Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and AOL Fight Over Instant Messaging
Fizgig writes "Is it just me, or do they only call for standards when they're not winning? Microsoft just released their MSN instant messaging client, which could talk with AOL Instant Messenger users. AOL then changed the protocol slightly to break Microsoft's. Now Microsoft is calling for standards. And they somehow managed to mention Linux in a story that really has nothing to do with it. " Update: Around 11:30 p.m. EST, Keefesis noticed that MS had released an updated version of their Messenger client that works with the latest version of the AOL product. This MSN page has details.
God knows the bastards have done it to enough other projects....Java for a big example.
Internet Explorer follows W3C's standards better than Netscape by a longshot. IE is a damn find browser.
What was the point of the linux mention? ... this TiK page is down,
The should have mentioned TiK along with it....
... oh wait
* grumbles *
I think that Microsoft demanding standards is just trying to muscle their way into a new market. If Micro$oft _REALLY_ wanted to have open standards, they should open the standards on their office/wordprocessing file formats. The office situation and the instant messaging situation is exactly the same thing, except Microsoft is on the bottom this time. Once Microsoft opens up its standards so others can communicate with Windows Word/Excel users, then I would be able to believe that they want these standards for the better of the users and not just an oppertunity to put add to their advertising pool.
practice since at least Viet Nam in the USM to give the fatally wounded m&ms as their last taste of
life.
Interesting. Where can I read more about this? I'm curious what size package of m&ms they use, and if they ate them for other purposes. Would they eat their own m&ms if they were dying, or would a fellow soldier give his?
If I'm dying, I'd much rather some powerful drugs (morphine would be acceptable). But the next time I eat M&Ms, hearing this will have caused me to savor them much more.
When Microsoft documents their proprietary
protocols, they will have earned the right to
ask other companies to do the same.
They all avoided the standard protocals to begin with anyway. Instant Message systems existed long before AOL/MS even know what the internet was. IRC and DCC together do everything AOL/MS do...
:-)
I laughed a lot reading AOLs gripe about MS. Come on... They typed their password into another program... Hello Tik!
As much as I think MS sucks AOL should not change "standards" May the best client win! (TiK)
Plus Tik has no ads
Personally I'm sticking with Screenfire, its not ported for linux and doesnt have all the features, but it works
No, it does Microsoft HTML better than Netscape.
yes, it is a protocol, see RFC1459
http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/rfc1459.html
(or did I miss a joke?)
How about the article saying that everyone can read everyone else's e-mail...how about if it is sent from Outlook with default settings then it sends some rich text garbage and I couldn't even read it in netscape 4.5 (win32)...Why didn't the standard kings (MS) stick with plain text or even html? I refuse to correspond with people that sent me rich text crap. But hopefully it has been corrected so newbies that think microsft is cool can actually send mail to the rest of the world
I dislike MS as much as the next slashdot user, and I understand that MS has tried to bastardize standards. That said, I would like to see standards in the Instant Messaging field. Sure, AOL will lose its market share. Sure, MS will try to bastardize this too. But hey, at least this way there can be better competition. May the best IMer win.
ME TOO!
IRC is an embarrassment. Use Zephyr.
This is just another company figureing out that when you put "linux" somewhere in a story you might get /.'ed and that means you can show all your add sponsers "look we got some many hits it broke a webserver" its really week.. playing to the crowd.
Lookie here, Gertrude! I snagged me a script kiddie looking for an epileptic cyberexperience! Should I throw him back, or reel him in?
While there might not have been an official standard for aim, they did have 2 oepn source clients Tik (tcl/tk) and tnt (lisp for emacs). It would be really dissappointing to see both of those clients dissappear. Being fair to aol, -- their revenue is generated from adds on the client, if they dont have control over the adds, then they are making nothing on the software.
Tux says: "MS-ASCII sux!"
Zephyr, not IRC.
The world needs "instant messaging" [tm & sic] the way it needs a little cell phone in everybody's head.
MS Office's formats have been available at their site since time immemorial. And the newest format for Office 2000 is HTML / XML / CSS, which is about as clear as it gets.
Just FYI.
One word: netsplits
I personally would prefer my IP was not given out whenever possible. If someone has your IP, they can launch smurf attacks against you or a nasty DoS. Speaking of (and horribly off-topic) DoS attacks, yet another bug was discovered in Linux 2.2.x networking code.
Wow, nothing like a script-kiddie topic (instant msging my ass) to suck in all the geek-wannabes.
I, too agree. As I see it, their call for a standard is just to acquire a new area that they have yet to deal with---until now.
More power to AOL for blocking MSNM! Its not a standard, but AOL shouldn't just stand back and let Microsoft take over what they have worked to promote. Besides, that would mean that the true AOL users would have to upgrade their Instant Messenger, among other things.
Microsoft is calling for standards where it refuses to ABIDE by standards in the first place. Developing a version of java proprietary (more or less) to microsoft. It has broken many standards in order to squash the other company and gain the foothold. Why can't they stick with creating a decent operating system and forget about the whole Internet deal. Maybe sell the stuff as add-on software, but not pre-packaged with Windows!
I would really hate to see Instant Messaging go to Microsoft. What a pity---Another waste of a perfectly good program...
"Instant message" as a "program"? What are you smoking?
Bad idea, ab initio. Learn from the past, AOLsuckers.
http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/archive.pik e? 4 A5D@EXCHMTL1 is the correct address. Cut and paste it as single line and it should work. For some reason, it is linked to slashdot.org. It was also on BugTraq today.
list=1&msg=2EFD9DB7E06AD211BFC700805FC777A401AF
Linux sure caused slashdot to be out most of last night... I guess it's ok because it really isn't a professional site.
GPLed software, contributions from free software/open source community, cross platform....
Gosh, you're talking about TiK!
There is an IETF working group (IMPP) that is working on such a standard. They were all abuzz last night about the change.
My personal opinion on the matter is that AOL has a right to require licensing for their technology to go into a 'competing' product, such as another messanger. However, they only have this right if they put such a disclaimer in the documentation and on the site, which have seemingly dissappeared since last week (and now I know why)
>They've missed the boat, and since they can't buy it, they're trying to hijack it by
>pushing their way into a closed standard product, and then screaming bloody
>murder when AOL changes their protocol.
Which raises an rather interesting legal question. By asking the AOL users for their
passwords without AOL's permission, is the Microsoft software
in fact illegally accessing the AOL system/computers?
The thing actually changed in the protocol was the identifier string thrown back in the "hello" process. Instead of saying (I believe) "Tik 1.4" it now says (I believe) "TOC"
Just in case you were wondering 'my gosh, how ever did those Microsoft engineers trace a completely redesigned protocol so quickly?'
Also, they (as in Yahoo, M$, and Prodigy) are not trying to interface with the core server farm at AOL for the AIM service, there is another server with a different protocol, and THAT is the protocol they have documentation for. AOL actually could be at a loss if they keep that server up with the current protocol, it will be routing a very large % of AIM users through a interface that was designed for low load (I am almost positive it is a seperate server, and that it is ONE server).. imagine everyone using MSN pager and Yahoo pager and the like being like 'how come whenever I try to send a message to someone on AOL it takes like five minutes? AOL sucks'
>1) The most significant group will bash Microsoft
/very/ surprised when the local paper(NY Times^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPress Democrat) had a short piece about how evil Microsoft was because they offered an AOL Instant Messenger clone. Here was an anti-Microsoft hate piece, or about as close as a right-wing newspaper will get to one, and here I am actually thinking "Hold on a sec... There's nothing wrong with that."
>because, well, they're Microsoft.
>
>2) A vocal minority will try and bring some
>sanity to the discussion by arguing that AOL's
tactics hint of an attempt to become a very
>Microsoft-ish company.
I was about to say you're probably right, but most mindless Microsoft bashers are pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. The mindful Microsoft bashers, on the other hand... =)
I hate Microsoft about as much as the next guy, but I was
I hate AOL too. I don't like their business practices, I don't like their censorship, I don't like their catering to idiots, and while the fact they gave MS a taste of their own medicine is somewhat satisfying, it is also wrong. Sun has been pretty nasty too sometimes, and the whole 'Alliance' deal scares me. I would rather be ignored by Microsoft than assimilated by AOL.
Anyway, AIM (and ICQ) is for people too stupid to figure out IRC. If I'm available to chat, I'm in my normal Undernet watering hole. I don't know who uses it anyways; The first question anyone asks me when they find out I'm a wannabe computer nerd is invariably "How the hell do I get rid of that little yellow man?"
-- Perpetual Newbie
hehe, nah TNT is better (Although they haven't updated the version in like a YEAR, the bastards)
Correction: MSHTML , MSXML , and MSCSS.
And dumb people won't understand 'gee, why can't Metscape/iPlanet or Opera or any of the other browsers view this? They all suck'.. Sigh, why use standards when you can embrace/extend them, and have the rest of the market struggling to keep up with the feature of the day
TNT is still downloadable at least though
http://www.aim.aol.com/tnt/tnt-1.7.tgz I think
Hypocrisy is bad but standards are good. Market leaders hate standards; standards have always been adopted when the companies on the losing end push for it. MS's behavior is hypocritical, but there's nothing in the least unusual about it.
Actually, I think what you meant is "It couldn't have been made worse"
no account registration means that there is no way to guarantee that the person you are talking to is the 'real' person. No ability to actually find a person based on information like email. Code that allows direct network messages to be targeted at a user, knocking them offline because they can't respond to server queries (ping floods).
Also, next time you are online look at how many users are on IRC. Four thousand maybe? Try ICQ or AOL with 41 million, without netsplits, without 5 MINUTE lags sometimes between servers.
Not to mention the fact that chat channels have 'owners' that are decides solely at channel creation time, creating tons of fun debates and political wars.
If you want to have a good protocol to base a chat program on, SMTP is a helluva lot closer to what you would than IRC.
AIM has a larger user base than ICQ, and they are both owned by the same company anyways.
If either was to be opened as a protocol, I would choose AIM. ICQ is a rather decent client feature-wise (although I think it is about the best example of feature-creep possible, and have problems with it daily, I miss certain features whenever I use AIM).. but the ICQ server protocol is about the worst twisted-piece-of-wreckage you can imagine. The peer-to-peer client communication they have isn't exactly golden-quality code, and has a few inheirantly flawed 'features'.
