't know how stable it is but you could give it a try.

    1. Re:There is Waste too... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Last time I tried it it was quite stable, and you can't beat it security-wise. The interface kind-of sucks though

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:There is Waste too... by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 1

      The interface is godawful, setup complexity is worse, and there is no centralized administration. This is hacker-friendly software, not suitable for average business users.

    3. Re:There is Waste too... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Setup complexity? Didn't notice it, found it as easy & straightforward as installing a Jabber server + jabber clients.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  27. '...or they'd just be put off by its complexity.' by Spamicles · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm frightened to live in a world where IRC is considered complex.

  28. Have you tried Tonic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Have you tried Tonic?

    We use it at work for instant messenging. It has a number of features similar to MSN/ICQ, etc but its LAN only and best of all its free!

    We have about 60 users online and the performance is very good.
    Their latest beta builds are improving nicely with features such as multichat so hopefully a new version will be released soon.

  29. Two words by gcranston · · Score: 0, Redundant

    net send

    as in: C:\> net send [user] [text]

    or: C:\> net send [computer] [text]

    It's more than enough for messages of the "Call me when you get a chance" variety. Anything more usually belongs in an email anyway.

    On an unrelated note, this is handy if the professor's computer displaying the lecture on very large screen is also connected to the campus network and you want to put "Bob smells" up over his presentation.

    1. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you replace the username with *, it sends it to all the computers on the network.

      So one time I made a batch file in notepad that said "NET SEND *" followed by a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Saved it in a random teacher's folder, about a month later she clicked on it (several times!). Hilarity, in-school suspension ensues.

    2. Re:Two words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A collegue once got so fed up with his boss so he put a batch file together and stuck it in his boss's start up. The batch file contained one line: net send * CUNT!

      He got found out as he was crying with laughter when two guys started a shouting match almost escalating to violence with his boss.

  30. Uh. It's built in. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    You've almost certainly got an instant messaging solution installed and fully functional on every one of your desktops right now. It uses less screen space than almost any 3rd party app and it supports single sign-on without configuration effort. Here's how to send someone a message using it:

    [windows+r] net send {username} {message text} [enter]

    P.S. The UNIX guys have a similar utility called "write" that's been on every UNIX-ish system I've ever used.

  31. Real Men(TM) by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 0

    Real Men(TM)use net send to get the message across. As an added bonus, most people won't take the time to reply.

    --
    brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
  32. Campfire by mindtriggerz · · Score: 1

    I have to say that Campfire is really cool. Although it is hosted, and not exactly IM, it's easier to set up and more productive than Jabber or IRC.

  33. Wildfire Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More info about the Open Source Wildfire server -- it recently beat out Microsoft's LCS to win the ServerWatch best Real Time Communications server award:

    http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/361143 6

    It runs great on Windows and can integrate with Active Directory for authentication and user data.

  34. e-pop seems to fit by maskwa · · Score: 1

    We use it where I work. Dead simple to use. Works a treat over the entire country. I wish I had more to offer as a rewiew but I am a mere fork-and-spoon operator in sector 7-G.

    More info at http://www.wiredred.com/secure-messaging/

    --
    -- maskwa
    1. Re:e-pop seems to fit by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      I was hoping that someone would mention e/pop.

      This was used to be a fairly good product (e/pop Professional). It offered encrypted communications, tied into various directory schemes *and* offered you a built-in remote control facility so that you could see the user's screen. That was invaluable for support staff as they could see what the user was trying to do and help them out directly. It was also fairly robust (although there were bugs when e/pop had to deal with multi-homed machines such as remote workers who VPN'd in).

      Unforunately, WiredRed no longer makes the e/pop Professional client. Instead, you have to buy the Web Conferencing package in order to get remote control abilities. (At least, if I read the website verbiage correctly.) And the basic chat client is now just e/pop Basic. Both require a minimum purchase in the range of a few thousand dollars (minimum purchase is 100 clients) with an annual maintenance fee that is 20% of the purchase price.

      It's a real pity. They had a very good product that I was willing to recommend to small businesses (50 employees). Now we're evaluating Jabber (WildFire server + Spark clients) and we'll investigate using VNC for the remote control side.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  35. look at ejabberd by mogrify · · Score: 1

    I recently set up ejabberd and JWChat (AJAX-based web client) at my office. ejabberd authenticates against our Windows domain using LDAP, and using JWChat means there's no client to install. I tried a couple of other jabber servers, but ejabberd was the easiest to integrate with JWChat.

    I haven't had much buy-in yet, but that's another story.

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
  36. Jabberd by Soong · · Score: 1

    I set up jabberd in an afternoon. Adding the jabberd 1.4 chatroom server module to jabberd 2 was a little annoying, but now it's up and hasn't given any trouble. It even comes with a decent example /etc/init.d/ style script which works with fedora core and probably other systems with little modification.

    --
    Start Running Better Polls
  37. Before IM came to the office... by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 0, Troll

    Before IM came to the office, people did actually use the phone and their feet. Both are still well suited. Implement both will cost nothing more assuming an existing phone system is in place. Another reader noted that phones don't show who's "online". My response to this is that even if the other party is "online", this doesn't mean they will respond to the IM sent.

    My advice to you is keep it simple and more secure by not implement IM at all. Tell you user base to let their fingers and/feet do the walking. The exercise is good for people sitting for most of the day anyway.

    Later,
    -Slashdot Junkly

    --
    .
    Landfill Mining Co.
    Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    1. Re:Before IM came to the office... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      My advice to you is keep it simple and more secure by not implement IM at all. Tell you user base to let their fingers and/feet do the walking. The exercise is good for people sitting for most of the day anyway.

      That's very short-sighted of you.

      IM works well for cutting down on the number of internal calls, which is very good when you have remote workers. Most people find it to be less intrusive then a telephone call (I can do multiple things while monitoring a chat conversation). It works well for those quick questions or for communicating information which is tricky to read over the phone.

      That doesn't mean that it supplants / replaces telephone calls. My co-worker and I (who are a few hours apart) regularly flip between using e/pop and a telephone call depending on what needs to be discussed. Often, we'll be on the phone talking to each other and pop up an e/pop chat window to exchange URLs or technical details. Which means neither of us have to spend 3 minutes trying to read out a URL.

      Or if one of us is on the phone, we can e/pop another person to find out their input on something. Or get a question answered without leaving a voice message and playing phone tag.

      Getting effective use out of an IM solution is an education issue. Just like e-mail, you need to train your users when and why to use IM instead of phone instead of e-mail. Telephones excel for in-depth conversations because of the verbal cues (face-to-face is still better, but not always possible) but IM excels for detail conversations (where you need to exchange part #s, URLs, or other text information). E-Mail is a time-shifted medium. All of them are "tools" for communication and each is useful in different situations.

      One example of a training issue with IM: A polite IM conversation begins with "hello" and ends when *both* parties say "goodbye". A few of our users were very "abrupt" when using IM. They'd leave the chat room as soon as they thought their question was answered, which is a bit like slamming down the telephone receiver in real life. We've had to train them to wait for a "goodbye" signal from the other side so that they don't appear so rude.

      Also, we found that without an IM solution in-house, our users were attempting to use e-mail as a instant message system. They would complain about not getting e-mail back from someone within 5 minutes. The IM solution defuses that situation by giving them a more instant-feedback communication avenue. (And I can go back to telling users not to check e-mail more often then twice an hour.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    2. Re:Before IM came to the office... by m1ndrape · · Score: 1

      and IM work well for those of us that are either hard of hearing or completely deaf.

      --
      Donald Ray Moore Jr. (mindrape)
      Suspected Terrorist
  38. What's the magic of IM? by cmdean · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Sharing.

    Sharing your request with eveyone in your segment.

    Sharing your answers with everyone who may benefit.

    Making a request of a shared pool of resources

    Being able to get a choice of answers

    Getting an immediate answer from whoever is both capable and available

    Enough?

    Cmdean

    1. Re:What's the magic of IM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easier to log all communications for later reference and/or lawsuits.