Not only that, but ICQ's names are inheirantly enumerated. You don't message by name, you message by UIN. Anyone see a problem with this? I am really really surprised that I don't get more ICQ spam (only about five messages so far in two months), considering all they have to do is read some source for the ICQ clones in linux and put in a for (unsigned long i=0;i41000000;i++) SendMessage("Go to my 1ee7 Pr0n page");
Anyways..
I like some things about IE better, but I use netscape. I just can't stand some of the things IE does. For example, I hate the way it doesn't pre size images and then loads the text first so that when I start reading the page, a image then loads and the whole layout shifts. I just find this incredibly annoying.
Now that's an IDEA! It can BE done and done well!
But Corprate America want to do thing their way. They don't have much trust in Free Products or Products from Non Corprate Organization.
I think you just proved your own point. I don't want to write DHTML for two browsers (lest we forget there are more browsers out there than IE and Netscape...), that's why we have standards. Neither one of the big two properly implement it. People say IE implements it better than netscape, so what? Marlboro lights are closer to breathing clean air than reds, but that don't make it good.
IRC also does not have a 'filter' so that servers only get messages that are directed to them, so you end up having all the traffic on all the servers sent through one pipe.
IRC Servers work by being 'connected', meaning that 'hey, I got this message, I'll bounce it to all of the servers connected to me'. This both makes lag a problem and causes a single machine malfunction to 'crash' IRC.
Let me define 'non-scalable'.. I forget how many people I saw on EFNet when I used to IRC a few years ago, but I believe the number when I logged in was either 4,000 or 40,000.. either way, we are taking two or three orders of magnitude of people, which would in turn require two or three orders of magnitudes of servers (since all the current servers are overworked and at a user max, last time I IRC'd a month ago).
Finally, there is no persistant login on IRC, although DALNet hacked it in by giving a Bot server op permissions. That and channel 'ownership' are things people just don't want to deal with.
You are right. JavaScript is not a standard.
ECMAScript is. MS doesn't even claim to
support JavaScript. They support JScript instead.
A company named ELF Communications (one guy) released a program called WinTalk that was 100% compatible with UNIX-style talk clients and daemons. It was a really nice program - just like AOL's Instant Messanger, but it used the Talk protocol, not a proprietary one. No, it's not open source, but it is Freeware. I am not affiliated with WinTalk, or ELF Communications.
Of course. Netscape had been undermining that standard longer, and altogether their engineers don't seem as smart (I mean, come on, no style sheets without JavaScript?). Hell, their leader didn't even approve of DTDs!
Of course, IE is crippled by their compulsive need to guess from URL suffixes, because Windows doesn't have Content-Types and they can't be bothered to treat HTTP differently.
Netscape is even more incompetent, of course. Their "parser" can't even survive omitting optional tags.
And ECMA-262 is now the standard for JavaScript, freely available no less.
This might be off subject, but....
I half to agree with m3000. Netscape crashes on me more than IE. So I use NeoPlanet.
I like Windows much better than Linux. Why? I tried for three months to get our home network to recognise Linux (and vice versa). The people I met on IRC and in the various newsgroups were arrogant. "It's easy; install Samba. All your problems will be taken care of". The much-lauded "community" of "friendly" and "helpful" people pointed me to HowTo after HowTo even after I explained my situation and told them that, after a thurough readthru and test, the instructions didn't help.
Then I asked how I might uninstall Linux. Bad mistake. "Linux is the answer to all the world's problems" and "You're a lamer" were common (though adapted) responses. I can uninstall Windows. Why can't I do that to Linux?
Now I don't like MS. But it sure as hell is easier to point and click than it is to type. Linux is in the stone age; yeah, that sharpened stick can kill a deer, and it's veral to kill him with your bare hands... but isn't it easier to take a gun and pop him?
Yep. Live messaging is one big network effect (in the "follow the herd or get screwed" sense) waiting to happen. This needs an open standard badly, preferably supporting TLS (which replaces SSL).
What was wrong with SMTP SEND, anyway?
Buy stock. MS can do this to any userbase that isn't wise enough to reject them on general principles.
If M$ get their way, they'll immediately do something to ensure customer lock-in. Maybe embrace and extend the messaging standard, maybe bundle their client to Windows, maybe bla bla bla. We'll end up having to fight a tougher MSFT.
.doc, .xls, stop extending Java etc first, before focusing on AOL.
When there is a group of ppl fighting each other, the rule is that the weaker ones should join force to eliminate the strongest first.
I'll rather see MSFT becomes a regular standard compliant vendor, fully embrace XML stop using
I use Netscape for browsing, but it gets annoying when I try to copy a block of text from a website and paste it on another document. Netscape adds these margins, which makes the formatting look bad on e-mail. So I use a separate copy of IE to copy the block of text. No margins, format looks better.
rob
I agree that AOL is in the wrong this time.
However, the writing is on the wall for me - that M$ is going to bundle its MSNM...in order to crush AIM, ICQ, Y! etc slowly but surely.
One more funny thing from the article:
Sanford, of Microsoft, said the software giant's efforts
for a standard is akin to Web users being able to email
everyone regardless of who manufactured their email
software.
"Today, it doesn't matter if you're using AOL NetMail
or Microsoft Exchange. All that matters is we can
send email back and forth. And we want to get to the
same point with instant messaging," Sanford said.
I reckon it would make the same sense if I change the last sentence to:
"And we want to get to the same point with operating systems"
Any idea?
Messaging is better (in some ways) than telephones. Doesn't have to tie up limited voice circuits or make noise (use it from work!), and I can tell at a glance which of all my friends are awake and wouldn't mind being called.
'course, I'd go for a cranial cell phone if I could turn it off easily, installation didn't disfigure me, and it wouldn't give me brain damage or something.
Uh I think AOL is trying to buy Linux... They bought Netscape and with Netscape came a share of RedHat. Although AOL shouldn't ever be able to buy all the distro's of Linux I'm sure they'll make some lamo "user-friendly" version to suite their own proprietary needs.
AOL is really targeting MS in this whole action. While Yahoo! is doing the same thing MS is doing AOL has apparently not called Yahoo! hackers. When Prodigy did the same thing months ago AOL just shut them down and had nothing more to say but "pay up". Mean while AOL has been using the whole opensource community trying to get them to build alternative OS versions of AIM so that some point down the line they can cash in on a whole new market segment. AOL had allowed the open-source community free reign to create new applications so that more users could use the AIM protocol and now that MS has exploited that AOL has pulled everything, all open-source AIM access has been pulled since this crap started. I would say that AOL is cutting their own throats but realistically there are so many sheep out there dumping their hard earned cash right into AOL's pockets that it's gonna be easy for AOL to just buy their way right out of this problem. I mean come on what is a couple of million users complaining to AOL they have about 35 million registered between AOL, AIM, and ICQ. They can stand to keep f**king everyone for a little while longer as long as everyone keeps coming back for more.
'sorry about the AC but didn't feel the need to login'
These are the people in my neighborhood, yes these are the people who can blow me good...
Gloat all you want, but I'm sure MS was prepared for this outcome.
Don't you think at least one MS employee said, "What if AOL doesn't like the fact that we hook into their 'buddy list'?"
AOL can't win in this situation, a standard will eventually rule the instant messaging world and they'll conform to it. If everyone on the internet is using it except AOL they'll have no choice as their customers will eventually demand it.
In no way should we be against AOL using M$'s own business tactics against M$.....now, if they use those same tactics against any one else, *then* we can cry "Foul!". Face it....M$ is fair prey. It is only poetic justice that their own tactics be used against them. AOL makes valid security claims...for all you know, present or future versions of the M$ client may very well upload your personel info to M$....as quite a number of existing M$ apps do...and if you deny this *fact*, then you admit your ignorance, and you are a brainwashed fool.
Call me crazy but isn't this open source and standards thing what all you guys work for. I'm not really into all that programing stuff, (though I'd like to be if I had the time) but if everything was open and standardized it would make competition easier for everyone to enter, unfortunately that includes microsoft. However if there was a standard that would be one less thing that Microsoft could control. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Jabber is not developed yet, there is only code for developers to help, but no real beta.
There was talk about moving it to Mozilla.org but AOL didnt like that so they closed the project...
I hope it will come out on its own...
spwolf...
I guess this issue just shows that we really need another version of GPL. A license open for everyone except Microsoft.
Any suggestions how that can be made so all kind of organisations/companies that support open standards are free to use/modify except the Microsoft company. This would help all the underdogs and ourselfes to cooperate and lock out the big Satan.
Would just a simple 'except for win32' be enough?
I hate Linux people because of their biasness.
Well that was stupid. I guess that means your........... BIASED ! I hate you for that!
Then I asked how I might uninstall Linux. Bad mistake.
Do I have to tie your shoes for you as well? To uninstall Linux is the second most documented Linux fact on the net! I love these guys I play quake and they ask how do I bind a key or use the grapple. Im playing a game!!! RTFM
If I can't do something technical Im not going to blame it on some people who are on IRC. Is it their job to help you? Did you assume they should help you?
It's a play of words. It combines the first posters two arguments into one.
So what did they do to Java? And as far as I know, Java has not been accepted as are standard yet.
Well, I use ICQ because it *does* expose your IP address. From time to time I help online friends with their computers by using a remote access tool (VNC to be exact). But since they get a new IP assigned by their ISP, I need to find their IP address (and they are not clever enough to find it themself - "An IP what?" they ask ;-)
"...and offer features far beyond what AIM has."
I though people bashed MS because their products suck, but now I see that it's because their products are better. Stupid me.
Well, MS is a commercial company (as opposed to a non-profit organisation). They are supposed to make decisions based on getting market share. Do you really think AOL, Oracle and Sun are making decisions based on anything else?
Just how is it that finger is evil but this crap is not?
I agree completely. This is the same as when Microsoft "poached" on TicketMaster's property. If you recall, Microsoft and TicketMaster were negotiating a deal for the links from MS's Sidewalk property to TicketMaster's concert sales area. When the talks broke down, Microsoft just linked in anyway, even though their negotiations meant that to both parties the link-throughs were worth money. That's why TicketMaster sued. In this case, Microsoft is poaching again. AOL believes (rightly) that their Instant Messenger protocols are money-makers for their company (the ad-revenues from the miniature ads at the top of the IM window). Microsoft wishes to poach off of AOL's user-base, gaining ad revenues in the process (rather than grow their own user-base, they plan on stealing AOL's). If the protocol *was in fact Open Source*, AOL would definitely be on the wrong side of history. As it is, they're just trying to protect their customer base from another smash-and-grab by Microsoft.
They're not eliminating competition, they're preventing competitors from poaching their user-base. Plain and simple, Microsoft is the fox in the hen-house. Who can blame AOL for reaching for their shotgun?
rm -r *
now how do you uninstall windows?
Seriously though, there is more to it than IE is better that Netscape. Compare Netscape 3 to IE 2, that was the state of the browser market when MS decided to get serious about the internet, and spent millions of dollars to create a good browser, only to give it away for free, and to create thier own non-standards to break any other competition. Now those bad Netscape people can't make a decent browser... its tough when your competition can spend money on R&D, recoup that money through sales of its office software, and use its OS monopoly to make sure that its free product is already installed on > 90% of computers that are purchased.
And you think IE is better, and we hate Microsoft because they are Microsoft.
Because you need to know where people are. This is fine if you have a static IP address, but most Internet user don't. Their ISP assign a new IP address to them each time they log on. The IM systems solve this problem.
IRC could be usefull, but their are several IRC nets, and most users only understand two things about the net: email and the web. "What's an IRC net?", they ask.
Somebody noticed that you could use an LDAP service to find people on the net. This might be an ok solution. Use LDAP to find where people are (their IP or IRC net/nick name), and use IRC to talk to them (packaged into an easy to use program that doesn't require you to know what LDAP and IRC is).
The only remaining problem is, that *many* people are caught behind an HTTP proxy and you cannot connect to an IRC server over HTTP.
The whole Open Source idea disgusts me to be honest. It's just another case where the FSF makes their own version of already successful applications, and somehow eventually forces everyone to use it. They want the Unix userbase, and they'll get it eventually. Don't be suprised if this GNU software or whatever comes with Linux and sooner or later all Unix users will have to use it. Why can't they allow anyone to have anything that's popular? This is not innovating. Microsoft knows this, and they're probably worried that the same thing will happen to Windows that happened to Solaris, so I don't blame them for their response.
Well, Microsoft's "HTTPMail" thing is XML-based (as you will find out by hacking at it a bit with tcpdump). I imagine the standard probably will be opened or reverse-engineered in the future....
"Anyway, AIM (and ICQ) is for people too stupid to figure out IRC"
Yep... Thanks.. Guess I'm just too stupid...
That's quite an elitist stance you're taking, and quite an illogical and unrefined one at that.
Watch what you say. I use ICQ for the simplicity, and for the convenience.
Before offering half-assed proclamations about people's intelligence, I'll ask you to consider what you are writing and who may be reading.
Ron Kirk
ICQ#
22037991
I tend to agree with several of your points here. Why is it, AOL bought ICQ, then keeps AIM? Probably cause of pride. They invented AIM, before buying ICQ (Why, I don't know). No one I know uses AIM, but I have 25 people on my ICQ account. I get a copy of Netscape V4.61 and got that stupid AIM in my machine. With NO way of getting rid of it now Before with Realplayer, I got it, but could deinstall it. Sorry AOL you screwed me for 7 years with no access in my rural area. Think I'm going to switch to a useless instant messanger like AIM? It's stupid alright, that they push their AIM, instead of a product they bought. It sounds to me, like they want to phase out ICQ, and replace all with AIM. Why else would they still push AIM?
The bloat, and bugs are another big yes as well. I found one major problem with the 'skins' I'm still waiting for a bug fix on it. I kind of like the PIM features, but it's useless, because every upgrade erases them, and your user dbase. Forcing you to put all that back into it.
Linux has the right idea. Open software, so people can fix these bugs themselves. If companies are unwiling to fix bugs, fine. We'll fix them for you.
What I want to see, is ALL instant messengers be standarized, so they all work together. MS, AIM, and ICQ - all sharing messages. Is that too much to ask? Probably.
What's also needed, is ICQ using a *standard* TCP/IP, instead of that weird type they use, that firewalls have such a royal pain with.
When you live in a paranoid anti-Microsoft delusional world anything can be possible.
Is StarOffice or any other competing productivity app "poaching" off of Microsoft's "hard earned" user base when they use some of the MS file formats?
As far as TicketMaster: That was one of the most ridiculous "battles" in the history of mankind with TicketMaster complaining because their site was linked to. That is PREPOSTEROUS in the world of web pages, and one has to think it was simply Bill Gate's old MS buddy and him having a little public skirmish for publicity that you can buy tickets online.
I have yet to see a concise specification of the TCP/IP DCOM wire protocol specification so that non-Microsoft platforms can communicate with DCOM.
Any ideas?
Ever notice how it's the Microsoft idiots who can't program a device driver to save their lives who bitch about "the elite"?
The GnuFree Software Freaks lock you into their proprietary non-standard extensions to gcc just as wickedly as does Microsoft.
I want to make a cross-platform GNU DCOM, but can't find any good specs for DCOM's wire protocol. And no, I don't wish to use the Microsoft butchered C++ APIs.
So do third-generation welfare leeches.
I wanted to drop a line concerning the Prodigy Instant Messenger (PIM).
PIM was introduced May 5, 1999, and it let users communicate on multiple IM platforms including AIM, IRC and ICQ. Soon after it was released, AOL
shut Prodigy's PIM servers out. This shutout of Prodigy's servers was done methodically over the course of several days: AOL wasn't expecting
it, and didn't like it when it happened.
There ensued various corporate and legal doinking around to no avail...
Then MSN came out with their multiplatform Messenger. AOL was now ready: They quickly dropped the hammer on MSN, and a news story was born.
Prodigy has been furthering open standards for at least as long as any other ISP; you don't need me to tell you AOL from the get-go has done
all it can to put a choke hold on all things new, cool and open (e.g. ICQ, NullSoft, etc. ad nauseum).
Thanks, and please keep up the good work.
Steve McNally
btw - for the official Prodigy line on the PIM/AIM deal, please see
http://pim.prodigy.net/press.html.
Thanks -
Steve
AOL told the admins of EFNet that "Life sucks, buy a helmet" when they'd complained about AOL's unresponsiveness. They then voted unanimously to boot AOL. ( ZDNN did a story about it last Novemeber.) And AOL's had trouble with chat before. They also got in trouble with Dalnet, according to an article in the AOL Watch newsletter.
Try taking a look at Jabber, it allows users to use all the messaging clients that transports get built for. So far there is a wide array of planned transports. The work is under the GPL and coming along very nicely. You all should take a look at it. Jabber
/. password)
--Temas (I need to find my
Microsoft with its infinite marketing dollars would want you to believe that the issue here is a lack of standards.
... a pure evil parasite.
:)
For AOL, Instant Messenger is a source of income through their ads. What MS has done is hack into their servers, and cut of the income air supply
BTW, you can expect the usual dirty tricks from MS. Next revision of Windows will have a built-in Instant Messenger (good for the customer
It looks like Microsoft is getting a tast of their own medicine. And look how they squeel when things don't work out their way. I'm not an AOL fan, but it's good that some major company stuck it to Microsoft where it hurts. Remember, this is the same company that promised to introduce proprietory as a way to fight Open Source. I really home Microsoft and AOL lose a lot of money, time and resources over this - it's good to see them in so much trouble while us Linuxites are happily plugging away... Maybe AOL will have to sell Netscape to pay the court costs - Redhat? Caldera? Anyone up to buy Netscape?
good to see Microsoft fighting against more of it's own size!!!
Rendevous on dynamic addresses is not something that can be made to work well. Hence every node needs a fixed address which IPs refuse to hand out cheaply now. Version 6 changes that.
Also, note that the cacheing of undelivered messages would have to be on the sender side since the receiver's machine may not even be up.
Why don't they write up a fucking RFC like anyone else?
irc is a worthless cess-pool of script-kiddies and perverts.
If you want to get DOS attacked, get on irc.
Where the heck is the configure script? :-)
Ohmigod! MSNIM is evil because it asks for people's AIM username/password! And I suppose Eudora is evil because it asks for my email login and password too? Hell, even /. is asking for my nick and password!! THEY'RE EVERYWHERE DAMNIT! :P *hides*
Legitimate businesses try to outperform their competition, not prevent competition from existing. A "business" that depends on a lack of competition is really wasting a lot of effort on damaging our free-market economy to make that happen, and IMHO *any* tactic that can stop them, no matter how ruthless, should be used.
IRC isn't really suitable until there's a portable userid that identifies the network as well as the unique nickname. And that's assuming every client can talk to every network; I have no idea whether that's true. Why are there separate networks, anyway? Is it considered a *feature* that some clients can't talk to each other?
I'd pay to see someone "dominating the massaging arena."
You wrote: Microsoft, after releasing ?MSN Messenger?, would like to see AOL?s ?Instant Messenger? protocol standardized so that Microsoft?s new entry into the field can interoperate. ?Standards are important,? said an unnammed Microsoft spokesman. ?It?s important that Instant Messaging be standardized, just like the world wide web is.?
What's that without MS-ASCII claptrap?
Back when I was about 8 or 9, a family with two retarded brothers moved in a few houses away. The brothers were both pretty big for their ages, and about once a month they would have what seemed like an all day knock-down-drag-out fight.
They never really hurt each other, and as soon as they were both too tired to go on, they both would simply give up and continue on their merry way.
I'm glad all of you can now enjoy the seeing the same thing.
Here's the issue - MS is doing lookup for buddies on AOL owned computers. AOL IM should be an open standard. Anyone can write an AOL IM protocol client.
But you can't use the data on OSCAR.AOL.Com or have your software make OSACAR do stuff. Because that's physical stuff that AOL owns.
It's like, just because I can build a bicycle on my own, doesn't mean I can come over to your house and use yours instead.
zephyr
Man, are you confused! IRC is hardly for "people who know about computers". IRC is for idiots who *don't* know about computers.
I think we've just lowered the admission bar a good bit here, folks.