  39. I'm going to go out on a limb here by gregw51 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    and suggest a (gasp!) commercial solution. Not free, but supported: Sametime. Commercially supported by IBM/Lotus, fully secure, with a built-in web conferencing system, and works on your Windows 2003 server. Can be completely stand-alone, or you can have it authenticate to your company's LDAP directory. The nice thing is you buy only the number of clients you need, with no need to purchase server software. Clients are $47.59/user, and allows you to use the stand-alone Sametime Connect client (Windows, Mac or a Trillian Pro plugin), the browser-based chat client, or connect via your Blackberry if you're already using their Enterprise server 4.1 or later.

    1. Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here by jabagi · · Score: 1

      We are currently trying to disable MSN/Yahoo etc and make Sametime widely used in our company. v6 isn't that bad but v7 (which is about to be released) seems to be very good with connectors for AIM/Gtalk/Yahoo (and probably MSN). IBM is also trying hard to develop clients for Windows Mobile OSs. It also has very good web conferencing (whiteboard, app sharing, voice - video) options. I suggest that you give it a go.

      --
      Can someone tell me what this "Sig" box is for??
    2. Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here by MishgoDog · · Score: 1

      We use sametime at work, and I find it much more effective than msn/icq/yahoo etc. There are a couple of extended client versions available offering more functionality than the original (though this functionality is intended to be included in Sametime 7.5)
      Notes Buddy and
      IBM Community Tools (ICT)

      Quite a reliable system, I've found!

    3. Re:I'm going to go out on a limb here by TydalForce · · Score: 1

      My company uses SameTime as well. It works well, very rarely does it go down, and its not a resource hog. We've got users in several offices and remote locations connecting to it. Sure, it doesn't have all the snazzy features something like AIM would have, but you generally don't need that in an office environment.

  40. Score one for the Empire by Deskpoet · · Score: 1

    I know you commented about the instability and cost of the "MS Communications solution"--by which I assume you mean the Communicator/Live Communications Server combo--but you may wish to look at it again. LCS 2005 is actually quite stable for an MS app.

    Where I work, I recently switched from a Unix group to a Windows one--trying new things, learn new tricks, blah blah blah--and was given a project to establish federation using LCS. In researching LCS, I was actually pleasantly surprised at the SIP RFC compliance (Ok, there are some MS extensions, but at least they echo the SIMPLE working group), as well as the general functionality and stability of the application. If you're working in an MS shop, the presence capabilities of Communicator/LCS blend nicely with other MS apps, and if you're planning on passing support off to another organization, the management of LCS--whether doing federation, PIC, or remote access--*is* simple enough to do.

    I agree the license cost is steep, but you may be able to get the accountants to buy off on LCS/Communicator for the security (TLS end-to-end) and the SOX compliance (logging, etc.) features alone.

    --
    "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
    1. Re:Score one for the Empire by zyte · · Score: 1

      I use communicator daily at work and it sucks. It establishes sessions between users when you send messages. If you have a long pause between messages and keep the window up then the message may or may not be actually displayed to the user. there's a lot of random bugs over this session deal that they have. as a server I dunno how good it is, but from a user perspective I'd much rather use irc, aim, msn, really anything else.

  41. Re:Um secure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sarcasm, no?

  42. Don't use AIM by DarkNemesis618 · · Score: 1

    Jabber or IRC would both work. I would reccommend against AIM, MSN, & Yahoo simply for the fact of viruses. I'm knowledgeable enough to pick up those spoof IMs that contain links to viruses, but those less computer inclined may not realize that their buddy is really not sending them that IM. On a business network with nearly everyone using AIM, the virus could prove dangerous. Learning from experience, educating the users on this matter may prove useless. (At my job, we constantly tell people to make sure they leave their computer logged off and turned on when they leave so we can push out patches, updates, etc. You'd be suprised how few actually listen) So beating their brains with "be careful with IMs may not be successful either. Just a thought.

    --
    What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
    1. Re:Don't use AIM by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Jabber or IRC would both work. I would reccommend against AIM, MSN, & Yahoo simply for the fact of viruses.

      I concur, but there is a social aspect to consider in many environments. Users may want/need to be able to communicate with people outside the company via one of the above networks. They may want to do so. You can set up Jabber or IRC to be a bridge to them, but a little education is needed in any case. Here we just use multi-protocol clients and IRC. Users are educated (well they're mostly security people so they already know) that anything over unencrypted AIM, MSN, Yahoo is suspect and no confidential communications should be carried out via it. We've adopted Off The Record for simple encryption on these, which helps in identifying spam and worms. Of course the fact that most of the company is not running Windows helps too :) In any case, even if you have a Jabber server or IRC, don't neglect the education so people know how to use other protocols safely if it is allowed and why they shouldn't use them if they are forbidden. Otherwise, people may move to using these anyway since they add functionality Jabber or IRC does not (even if that functionality is that their girlfriend is on Yahoo).

  43. logging by bunions · · Score: 1

    actual conversations aren't logged and easily searchable. Also, you can't simply paste a chunk of code into an actual conversation, or transfer long URLs.

    "hey bob, what's up? Oh, right, yeah, just go to http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=188393&op= Reply&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pid=15 529472 and you'll find what you need. See ya tomorrow. Yeah, 188393. Right. commentsort equals zero, you got it. Later."

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    1. Re:logging by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Yes, Bob, I did call you "D00D"...yeah, two zeroes...uh huh...uh huh...yeah, Survivor was EL THREE THREE SEVEN last night...uh huh...yeah...hey, sorry, got a customer, gotta go...alright, BEE EFF EN.

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
  44. Not for us. by chaboud · · Score: 1

    We disable the message service (because of broadcast messages), and we consider it extremely bad behavior in our shop to send people these sorts of messages. If you need to chat with someone, email them, use IM (if available), or just walk down the hall...

    In short, "net send" is off limits in our office.

  45. e/pop by crankyspice · · Score: 1

    We use e/pop http://www.wiredred.com/ at the law firm where I work (I'm not in IT, my only exposure is to the client). It's about as basic as you can get, and even senior partners can operate it (we have a few that weren't even on email until 2-3 years ago). No other connection with the software, just use it and know that it's 'good enough' for us.

    --
    geek. lawyer.
  46. Jabber... by pen · · Score: 1

    Just chiming in to say, Jabber. I work at a large financial institution and that's what we use. It works great. I use Pandion for my client.

  47. SSL is enough by XNormal · · Score: 1

    An SSL connection to your jabber server is enough. No need for end-to-end encryption. If you don't trust your own internal server, what DO you trust?

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:SSL is enough by GiMP · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is substantial benefit for the higher-ups to have end-to-end encryption. With an end-to-end encryption, the parties at both ends can discuss things like terminating the systems administrator or confidential information that may affect stock prices. With SSL, the systems administrator(s) can snoop.

    2. Re:SSL is enough by jesboat · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind, however, that the sysadmin is also going to be installing all the software, and telling the higher-ups exactly how to configure encryption. To paraphrase an ancestor post: "If you don't trust your sysadmin, who do you trust?"

    3. Re:SSL is enough by hahafaha · · Score: 1
      To paraphrase an ancestor post: "If you don't trust your sysadmin, who do you trust?"

      That reasoning can get you in a lot of trouble. http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/ is an example that comes to mind.

      Having said that, not trusting your sysadmin will also get you in a lot of trouble in that you will be unable to use any computer of which you are not the administrator.

  48. NetMeeting by ikejam · · Score: 1

    Pretty rudimentary but it comes with windows....

  49. Psi supports encription by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    JFGI before you spout more shit. http://psi-im.org/wiki/Encryption

    1. Re:Psi supports encription by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      "Encription" as you so eloquently put it, is not the only factor. I know you're a fanboy, but try to reason why PSI is BETTER than GAIM.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    2. Re:Psi supports encription by siezer · · Score: 1


      Simple. PSI (unlike gaim) supports protocol transports.
      You can sign into your AOL, Yahoo, etc accounts through your jabber server.