Just a comment, saw over at
o gy/story.html?s=v/ap/19990724/tc/microsoft _messenger_3.html
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/ap/technol
that AOl has blocked the Messenger service again!!
Hmmm....I smell a court order!
ti Dave
is tik available anywhere as of now?
thanks
Jabber is definately still moving along, and this will not really affect it for various reasons. Right now the project is restructuring a little and adding threading to the codebase, and a beta should be out by summers end, check it out if your interested!
Jabber is almost EXACTLY what you are asking for! It's a bit more complex and extensible, but with that added complexity you have MANY more options, check it out and help get it done sooner!!!
http://jabber.org/
Real users have real addresses.
echo "lunchtime" | wall
ecoh "lunchtime" | write joe
echo "lunchtime" | netwrite joe@host.com
echo "lunchtime" | netwrite aliaslist
Get zephyr.
the reason you dont like linux is because the only way to get things done is to go search man pages or read a book on it Linux which would mean you'd have to learn. you can't do that you'd have to use your brain. I hope you get the blue screen of death for the rest of your days.
The protocol was also released under the GPL. Look at this site for a package containing the TiK 0.75 client and a nearly-complete description of the protocol. It's missing a few details, but nothing that you can't solve with a packet sniffer.
As for AOL owning the servers, that's not a problem specific to AIM or TiK, it's a bug in private ownership of property. :-) If you had a server implementation (which definitely has to be less difficult to engineer than the GPLed ICQ server I saw announced on Freshmeat) nothing would prevent you from building your own server network.
1) Squabble with IETF and MS, tie MS up in court for reverse engineering AIM protocol.
* *
*
2) AOL/Sun/Netscape start (AND COMPLETE!) a stealth project to make a quality Linux distro that non-geeks can use.
3) In 6 Months, send free CD's across America, anyone running the distro gets 3 to 6 mos. free on AOL. Or cut a deal with 7/11 to put them on their counter for $0.99
4) Open source everything.
***********************************************
Why do I hate M$?
1) My last employer switched a client over to M$. Two Unix machines were replaced with 14 NT servers. Three administrators/Help desk personnel were replaced by 10 MC$E's. Bet that lowered the TCO...
2) I got to see the contract with M$. It required a post-transition software audit. The audit revealed fees owed to M$ : $150K. This was for about 300 employees and one stunned (stung?) CEO. M$ Bill strikes again!
3) M$ is allowed 7/24 access to all "our" computers (I left shortly thereafter to do Unix work. Fat raise, too. Should I thank M$ for getting me to leave? nah. never)
***********************************************
Original poster:
Tell us again how he didn't search for information or read the documentation. And be sure to bring enough Linux Bigot Decoder Rings(tm) for everybody.
We do not care about closed systems or corporate games. And we certainly don't care about screwed up protocols that weren't even designed by designers. We should simply use and disseminate Zephyr . If the script kiddies and Prisoners of Bill care to join us, fine. But we shouldn't try to go to them. Something that is open, scriptable, tested, and scalable will beat these spamvert games every time. We don't want to be held captured by mandatory advertising, either -- or stupid systems for peeceeweecees.
It'll look something like this:
Dear Postmaster:
The attached 65,242 unsolicited email messages sent to your server yesterday were refused even though they obey RFC 822. In order to avoid legal action, please ensure all of these unsolicited commercial emails are delivered now.
IP filtering and firewalls are illegal, and we have the case law to prove it.
Signed, A. Spammer
You're a smart guy, mr quadong.
I saw something called cwebmail on my friends computer that lets you check you hotmail in any regular email client. Of course cwebmail cost money :(
Personally, if I had a choice between AOL and Microsoft on who is more evil, Hands down it would have to be AOL. Consider this scenario for a second...
A couple of years ago, AOL had it's own web browser. It sucked big time and had no chance to compete against the other major browsers, So AOL decides to go out looking for a browser to own. It looks at Microsoft and thinks "can we buy out Microsoft" And the answer is clearly NO, In fact, Microsoft can by out AOL in a blink of an eye and wouldn't even flinch. Now it looks at Netscape and thinks "can we buy out Netscape", And sees that it would be very possible to buy out netscape but it has a high market share value and would be expensive. So AOL thinks for awhile and figures out a plan to devalue Netscape in a way to make it look like Microsoft's at fault. It talks to Netscape in such a way that it seems almost certain that they are going to use netscape Navigator in their new AOL Version but then make a 180 and license Internet Explorer. This of course would tick off netscape and they would immediately point the finger at MS, not AOL. Of course, when AOL did this, IE's browser share rose through the roof and this forced Netscape to give away it's browser for free (keep in mind, technically Netscape was doing this anyway) and their market share dropped, allowing AOL to buy Netscape at a lower price. But it's not over yet.
Now that AOL uses IE and the browser share rose, The government steps in and sues Microsoft for Monopoly practices. Now, keep in mind that at any time, AOL could go over to Netscape (because they own it now) and IE browser Share would drop 10-20% but they don't want to do that. Why? Because it's in the best interest of AOL for Microsoft to lose this case, and distribute Netscape Navigator with AOL Icons everywhere without any major competition getting in the way. The best way to put it is that you own a company that makes boxes, and you get Masking tape from another supplier. then one day you go out and buy a company that makes Masking tape, But you still go to your original supplier to buy the tape for your boxes. Wouldn't it make much more sense to use your own company to make your own tape then to go out to the supplier and buy the tape, especially now that you control the quality, manufacture and design of your own tape to fit your boxes correctly. In AOL's case it doesn't
Also consider the fact that AOL is buying companies left and right. They now own ICQ and Winamp, and it's a good bet that they are not done yet. Another thing to consider, why Doesn't ICQ talk to AIM? They own it after all. Because they will eventually merge ICQ with AIM and screw all the ICQ users in using an AOL Icon Laden program that advertises for them. they just have to keep ICQ around to make it look like their not anti competitive. If you're wondering why AOL is banning outside users, it's simply because thay want that AOL Icon everywhere they can possibly put it, and an MSN, Yahoo, or Prodigy Icon is the last thing they want on the desktop when people are using their servers to communicate to Aim users. This has nothing to do with security. AIM Has you log in as well, and it's probably a safe bet that their password isn't the most encrypted packet sent over the Internet.
Now, I know that this sounds Pro Microsoft but Microsoft isn't much better. Microsoft does a lot of things that are shady too. I just think that right now AOL is pulling something off Just as shady as anything that has come out of Microsoft. And in the long run, this is not what is needed in the Computer Industry.
Microsoft misses the point by calling for standards for internet chat. There already is a standard. It's called IRC. But there are already too many clients out there for them to stick their big butt into it. If AOL, ICQ, et al want to have their proprietary little chats for 14 year olds, that should be fine. MS just wants pimp in on AOL's party. Since AOL IM allows you to chat with AOL users (and vice versa), isn't opening up the service to third parties some kind of infringement?
Even though it appears computability between instant messaging products is good for consumers, and all internet users, we must look at the total picture.
Microsoft is attempting to poach subscribers from a competing service. Just look at their incentives for signing up new subscribers. This would not be so bad if they were not using the competitions own servers to do it. AIM developement, user databases and traffic is paid in part by ads, contracts that give preference to search engines ect. What MSNM is doing is nothing short of attempted homicide of the AIM service. How is AOL going to negotiate contracts, and fulfill existing contracts? As for AOL hurting Open Source efforts, we must remember that if AIM developement, account storage and traffic cannot be paid for, Open Source clients won't matter much. Finally if we look at Microsoft's own track records on Networking and protocol issues we see less then stellar compliance. How many times did they repeatedly break SMB and introduce newer nonstandard implementations like MSCHAP to deter alternate OS competition? Instead of copping up to this fact, they claimed each suspicious change was allowed morally because, they are allowed to introduce innovations within their own products. As you well know Microsoft has in the past sought to embrace and extend competing products / protocols and services. Here Microsoft can claim moral the high ground, but only so long as they continue obfuscating the negative legal and financial implications upon AOL. AOL can and should claim Microsoft's actions as the most foulest play there is in the internet software and services industry.
docGui
PS: In case you are wondering, I have no affiliation with any of the aforementioned companies. I am just a regular user who took exception to your one sided nature of this argument.
'a' adds a bookmark, 'v' views your bookmarks document, '^H' views history (limited to this session, unfortunately).
Did you even glance at the help page '?' gives you? It includes a link to "Key-stroke Commands", and tells you that 'k' gives you an instant list of the current keybindings.
There's nothing text-only about Lynx. We have viewers for JPEG and PDF and such, and Lynx knows where to find them if a GUI is available. It's fast, works damn near anywhere, and it's perfectly immune to this week's JavaScript security exploit.
Yeah, it's unfortunate that newbies mistake browsers (which are liberal in what they accept, by design) for authoring tools. And it's a shame IE quietly accepts garbage. But it's much worse that NN violently rejects correct content.
I think it's really about Microsoft trying to set the standards!!!
sure they say we need standards.... so who sets them? Microsoft of course!
oh sorry I meant Dodgysoft!!!!!!!
(b) IE runs JavaScript just fine - at about twice the speed of Communicator.
If IE hasn't crasehd before it got to the Javascript =)
>>Tux says: "MS-ASCII sux!"
>
>Bill Gates says: "No it doesn?t!"
Hmmmm what would Bill Gates be doing at Slashdot? =)
Rules are always different depending on if you are a monopoly or not. Laws are written to this fact, it is not simply my opinion. Example: If I create a browser and send it for free with a BSD distribution, I am simply trying to get a customer base. If I own 92% of the desktop OS market and require it to be packaged that is monopolistic practice.
AOL can do what they want with their software, especially when it is FREELY distributed. I do not believe that is anything like embracing JAVA and altering someone elses standards on all windows machines so it seems java only runs well on ms machines.
Thus, your argument is not valid, in other words:
total apples = apples + oranges
results in bad data.
just type at a commandline man plus the command you want to know or you can use xman.
you fucking dumbass
No, lynx is a damn fine web browser. And amaya is ok. IE is an abomination, a humungafucking monstrosity that tries to be an operating system.
Quick...get those slashdot blinders on.