      This allows you to firewall off all the major chat services from their native clients and still allow your employees to talk on their personal IM accounts to the outside world while logging all the conversations.

    3. Re:Psi supports encription by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      PSI is both difficult to setup and use; as far as IMs go. The immaturity of the client (PSI) is quite evident from the complex and unforgiving error messages like "Reason:". Jabber messages to particular services can be (permanently?) blocked via certain gateway servers being arbitrarily blocked, for various reasons at random intervals! Technically superior yes. Practically more useful, no. When a client cant reach your universal messenger when you're online, you'd have to go back and install another client? That defeats the purpose.

      I do not agree that PSI is a better choice. I can't professionally recommend a program that is not the best for a client TODAY, I wouldn't recommend it for the random passer-by until it was honestly the best solution.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  50. Jabber Inside + Outside Firewall by billstewart · · Score: 1
    My company was recently acquired, and our new Texan overlords use an annoying homebrew IM system :-)

    But before that, we used a Jabber-based system that included one server inside the firewall and one server outside the firewall (probably in a DMZ), which meant that I could use the corporate IM system from work and also from home, on or off a VPN connection, which was amazingly convenient. It also meant that I could start up the IM client when I booted my laptop, and if I was at home, that meant that it could log in without waiting for me to start my VPN client. And it had all the Jabbery goodness I'd expect, though I didn't try using a bunch of different clients just for fun.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  51. Standards - Jabber or SIP/SIMPLE by billstewart · · Score: 1

    There are really two IM standards that matter - the better developed one is Jabber, and the emerging one is the SIP standard used for VOIP, which is a proxyable presence server that can support various media including text, VOIP, and video. Other than that, most of the choices tend to be proprietary, so you use clients like GAIM that tap into them. A number of the bigger IM services are moving from proprietary-only protocols to one of those two standards, and if you're doing VOIP anyway, it may make sense to have your VOIP presence server / directory system also support IM.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  52. CTCP SMSG by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    What? You're not using an IBM VM mainframe where you work? :-P

    Oh, the havoc we used to wreak with CTCP SMSG...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:CTCP SMSG by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, the good old days. I remember being bored one night and seeing how many machines we could route "Hello!" through (smsg vtam smsg rscs ... Hello!).

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
  53. SILC by jnieuwen · · Score: 1

    We use SILC for communication.

  54. +5 funny? by RMH101 · · Score: 1

    That would be WinPop.

  55. What are the dangers of IM? by rduke15 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What should one watch out for in IM clients like MSN? My daughter started using that, but I never have.

    I warned her about fake links in emails and fake email senders, and showed her how easy it is to send a mail

      From: Saddam Hussein <president@whitehouse.gov>

    (After which we played a while sending fake emails to her friends, seeming to come from other friends, teachers, etc. so for email, I think she and her friends got the message... Next exercise will be to spoof the school web site)

    But having no experience with IM, I don't know against what to warn her, much less how to demonstrate it.

    1. Re:What are the dangers of IM? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      In general, if you don't know the person on the other side of the connection you should assume that they're up to no good and are not who they say they are. And even if I know the person on the other side, I don't automatically assume that they are who the screen says. I keep an eye out for non-standard speech or someone that suddenly starts asking for sensitive information who normally doesn't.

      I'm not sure how one would go about teaching that. Except by teaching your children not to believe everything that a stranger tells them. There's an "art" in being able to tell truth from lies when dealing with a stranger in a face-to-face meeting. It's harder in a faceless medium such as e-mail or IM (or even phones).

      Maybe the old adage, "if it sounds too good to be true it probably is" applies.

      Or the cliched story about the guy who gets all worked up over some hot chick in a chat room only to find out he's made a date with an overweight, grizzled, 50+ year old male. (Probably not suitable as a teaching story for most children.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    2. Re:What are the dangers of IM? by DarkNemesis618 · · Score: 1

      Watch for IMs from your/her friends that say something like: "Check this out, this is so cool!" with a link in it. That link then goes to a virus. Easiest way to confirm whether your friend actually sent it or not. And don't blame your buddy for sending it, because the virus causes AIM to send them without the user knowing. Just ask something like "did you send me an IM just now?" and you can pretty much find out whether that link is genuine or not. You can also look at the link. If it ends with *.cmd or *.bat chances are you don't want to click on it.