Yahoo, Prodigy? Anyone, Anyone? I guess it's okay to screw over anyone, as long as MS is in the group too.
btw...Microsoft already worked around AOL's block
Slashdot should change it's motto to:
If you don't have anything mean to say about Microsoft, don't say anything at all.
Man.. why can't they just use IRC protocols .
Geez, are you guys amazing!! Here's a situation where AOL is clearly in the wrong. They've not only acted against MSFT, but also Prodigy and Yahoo. They've shut down a hack (anyone remember Samba) for just one reason - to exploit a proprietary protocol and userbase. They're not participating in the IETF standards process, either. This is *clearly and undeniably* against everything we're supposed to be rooting for - have you read "the cathedral and the bazzar?"
But since this is slashdot, the only cool thing to do is to post against MSFT.
Get a brain, there are *other enemies* out there!!!
If AOL could have bought Linux, they would have...
That you even have the experience to make such a statement proves that you are ritually unclean. You must be purified.
I think some of you are screwed up, thanks to the way slashdot colors its reporting. A quote from the article linked to by slashdot:
"Deanna Sanford, MSN's lead product manager, said Microsoft invited AOL to join the Internet messaging standards effort two years ago, but AOL refused."
And I remember reading somewhere on MS's page, over a year ago, a comment on how they would like to see a standard. Note that this was before AIM was in full swing, and before AOL owned ICQ.
Slashdot makes it sound like MS just started clamoring for a standard, when they have been clamoring for a standard for years. Yet everyone is echoing that MS is pissed that AOL has blocked them, so now they are wanting standards. Try actually READING the article before you start quoting from it next time please.
BTW, I found it rather ironic that this article, which does have a pro-ms feel to it, came from a netscape site.
Heya,
I used to work for MS. (Don't worry, I came to my senses and am now a paid open source developer.) I actually took the job because they told me I'd be working on open standards for instant messaging. It was pretty tough to believe, but I had to go see. Lo and behold, my managment structure actually supported my work in the IETF. Read the archives at http://lists.fsck.com/rvp Notice that people from microsoft engaged in open discussion of what they wanted out of an instant messaging protocol. Note how many AOL/ Mirabilis folks got involved in the requirements discussions. In this one instance, I believe that the evil empire did the right thing. Really.
jesse@fsck.com (a co-author of the impp requirements draft)
want true competition? want true innovation? Free software is the only way to go.
Microsoft is asking for open standard to instant messaging. Even if we have one, there is no fair competition. As an example, IE tactics on Navigator. Microsoft will use Windows as the leverage to kill off AOL's product. With a standard, AOL will be out in the open in Window land for MS to shoot down. AOL propriety instant messenger is it own protection holding up against Microsoft's product.
Microsoft just want the standard, so makes it much easier for them to compete with AOL by using Windows. Like they always had.
Linux is the sand box where we all play fairly, own by no one. Yes, Linux is our future.
Has anyone thought about how many different platforms the AOL IM works on? There are at least 5 for linux alone, not to mention the Java version, and the PC-based version. If Microsoft wants to dictate some standards, and is truly honest about wanting all chat software to interact based on those standards, do they include cross-platform independance?
They say in the article that they want any user to be contactable, just like phones, regardless of manufacturer. Does that also include users that happen to use a unix or linux platform? What about a Mac? I highly doubt it.
They'll support standards as long as they are PC-based, and running on the Microsoft OS (whatever flavor happens to be current at the time).
Hardly standard, if you ask me...
Although MS has missed the boat in terms of capturing user base (AIM, ICQ) This market is very volatile... As soon as the following is done, MS WILL win...
(1) Make MSNM Simple+Fast, with a CLEAN interface and a set of features along the lines of Block User; Send File; Send through server + option for (winamp-like?) plug-ins... (voice chat; video; white-board...)
(2) Bundle it with everything they ship...
(3) =) Make it part of Windows2000 - with a default feature of "run-upon-connecting-to-the-net"
(4) Make "Choosing Your Online Identity" part of the Windows2000 Installation wizard...
That should get them about 30 percent of the market share within 3 months... and the rest will follow "to be able to chat with friends" Watch AOL be the one to cry "foul!" then....
It's called IRC. IRC has nearly every feature of any of these new fangled messaging applications including (but not limited to) ICQ, AOLIM, etc. Whenever a new messaging client comes out, it has all these new features... that have already been integrated into IRC for years.
IRC development is already decentralized as well, any new feature is developed in the server first, then the client. And most servers are open source.
My friends, family, etc, all keep telling me to get ICQ or AIM but I always say no. I already have a real-time chat program, and a presence on a few channels.
In my opinion, all these new messangers are just trying to reinvent their own proprietary wheel.
--Eil.
Well the problem with using talk is that talk needs the hostname/IP of the users machine to begin a session. In the world of dyanmic IP addresses there's it's rare to know the network address of who you might want to chat with. Plus talk is just one to one chat, no instant messaging or file transfer.
I thought about that a while ago.. building IRC messaging into an AIM or ICQ client, or even just a standalone messenger. It could do pretty much everything ICQ and AOL could, and even have different modes for messenging depending on if the users want to chat in single messages (ICQ), AIM-style chat windows, or ICQ-style chat windows. I'm not aware of any programs that would do this right now, does it sound like a good idea to anyone else?
The only program I can see would be how to take care of nicks. The most intuitive way would be to use addresses like MagPulse@efnet. The client would have to connect to all the different IRC servers though, or at least connect and disconnect, a la GameSpy.
Interesting - AOL is using Microsoftish tactics against Microsoft.
I didn't expect to say this anytime soon, but AOL seems to be in the wrong and Microsoft in the right this time. Certainly Microsoft is being hypocritical (see other's posts about Samba, etc) and it would be nice to see them shut up until they mend their ways, but AOL seems to be wrong by changing the protocol in order to break MS's client.
Fair is fair; you can't condemn MS's wrongs while supporting AOL's, even if AOL's are against MS. Either condemn them both or support them both, but don't say that AOL is somehow more saintly even though they're using the same tactics as MS does.
We (the slashdotter's) should not root for AOL just because they are giving M$ a taste of their own medicine. I thought that we were above that sort of thing. Why do we hate M$? because they are evil. They use and manipulate the markets and their consumers. They produce shoddy software... But do we cheer when they are losing a battle? Yes if the battle is being fought correctly
Hold on a sec, What would you do if You had a product that cost multiple thousands a month to keep working and I wrote a product to use your servers but then showed my ads? AOL is proabably paying alot for the bandwidth to be able to have AIM user not using AOL. Now MS creates their product that uses AOL resources. Are we just supposed to say hey thats ok, what would be the next resource of someone elses that they stole?
E-mail works because everyone shares their resources. one of the reasons spam is such a problem because its people stealing resources from ISP's. This is close to the same thing and IMHO would be in the exact same boat if MSN ever put ads into thier client.
LBS
Why is it that its easier to write a huge comment here, but I still can't write the first paragraph of that english st
As long as the protocol itself is freely implementable/extendable under other licenses and not hindered by any licensing restrictions of the GPL, it has a chance of working.
Smart move, actually.. Once they start putting ads in all their products, they'll have even more products to sell ad space in instead of just having only one big product to sell ad space in.
You can license your work, but if the protocol is not openly implementable across different licenses then it is proprietary to GPL-based platforms and therefore unusable by larger segments of the computing community.
How would you feel if you wrote a nice platform independant messaging client, with plugin modules to easily add support for AIM, or ICQ, or any future protocol, etc, and then MS came, took the code, released it in future versions of windows, and sold banner space, increasing their revenues while denying users the benefits of the OSS that you wrote, and without even paying you for it?
I'd feel pretty good, because, in the end, they'd still have to give me credit for it. :)
This is a beautiful example of why the most frothingly rabid Free Software advocacy is good and proper.
Look at instant messaging- sort of like the cell phones of the Internet, annoying but some people absolutely love it- but guess what? There are major security lapses in established products, there's no way to audit the code or have anybody audit the code to track such security holes, and the proprietary vendors are fighting each other to death without caring a tinker's damn about their customers. It's a complete power game and has nothing to do with providing value to customers.
Next thing you know, they'll have the whole field tied up in patents and nothing will be compatible with anything else.
This is horrible. It's disgusting, and it's hopeless to expect these large corporate companies to act any other way. MS is inciting people to ignore AOL's TOS. AOL is churning their messaging format to break the MS client. They're not going to stop- internet messaging is going to remain a battleground. MS is probably going to behave more like a good guy in this situation- but can you put a price tag on having a choke-hold on internet messaging? They're not in it for their health, and they're damned well not it in for benefitting customers. It's a vitally important leverage point for controlling information flow, and they will capture it (all of it) at any cost- to use as leverage for controlling even more.
To hell with all of them. Use the situation to highlight how pathetically little freedom the mainstream computer consumer actually has. If you go with the commercial sector, you have less and less power over your own fate- things are shaping up to really turn the screws. Picture it: "Oh yeah? Well, we'll revise AIM so _only_ the newest clients can use it!" "Oh, you think you're tough? We'll have IE install _our_ client by _automatic_ _update_." "Bastards! We'll put strong encryption on ours and sue you for enticing our customers to violate our TOS!" "Ha, nice try- we'll make our stuff require a _PIII_ with the serialization turned on, and have our clients reference a database at microsoft.com to guard against anyone stealing our users' identities." "Oh yeah? We'll require the PIII too, and patent all variations of our method..."
This is a good direction to be moving in?
I already have an "Instant Messenger". Some people have taken to calling it E-Mail.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
If MS had used the open TOC protocol instead of AOL's proprietary OSCAR protocol, AOL probably wouldn't have done much.
But MS reverse-engineered OSCAR. OSCAR includes a client ID, and unless MS falsifies that to make it look like an official AOL client (which is illegal), it was just a matter of time before AOL killed their client just like every other OSCAR-using AIM clone. Yes, AOL did kill fAIM, etc. by blocking them. The final deathblow was the open (and in many cases better) TOC protocol. The only problem with TOC is that it lacks user searching, otherwise it's always farther along than OSCAR.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
- TiK is GPLd, so anyone interested can continue development, distribution, etc.
- TiK still functions, I have it up right now.