      --
      What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
  56. We use that all the time at my office by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    File transfers are a bit slow though. Also, outsiders tend to get confused when I stand up and say: "Hey Mike, here's that file you wanted. 10101011101011010100010101010011010101010110101010 01010010101010101010101010010101110101010101101010 10101100101101010100101101011101010101101101001010 10101010010001010100101001010010100101011010101010 10100101111101010101110101010010101000001010101000 00101010010101000101010000000000000001101111111111 11010101010000000110010101010100101010010101001010 10010101010010101010010101010010101011010101010101 010010101".

    1. Re:We use that all the time at my office by shish · · Score: 1
      ESUj¥uVËTÕm*©)JV¥õ]R

      o_O?

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    2. Re:We use that all the time at my office by sharpestmarble · · Score: 1

      Free compression! Use hexadecimal! An quick 4:1 compression ratio if you use a free program that you download off the 'net.

      For example, the above becomes: ABAD4553556A94AAAAA57556AACB54B5D56D2AA915294A56 AAA5F55D52A0AA0A95150001BFFD5406554A952A552A954AB 5554A1

      --
      AC's modded -6. I don't see you, I don't mod you, anything you say is lost. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    3. Re:We use that all the time at my office by dushkin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it also confuses people when I implement XML in common conversation. It's a shame they don't understand me.

      --
      o hai
  57. AltMe by SixArmedJesus · · Score: 1
    AltMe is a client that's a bit more than just IM written in a language called Rebol. From their website:

    AltME provides an integrated environment for a range of communication activities including file sharing, alerts, calendars, contacts, user management, journalling, task tracking, shared document creation, and much more.

    --

    *slight crashing sound*
  58. Re:Uh. It's built in. by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 1

    And how exactly are you going to use that in a business environment where the users are MBAs lesser business types?

    "You need IM? Oh sir just open a command line and..." *plonk* fired.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
  59. Warn me next time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Warn me next time, I can't see sick shit like that while at work! >: (

    10101011101011010100010101010011010101010110101010 01010010101010101010101010010101110101010101101010 10101100101101010100101101011101010101101101001010 10101010010001010100101001010010100101011010101010 10100101111101010101110101010010101000001010101000 00101010010101000101010000000000000001101111111111 11010101010000000110010101010100101010010101001010 10010101010010101010010101010010101011010101010101 010010101".
  60. With Asterisk integration by lthown · · Score: 2, Informative

    and let's not forget that it has support for asterisk. The list of contacts gets updated with who's on the phone, etc. and there's a pop-up with the caller ID on your screen (bottom right corner).

  61. mod parent up! Re:Standards - Jabber or SIP/SIMPLE by speculatrix · · Score: 1
    &ltaol>me too

    100% agree that SIP is the best way to go forwards, as it means you've then got a user authentication database to hang a VOIP telephony system off when you want to go that way.

    also, whilst the other players might not like to inter-work too much with instant messaging, there's a slightly bigger chance of them doing SIP gateways for their voice chat.

  62. Broadcast Medium by Nurgled · · Score: 1

    The other flaw is that nearby users are able to recieve traffic that's not intended for them. This can be mitigated by whispering, but this tends to result in increased data corruption and the need for retransmissions.

  63. Re:Try this.... by Chapter80 · · Score: 1

    What a great 1927 film. I loved "dial 8 for information". I can't get that to work.

  64. We had the same question - so we wrote this app by 0ryan0 · · Score: 1
    We had this exact problem, and got tired of using net send. Two of us wrote a program called t++, and we just finished version 1.0 after a year of development. It features:
    • Tabbed Chat - have a tab for each of your peers
    • Encryption
    • Tells you when the user is typing a message - their name goes bold
    • Tells you when the user's box is locked - their name goes italics
    • Saves peer and tab configuration
    Go here: http://hms.dyndns.org/t++
  65. Omnipod might be an option by vallee · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hey,

    Here at Pythian Remote DBA we've had a client these past two years called Omnipod. They run a good shop and the tech guys there are absolute tops.