That said, I am disturbed by TiK's absence, although the fact that the links are still there indicates to me the absence may be unintentional.Back to the subject at hand: *Microsoft* whining about *AOL* not following standards is surreal. Still, agreeing upon a common standard, regardless of who proposes it, would be a very good thing for instant messaging as a whole.
--
Someone posted a patch already. Check the thread.
--
?Standards are important,? said an unnammed Microsoft spokesman. ?It?s important that Instant Messaging be standardized, just like the world wide web is.?
--
http://www.aim.aol.com/tik/tik-0.74.tar. gz
--
Well, that sounds about like standard M$ embrace/extend procedure. That sounds like just what they'd do... that's what they did with IE after all. (Of course, I think what they did with IE was even lousier... but that's another rant, I guess.)
;)
Guess this makes me a pundit too, huh? It's contagious!
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, I doubt the LICQ guys are making money from their development (at least, probably not directly). From what I understand, M$'s messaging client has advertisements in it - so they're directly making money from advertisers by providing a messaging client and "borrowing" AOL's protocol.
I'm not advocating AOL's action. However, I can certainly see why they did it.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, not to rain on your parade, but Microsoft's not exactly known for doing the Right Thing(TM) for the end user... in general they're much more interested in doing whatever will most benefit their pocketbooks and share prices. The day Microsoft does what's best for the end user is the day I fly south for the winter (and I do NOT mean in an airplane!).
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, the AOL spokesperson has a point. You have no real idea what Microsoft's client is doing with the password you give it (unless you do 'netstat' or similar while it's running) other than what it's claimed to do. For the average user, they're not going to have any IDEA that maybe M$'s messaging client is doing a bit more than it advertises. Maybe it doesn't do anything more, but it's hard to say. I wouldnt trust it, that's for damn sure.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, of course they love standards, when they're not winning. When they're already on top, standards be damned, they're going to do it their own way, and you'll damn well pay for it too.
They only love their precious 'standards' when it suits them...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, this IS just the first version. If it's successful enough, v2 will be coming down the pipe. And you KNOW what that means...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Massaging area? Oooh. Do they do Swedish massages? I could use one right now, I think... :)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Well, this sounds like the kind of thing that's been said about Microsoft products before - the first version's small and lightweight, and everyone thinks it's just wonderful. Then later releases start stuffing in more fluff and bloat, steadily growing in size.
I wouldn't mind being wrong about this.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
AOL is trying to shut out others to protect it's turf. MS is crying about the same tactic it has used without mercy for years. From the comments I've seen, people are unsure of who's in the right here. The soultion:
Hate both of them! AOL is wrong (and possibly stupid) to try to cut off communications with others and spread FUD. Microsoft is wrong for complaining about the very tactics they use everywhere else.
AOL does have a right to say who can use their servers. If they want to block non-AOL connections, that's their business.
The fact that MS managed to modify their client to work around whatever AOL did indicates to me that AOL made changes to bar a particular client software rather than control who can use their server. That's a different matter entirly.
In spite of thinking that AOL was wrong to do that, I still don't feel sorry for MS. I just hope they standards war themselves to death soon so the rest of us can put together a real standard.
Lynx *IS* a damned fine browser for striping out the bullshit jackasses like yourself insist WWW pages should force on people. It also converts HTML to plain text better than anything else.
I can tell you about the DCOM wire protocol spec, but please make the effort to set up a slashdot account and log in - i.e. don't post as an Anonymous Coward.
If I could have gotten an e-mail address, I would have e-mailed you your answer directly! People here on slashdot *want* to help each other - please let us help you by facilitating the paths of communication.
DCOM uses so-called Microsoft RPC to connect COM objects on separate machines. Microsoft RPC is a derivative of DCE RPC - the RPC standard which is part of the Distributed Computing Environment.
DCE was created by the Open Software Federation (OSF) in the late 80's to compete with Sun's ONC (Open Network Computing) environment. Sun's simple and ubiquitous RPC implementation is the lynch-pin technology in ONC. DCE is a more complex alternative. It is not open source, but I believe all of the protocols and interfaces are openly documented.
Microsoft RPC uses the same wire protocol as DCE RPC - I believe it may still be exactly the same, but I'm not sure. They did change the C API, but I believe Microsoft RPC clients can still call DCE RPC servers, and vice versa.
So the answer to your question is rather simple. If you want the wire protocol spec for DCOM, it is the one for Microsoft RPC, which is the same as the one for DCE RPC.
The Open Group, the descendant of the OSF, is the current keeper of the DCE specs, and now also the COM and DCOM specs, BTW.
Have a look at:
http://www.opengroup.org/dce
and your journey will begin. Good luck!
-- Mike Greaves
As one of the CNET articles on the subject began to say, it seems that companies dislike standards when they are on top and dominating the market, because standards make it easier for their competitors. But they love standards when they are the underdogs and want to force the major players to let them into the market. It's called human nature, and it doesn't matter whether it's AOL or Microsoft, or Sun or whoever.
Incidentally, Microsoft just happens to be especially shameless in doing this.
I always thought that AIM, Yahoo! chat and the other castoffs from ICQ were shoddy clones when compared to ICQ. ICQ has so much more on these guys, PLUS its userbase is humongous. I use it for inter/intraoffice communications because it works over the net, it's fast and (stop laughing) as open as a closed protocol can be, with people on the ICQ dev list breaking down V5 and V6 protocols.
I'd rather see open ICQ protocols than a standard based on AIM. UGH! Hopefully AOL doesn't have any plans on turning ICQ into AIM.
It's not GPL, at least the version I have (0.58).
# Copyright (c) 1998 America Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
#
# AOL grants you ("Licensee") a non-exclusive, royalty free, license to use,
# modify and redistribute this software in source and binary code form,
# provided that i) this copyright notice and license appear on all copies of
# the software; and ii) Licensee does not utilize the software in a manner
# which is disparaging to AOL.
I don't think the "disparaging to AOL" part invalidates it's open-sourcedness, although it is a bit amusing. I suppose I can't bad mouth AOL using Tik. AOL must have done something very specific to disable the MSN version because Tik version 0.58 still works with no problem.
You can still access the old Tik page from google's cache (a very nice feature IMHO), although probably not for long. All the links from it are active but the original page is not.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I just downloaded Tik 0.75 and it is indeed GPL. It does not include the "disparaging to AOL" line, and in fact places no restrictions on the use of the software at all. It does provide terms of service for using the AIM service itself, which are pretty reasonable if a little humourous ("You will not
decompile, reengineer or otherwise copy the Service.") Wow, I didn't even know I had the "Service's" executable.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
t's worth pointing out that the free Linux AIM and ICQ clients may also one day be illegal to use, if AOL makes it known that connections from
these clients are not welcome.
It's also worth pointing out that the Tik (A Tcl/TK AIM client that works on any thing Tcl8.0 will run on) is distributed by AOL and comes with a licence that allows use of the AIM service. That's not to say that they couldn't break compatibility. They still could, but it would probably break their own clients as well. They did take the Tik page down but the links from it are still up, see discussion elsewhere in these comments.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
They cry for a standard when it's not theirs. What about clearly MSOffice file formats, hmmm?
OK, the original UNIX talk was a little bit shaky, but messaging has undoubtedly reached the ultra supreme level of upper perfectness with the release of ytalk. No banner ads even!
This time I'm afraid I have to side with them (don't get me wrong, they're still an Evil Empire, but this is simply too much). First, because standards are a good thing. Second, because AOL's modification of their own protocol for no other reason than breaking Microsoft's clients is no different from what Microsoft did with Windows to break DR-DOS (granted, AOL still allows connections from other clients, but for how long?) To bash Microsoft when it purposely breaks a competitor's program is one thing. But to not bash another company that also does it, even if the broken product is from Microsoft (which is by definition broken anyway), is hypocrisy.
Granted, Microsoft's motives in releasing this client are doubtless sinister. They want to control this market too, and will somehow manage to Embrace and Extend this protocol to do it (don't ask me how they'll do it without being obvious). But they're right to blow the whistle on AOL for this action.
Under a firewall, executed locally...
But that's not what Microsoft did. Microsoft created a client that interacts with AOL servers to communicate with AIM clients. On the internet, your computer is your castle. If you own a computer on the internet, you are allowed to accept or reject any connection for any reason. It may well be illegal for Microsoft to continue to distribute a client that interacts with AOL servers against AOL's explicit wishes.
The AOL AIM client license agreement contains a clause permitting connections to AIM servers run by AOL. The MS client contains no such permission. Microsoft has no legal entitlement to distribute clients which interact with AOL servers.
It's worth pointing out that the free Linux AIM and ICQ clients may also one day be illegal to use, if AOL makes it known that connections from these clients are not welcome.
As for myself, I use IRC and Unix talk. Why rely on proprietary software using proprietary protocols connecting to proprietary machines under questionable legal foundations, when superior open solutions have long existed?
Finally, I cannot help but resist noting that Microsoft is one of the worst offenders in the area of open/closed communications standards. The closed Microsoft Office file formats are the most formidable protection for their profits and monopoly. For Microsoft to complain about AOL's closed communications protocols is the height of hypocrisy.
Have a look at RFC1312. It provides decentralised instant messaging using user@host addressing.
Which is good for multiuser UNIX machines; for dialups it could be extended to use a directory server and/or redirector (akin to a mail server).
It's a pity 1312 wasn't more widely adopted.
It must be the chocolate. Its a very powerful mood enhancer combined with the effects of sugar. Its so common and chocalate is legal. If M&M's were outlawed, only outlaws would have M&M's and it would be sold at a city street corner near you.
And why do the masses not use ytalk? Its the best!
There's always someone trying to simplify the rationale for critism of shody software manufacturers. Its natural to defend the underdog. There is nothing wrong with that, but please try to come up with some better logic than that! "Most people at Slashdot hate Microsoft because they are Microsoft." I have reasons for disliking Windows and use it at work. I could try to explain to you why Windows software causes manufacturing scrap and downtime to you, but I'm judging from your logical bias and am afraid you might have problems comprehending my plea. Its not a simple issue. Its a battle. Its hell. I use Windows (not a choice!) at work.
wow, that almost sounded like a flame. sorry, I don't know what got into me. please forgive. it must be the os i?m using.