    Their software is a turnkey hosted secure instant messaging platform. It integrates with the big three networks just fine. It has amazing archiving and audit abilities, thus its popularity in the financial sector (those dudes have to keep all written communication for a few years or they're not allowed to use it at all).

    Furthermore, it has an extremely cool feature that's not in any of Y! AIM or MSN: You can create Venn-diagram like overlap groups so that line workers can't just IM the CEO, and so that you can control the communication of presence information inside and outside the group.

    It's all very cool and I can recommend it without hesitating. Although it's not FOS, the fact that you don't have to administer it and that you can be up and running tomorrow totally kicks ass.

    HTH

    Paul

    --
    The real Paul Vallee is slashdot userid 2192, and, what do you mean it's not cool to point out your low userid?
  66. Novell GroupWise by Degrees · · Score: 1
    If you are willing to buy both an email system and an instant messaging system, consider Novell GroupWise.

    Runs on Windows, comes with an Instant Messaging component, and to appease your management that might be worried about IM traffic carrying company secrets out to your competitors, it doesn't hook up to YIM, AIM, or MSN. However, the GAIM client does talk to both Jabber and GWIM.

    Best, is that should you later want to move to Linux, your GroupWise system will move seamlessly.

    --
    "The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
  67. If your users won't use it, do you truly need it? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful


    You said when you had an internal IRC channel set up, your users would avoid logging into it and were turned off by its complexity.

    Regardless of what Instant Messaging solution you eventually decide on, will the situation be any different? If your users don't see the value of IM, it will be hard to convince them to make use of it, no matter how secure, convenient, or simple it is.

  68. Ah, how it all repeats by Goose42 · · Score: 2, Informative
    I had this exact same problem at my last job. 120 employees, 1 IT guy, no funding for anything. My answer, which worked insanely well:
    • 1 400MHz Celeron-based computer running SUSE Linux 9 (most recent version available at the time)
    • jabberd2 for the Jabber server, with a MySQL backend
    • Psi client for all the Windows users.
    • A PHP script to automatically add everyone to everyone else's contact list (yeah, I'm the guy who posted that).
    Psi was great because it was easy to configure so that their application profile was stored on a network drive, so that no matter what computer you logged in to, you had your contact list immediately available. As well, it was really easy to install remotely (just copy the app directory and some shortcuts to the right places on the remote computer). The end result was a computer was saved from the dumpster and put to good use, and everyone got to chat without everyone asking everyone else "whats your jabber address".
    1. Re:Ah, how it all repeats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, your solution infiltrates the company with a server that can really be trusted. The next time someone wants something, you just say, "Oh, I'll set [name of the box] up to do that," and pretty soon it's running Samba with a backup copy of everything, and then the next time the Windows server crashes, nobody notices for a week. Then the Windows server support guy gets laid off, and then there's nobody around to advocate buying more Windows stuff for job security, and Microsoft fades away to a hazy memory.

    2. Re:Ah, how it all repeats by Goose42 · · Score: 1

      True, its a good starting point for showing the strengths of some of the open-source tools out there, but there's only so much you can do with a 400MHz Celeron. :-P

  69. Re:If your users won't use it, do you truly need i by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    You said when you had an internal IRC channel set up, your users would avoid logging into it and were turned off by its complexity. Regardless of what Instant Messaging solution you eventually decide on, will the situation be any different?

    For many users, yes. A lot of casual computer users know and use AIM, or MSN. They have friends online and want to be able to chat with them during the day. They don't know how to do voice chats or group chats and don't want to. If you IM them a file, they ask for help. The learning curve is zero to just send them messages. Now look at IRC. It has channels, and broadcasts by default. Most of the messages on a channel will not be for them and are just noise. The only people on it sending them messages are work people.