I found this entertaining how they are battling themselves into the ground. My favorite quote was bashing Microsoft's regard for security and privacy:
AOL charged that MSN Messenger poses a security risk to its users because they are asked to type in their AOL username and password. "They're goading people to reveal their password just like hackers do,"the AOL spokeswoman said. "We always tell our customers to never give out their passwords. Microsoft is going against what we've tried to do."
> and dropped MSIE as its browser for Netscape
No they didn't, they own Netscape but don't use it in their products.
They had an agreement with MS that they had to distribute IE in return for getting an icon in the 'Online Services' folder on the Windows desktop.
Ironically the only reason the 'Online Serivces' folder appeared in Windows was so that they couldn't be accused of trying to make MSN a monoploy but to get your icon on the desktop you had to distribute IE encouraging that to become a monopoly.
--
Well, either MS has fixed and released the updated version, or AOL decided to cooperate. Anyways, it's pretty cool that you can use MSN messenger to talk to AOL/AIM users. But still, the MSNM is too basic - no file transfer, no chatrooms. Until these two features are implemented in the MSNM, I don't think I will switch... :)
Now, if only MSNM can get themselves to work with ICQ
Ok, here is the solution to ALL disputes. Everyone on the planet earth declare Billy the winner, and king of the world. Then and only then will this nonsense stop.
:)
haha.
Awesome!
Why don't we all just use IRC? Great instant messaging protocol. You can get rid of people, talk to as many or as few people as you want, etc. etc. etc.
We don't need no steenkin AOL or MS bull.
BTW: Did anyone every take a look at MS Comic Chat, MS's bastardized version of IRC?
Quite amusing at first, but it's really annoying after a while. Reminds me of Windows actually.
Damnit, now I'm a pundit! Watch it kids, or you'll end up like this too!
Am I really off base on this? Isn't this what happened with just about every market MS gets into late?
Why can't I moderate something "Wrong" or at least "Grossly Misinformed"?
The reason IRC servers bog down so bad is they are connection-oriented (TCP). Everything sent between IRC servers and clents is a static connection.
Change the TCP connection to handling just control information, and use UDP with an ACK protocol on top of it, and you have a lightweight, mostly-connectionless communications standard.
Even this change would comply with the IRC RFC, if I remember correctly, since I don't think it specifies the transport for the protocol, just the contents of it.
Comments?
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
First Gates is like "Psh. Internet. Wotta fad.", then as soon as it really takes off he's gotta toss in his two cents worth of code and get a few greenbacks.
Then Gates goes "Psh. Java. Wotta fad", then when developers really start to toy with it heavily, he hasta get a license, make his incompatible version, and grow some lettuce from that.
Now the messenger. And as someone had mentioned earlier, ya, he'll prolly add some super spiffy features of his own for his product, yet only after standards have been somewhat defined but of course. But some questions remain...
What about NetMeeting? It already has file transferring, chat, whiteboard, voice and video and does it fairly well mind you. Are they going to drop that like a rock in an attempt to market something more familiar to a consumer, or what?
And is this "revenge" against AOL? AOL is currently squashing MSN in the consumer ISP battle, and dropped MSIE as its browser for Netscape not so long ago. Is this Microsoft's subtle (or not so subtle) way of fighting back?
On the bright side, at least Gates has never really made these killer apps right off the bat, least other companies get to live a little before MS steps in with their own concoction. Gates certainly isn't the master of the obvious.
As for Linux being mentioned, it's nearly a buzzword. I'm waiting for Al Gore to start mentioning it randomly in his speeches. ; ^)
--Me
-------------------------------------------------
If porngraphy is the practice of taking photos of the nude, and a pornographer is the person that does it, does that make the photos pornographs?
In Hotmail's case that's qmail [wow, MS uses the same software as I do... qmail on Hotmail, Apache on parts of MSN] which you can easily see when reading the headers:
Message-ID: <19990723040816.91017.qmail@hotmail.com>
Received: from 209.26.94.126 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Thu, 22 Jul 1999 21:08:16 PDT
It'd be sweet to see a GPL'd cross platform solution come out of the Free Software community. AbiSource has it right - get your app available for Linux, Mac, BeOS, and Windows, and people just might start using it. I'd love to see the wind taken out of both AOL's and M$'s sails by a GPL'd IM client/server. And when they start putting ads on the proprietary clients (and of course they will - surprised it hasn't started yet...) a free GPL solution will look really attractive. I'd guess that the programming would be relatively trivial, but getting the mindshare would be a bit of work.
How much server horsepower would something like this take, though? I guess that's the problem w/ IM - you need a central server(s) to keep track of who's online?
On to another thought, how long 'til AOL shuts down all the Linux ICQ clients because they don't display advertisements?
On the other hand, I admire AOL (as much as it hurts me to say that I admire AOL for ANYTHING) for flipping MS the bird this time . . .
Unfortunately for Microsoft, despite all their cries and screams about "The Freedom to Innovate," they really aren't all that good at innovating.
They've missed the boat, and since they can't buy it, they're trying to hijack it by pushing their way into a closed standard product, and then screaming bloody murder when AOL changes their protocol.
The bottom line is, MS will only support open standards when it benefits them. Numerous other folks have already mentioned Java, JavaScript, HTML, MS APIs, file formats, and the like, all of which MS has either developed on their own and kept quite secret, or they've tried to "fix" the standard to benefit themselves.
Now there's an interesting example of standards compliance. MS can't even stick with an 8 bit ISO character set.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
That being said, if we do somehow get a standard established (like HTML), and MS bullies their way into the market by giving away free software with every Windows computer (as in IE), then I wonder what's to keep them from perverting the standard once they "own" the market???
Your Servant, B. Baggins
No, *you're* wrong.
AOL's system is proprietary, yes. But so is Microsoft's. Microsoft is essentially hacking into AOL's and letting their users send messages to AIM users-- but guess what, only MS users can use their own IM. This isn't a standard just because Microsoft is doing. Where's the specs on their "standard"? Is there a Linux client?
When was the last time you had to write (I prefer write to program, so *phbbbt*) a device driver to save your life?
... me ... the ... keyboard.
Cue wavy lines...
Nurse: Doctor! This defibrillator only has Windows drivers in the box!
Doctor: Quick! Check the ftp site!
Nurse: Nothing, doctor!
AC (barly able to talk): Give
SFX: Misc keyboard sounds
Nurse: He/she/it did it!
Doctor: Clear!
SFX: Bzzzt!
EKG: Beep Beep Beep
We all have our OS preferences, but I think m3000 had a point. There are some people who hate MS because it's the big bad wolf, or because they think it's the "cool" thing to be anti-MS. I don't claim they're a majority. In fact, I suspect such people are a minority on Slashdot (where people usually just dislike the often crappy software and/or dubious business practices). But, there are always some irrational people out there (kinda like the ones who think Linux must suck because you don't have to buy it or go to WaReZ sites to get it :)
I'm scared of any standard that they come up with for instant messaging. We need a viable open source intant messaging protocol NOW. Unlike AIM or ICQ it should be decentralized. I've spent a little time thinking about this, but I'm not a heavy programmer.
...Linux!
Everyone should have an IM address like or the same as their email address. Some sort of IM server should become a standard service like popd or imapd. You punch in someones IM address and it goes to your IM server. Your IM server then finds their IM server by piggy backing off the MX record in DNS, it would be better to have a unique record type. Their IM server says "yes they are online" and patches your IM client to their IM client. When both parties are online, a client to client connection could be established, if the requested party is not online then their IM server could store the message until they got online (ala ICQ). This would be a decentralized comodityized method that could be implimented on any platform.
--
"You never know when some crazed rodent with cold feet might be running loose in your pants."
-Calvin
In principle, I support open standards and dislike what AOL is doing here.
On the other hand, Microsoft is famous for "embrace and extend". If there is an open protocol, it will get included in an MS client, which will get included in the next Windows.
People will tend to use the (MS) client that comes with the machine instead of one they have to download. Microsoft will then add features that work only MS-client to MS-client, either tunnelled through the open protocol or in parallel through a secondary set of MS-run servers.
Would such an effort work? Maybe, maybe not. But open protocols is obviously riskier for AOL than keeping it proprietary. It would suggest, then, that AOL having proprietary control is a necessary evil to stop further Microsoft proprietarization (they have the OS, they have the document formats... do we want them to have more?)
Unless AOL also open-sources AIM. An Open Sourced AIM would help quickly reverse-engineer most MS extensions. It would also make it harder for MS to match the AIM feature set, since they can't discover what a random Swiss programmer is doing right now...
So, IMHO, the best option is open source and open protocol; proprietary is second-best; and open protocol that MS can e&e is the WORST choice.
There are two protocols that AOL uses for instant messaging. There is the one proprietary protocol that the Windows and Macintosh clients use, and then there is a published protocol intended for use by people who prefer Unix (it works with the Tcl, Lisp, and the various Java clients, along with some small third-party ones like LAIM).
Having said that, it must be made clear that MSN Messenger is using a reverse-engineered version of the AIM protocol, not the published version that AOL made available to Unix users.
Yahoo Messenger uses the published protocol (sflap), but it has been blocked by AOL from using the published version, too. It has been reported that Prodigy's messaging client was very similar to Yahoo's (in its use of TOC).
The published AIM protocol and its special TOC server, according to the documentation of the Tik client, isn't intended for this kind of use by a major third-party client but as an effort to bolster the Open-Source movement and to let Unix users gain access to the world of AIM and AOL at large.
MSN is clearly wrong for reverse-engineering the proprietary, unpublished protocol. Yahoo is less so because they are using the publically-published protocol. However, Yahoo really shouldn't be using the TOC server protocol without releasing the source to its Yahoo Messenger client because TOC's protocol was under the rules of the GPL.
The Tik clients still work with the TOC server. Yahoo and Prodigy are blocked. Tonight, MSN still seems to work for me after downloading the three different versions (the new ones no longer say "compatible" in the ID string). Since MSN is now looking quite much like a real AIM client does to the AIM servers, doesn't anyone at MSN think they would be in trouble for copyright infringement?
Kris
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/
Kriston
Heh heh,.
You know how I handle the Outlook default problem? I send a reply back to the sender using outlook and let them know Outlook tried to send Melissa to me.