    They want to be on IM. They don't like being in an IRC room. The answer, provide both. Then, those that don't want to listen in a chat room and deal with the distraction can just use IM and are only bothered when it directly concerns them. Those that want to be "in the loop" for general conversations on a topic or group or for the whole company can do that too. I've introduced a number of remedial users to IM and only one of them (without an always on internet connection) has ever not taken the initiative to log in and use it from then on. At the same time, many don't make use of IRC even when it is available via the same client and they have been trained in how to use it.

  70. Shouting lessons by peterpi · · Score: 1

    My sysas a really really really loud voice. Works wonders

  71. I can tell you one product to avoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Avoid Sonork, www.sonork.com, as it sucks (not stable, misconfigured by default, lacks controls and features it _should_ have, is a pain to administer and use).

    Sorry I can't give a positive recommendation, but I'm watching to see what is recommended here.

  72. Thanks! by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Cool, now we can save huge amounts of time, and maybe use a few letters for redundancy! Now I just need to update Mike, otherwise he might crash the next time I send him files. Poor bastard, I once mistakenly said 2 instead of a 1 and he just froze until the boss came and booted him.

  73. Free IRC type chat by pakratus · · Score: 1

    I've used a freeware program called Dema LAN Chat. It looks like IRC, no setup required. It does not seem to be available on the creator's website anymore. If you are interested, I have a copy: Download from me

  74. Jabber + JAJC + class.jabber.php by stan_freedom · · Score: 1

    I also am the sole IT guy working for a small company (25 heads). I set up Jabber on a linux server several years ago, along with Just Another Jabber Client on the Windows PCs. It has works great and is used daily by everyone within our office. The real value came when I added some PHP scripts using class.jabber.php. Using this class I have written scripts to quickly add/delete users. More important to our company, I have integrated scripts with some of our business processes so that the users get automated messages when certain events happen (invoices and purchase orders created, faxes sent or failed to send, etc.) Once you learn how to write one script, it's easy to create new ones.

    The only thing I haven't been able to do is enable easy logging. I even went so far as to use tcpdump to grab messages. We a couple of guys that were caught sending suggestive messages to a girl and needed to make sure they had cleaned up their act. Other than that, Jabber rocks.

  75. Jabber, in five minutes by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

    Get a copy of VMware Player (it's free at http://www.vmware.com/download/player/) and load any of several Jabber virtual appliances. (You may have to change the virtual ethernet adaptor to use the bridged network.) Here's one applicance that looks like a close fit: http://www.vmware.com/vmtn/appliances/directory/24 8

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  76. Try out Akeni lan messenger. by Myself · · Score: 1

    I've done some basic tinkering with Akeni LAN Messenger and I think it fits your needs pretty well. It operates on the local segment only, not across the internet, and provides basic messaging / file transfer functionality. There's a linux version too.

  77. Office IM vs cell phones by WildersGod · · Score: 1
    Everyone now a days has a cell phone, and most are capable of text messages. Yes, IM is quicker and a more simplified way to communicate in the office, but for some companies not looking to spend the money for the development or software needed for inter-office IM, the cell phone idea may be the best way.

    To be honest some people might not be keen on this idea, but hey it can be a solution to time delays. Some people think their cell phone is part of their personal lives, well isn't your job more important then your cell phone? Simply organize a meeting to establish who has cell phones, depending on the type of company and employees, then from there, have everyone exchange the appropriate numbers or e-mail address's. Some boss's may like to see the initiative taken to get the office on a faster, more reliable office setup.


    Hey it worked for me in an old job where they say nay bob to the Inter-Office Im'ing. Probably didn't help, but sometimes its best to look outside the problem for short term or final solutions.


    Cheers

    Ryan

    --
    www.lifeofryan.ca My reality is another's neverending endeavor.
  78. talking by crankshot999 · · Score: 1

    talking is great except for when reccomending web sies i remember... *phone rings* me; hello? friend mike; whats the site for that article about data storage you told me about? me; go to slashdot.org to get the story at the first link. mike; huh? /..org? me;spell slash and dot then type regular . org.got it? mike;i tink so. nope it wont work. me;forget it ill email you the link. after that i laghed hysterically for 2 minutes.