Or,.
I send them an e-mail back that says,.
"shpo#$ $^& $nnjsn hjapoi$u md. hd$#uh, hsduh{}uds hsduh ]hdsioa mn_kdfh. hj s[dhjhj dsh eias hjds hsd54u dsawoi d::shj."
Of course I add html font size=7 and blink tags.
He he
My studio - www.graylands.ca
From what I understand all messages from AIM user to AIM user have to go through the AOL machines, why should they have to support all of MS's users too?
AIM should stay closed unless they open the server software and JoeISP can start their own AIM server and sell AIM banner space.
If I had a chat server like that, I wouldn't want MS to run their clients through it AND get the money from the banners. Someone has to maintain the machine and pay for the bandwidth. Let MS do that themself.
This isn't like E-mail where the bandwidth and servers are spread throughout the planet.
Oh,. and the last word. Go figure no one is using their chat client. No one seems to use their play software unless they cram it down the collective public throat. (What happened to ComicChat again?) You better belive this new MSchatboy will be avalable on the desktops of Win 2000. One year later it will be the most popular chat client with the BORG collective. Every Windows magazine will give it 4 stars and rate it a "must get". (No one wants to loose that MS advertising dollar)
My studio - www.graylands.ca
Also, geeknews.net has been keeping up pretty well on this.
Here's a news.com article, too:
Another interesting thing is that MS released a "fixed" build, which AOL then broke again. Round and round we go.
If you bothered to apend any time with IE, you would see an option to pre-load blanks for images (like what Netscape does)
Zontar The Mindless,
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Patman writes:
Well, duh -- that's only half the story!
What happened then is, AOL rewrote the protocol so MS's client wouldn't work any more. That is the moral issue here: Was it right, or was it wrong, to use a page out of Microsoft's own book?
Sheesh, moderators: What exactly was so "insightful" about getting half the story, but not the point?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
Well, you thought wrong.
No; AOL has apparently unilaterally "tampered with" -- i.e, altered -- a proprietary AOL communications protocol, which is their right. AFAIK, there is no RFC for AIM.
"Have before"? So the current version is not 'open sourced'? Then you have no legal leg to stand on...
Sure it is -- whom they allow to interact with their servers is entirely at their discretion, and rightly so. No, BTW, you're right in one thing: This really isn't debatable -- you are obviously wrong in your main point.
No, it's more like as if SomeISP.Inc wouldn't allow non-SomeISP customers to have email accounts on SomeISP.Inc's servers for free -- or worse, for a fee paid to AnotherISP.Inc! -- which, you might notice, most ISP's don't in fact allow.
No, it's more like as if AT&T wouldn't let people using Captain PhonePhreak's phones use AT&T's telephone network without paying -- or worse, for a fee paid to some other phone company! -- which, you might notice, AT&T doesn't in fact allow. (Phone companies debit each other; I have seen no mention of MS offering AOL to pay for this service. Have you?)
Bullshit. It's more like AOL only giving access to proprietary AOL content to paying AOL customers -- something which, judging from the rest of your post, I don't assume you have any problems with?
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
If I was to go into battle, rather than carry some M&M's in case I get shot, I'd take a nice leggy blond instead.
That way SHE can carry enough M&M's for everyone.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Well I'll be...
I knew this. I mean... I figured it out one day when the local movie listings page started looking all gnarly when I had JavaScript enabled, but returned to normal when I turned it off to avoid some gimcrackery on another window.
Sometimes, with Netscape running on Linux, I feel like I fled the Microsoft desert only to have to sleep with the camel I rode out on.
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
----------
mphall@cstone.nospam.net
"A horse laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms"
no, everyone will be using Opera, yippie!
The Unix (Tcl/Tk) AIM client (called TIK) home page ( http://www.aim.aol.com/tik/) went blank several days ago. Must be related...
> Who opens a business and says "Jee, I think I'll
> write some open standards and let everyone else
> have an equal slice of the pie." ???
But is the purpose of a business to make money, or to make as much money as possible? Or to make a profit? What about other forms of profit than money?
Ask your local Accounting Hacker about the account called "Goodwill".
Besides, especially with some of the things I've been seeing lately about Microsoft getting into the e-money business, I'm starting to wonder if I'm going to need to review my copy of "Sixteen Tons", so I know what to say to the Company Storekeeper when he decides I need to pay more because I have more money.
I've heard the arguments to "charge as much as the traffic will bear", but what happens when the coming employment collapse really kicks in? When you only have jobs for 100 million people out of 10 billion, what do you do with the rest of the people? Kill them off, and you only have jobs for 500,000 - 1 million people... So do you kill off THOSE excess? (recursing until you're back to an Adam and Eve situation, sitting the Garden of Eden eating the Fruit of the Replicator... Reducio Ad Absurdum!)
What would be really neat is if someone wrote an Instant Messenger type client that worked with IRC. Just a nice simple interface to chat one-on-one with people through your favorite irc server, and maintain a nice "Buddy List" through a simple notify list. Doesn't seem to tough.
> If AOL treated ICQ with a heavy hand, they > would have destroyed the ICQ brand. This would > probably include combining AIM and ICQ. Destroy
> the brand, you've destroyed user loyalty, and
> you've lost your users. As it is, AOL has
> played the ICQ card carefully to maintain
> its value.
this is a very good point, but as the internet is shifting away from a techy-geek only medium and going main stream, I'm not sure if this strategy can hold up against the test of time.
--------------------------------
>But AOL is all over the place
>> You just answered your own
>> question. AOL is everywhere, not as a single
>> entity.
>>
>> Good or bad, irrelevent.
it's relevant to it's stock holders, I guess. and to people like me who would really like Microsoft to loose this perticular battle. having many diferant products that hardly interact, IMHO is a recipy for disasture.
--------------------------------
As much as I hate saying this, I think AOL alwredy lost the war. I don't know if microsoft will end up dominating the massaging arena, but it seems like the likely scenario.
A year ago I though exactly the oposite of this. buying Mirabilis (ICQ) was probably the smartest thing AOL did, but I feal they missed the boat compleatly with ICQ. ICQ over the past year became Bloatware full of unnecacery features. Yet the most annoying glitch of the ICQ systems STILL hasn't been dealt with (it's security and privacy, obviously. The is NO help from ICQ when you account gets hijacked by some Script Kiddy (I know, I had my 102541 account hacked, and yes, that really WAS my number, I asked ICQ for support in retreaving my account and they opted to do nothing. It took a local reporter who wrote a story about this to make then delete my own account.. well thats better then nothing, I guess.
But even wierder still is the fact the AOL has left AIM and ICQ together side by side, and opted NOT TO put the two together. I really don't understand why one company should have two versions of the same type of aplication, really stupid. It looks like with them buying mp3spy, they will have three programs that have somewhat similar functions, whats that all about?!
AOL also didn't integrate ICQ into netscape (they stayed with AIM for that). why?!
Yahoo, for example, are smart. every function they get through aquisition is integrated into the main database so one user can control all of them (stocks, geocities, games, ets). AOL decided it would leave everything as it is, and are confusing thier own costemers. If they don't change this, they will loose the battle. Amazon also do this pretty well. But AOL is all over the place. I simply do not understand what they are doing over there.
--------------------------------
Isn't Hotmail part of the microshaft universe?
...
considering the cutthroat techniques they use, I'm not surprised if they aren't using all the passwords themselves.
It's right there in the terms of service if you read it:
MEMBER PRIVACY
(...) Microsoft will not monitor, edit, or
disclose any personal information
unless Microsoft has a good faith belief that such action is necessary
to:
(1) conform to legal requirements or comply with legal process; (2) protect and defend the rights
or property of Microsoft; (3) enforce the TOS; or (4) act to protect the interests of its members or
others. Microsoft does provide certain user information in aggregate form to third parties, including its
advertisers, for demographics. In addition, your Internet Protocol address is transmitted with each
message sent from your account. For more information, see the MSN Hotmail Privacy Statement.
Some personal information you provide to Microsoft may be stored outside of the country in which
you reside.
You agree that Microsoft may access your account, including its contents, as stated above or to
respond to service or technical issues.
and my memory of the hotmail license i agreed to before I discovered they were Microsoft, Its right there in the Ter wonder if they aren't giving themselves the legal right to use your passwords.
Oh yeah ... why don't you just use telnet for browsing. It seems like next logical step for guys like you ...
How cool ..., you are one really cool dude.
I have not been able to sign on using AIM for over 30 minutes. I have "not waited long enough to sign back on" (and "had attempted to sign on too many times recently").
Ok, Ok, I was using both programs to see what the fuss was about, but then AIM was the one complaining while both were running.
from the megacorps trying to control everyone's access to information/communication. I don't know why they talk about different e-mail clients, unless I accidently slipped into an alternate timeline it seems M$ has been letting Outlook use HTML to format e-mail messages so they can't be read properly by any other e-mail clients (real e-mail clients use plain old ASCII). Microsoft wants standards so they can make a buck off advertising with their universally accepted message standard, only to later add their own proprietary format later on so you need MSN's messager to read it. Does this really suprise anyone? I use ICQ simply because I've been using it since the very first betas were out, i was pissed that AOL bought it, but since I can still use their networks with a free linux client, I don't care.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
We (the slashdotter's) should not root for AOL just because they are giving M$ a taste of their own medicine. I thought that we were above that sort of thing. Why do we hate M$? because they are evil. They use and manipulate the markets and their consumers. They produce shoddy software... But do we cheer when they are losing a battle? Yes if the battle is being fought correctly. We can't justify the means just because the end (M$ loses) is good. AOL is clearly in the wrong here because they are inhibiting the open source/standard approach to software. They needn't worry about losing users if their's is a supperior product. And if it's not the best one then an open standard will pave the way for others to write software and servers that can do a better job. The end result is better software for the consumer. Now, isn't that what we all really are after?
My sig has a broken link in it.
I agree that AOL was wrong to pull tactics they would surely get Janet Reno to spank Bill for pulling on them. I also feel the fact that a M$ rep had the stones to say that people should have a choice of which IM client they use is laughable.
I'm waiting for an AOL rep to say that IM is an intergral part of their software and the changes were needed to optimize other parts of the system.
I work with M$ software and I find nothing more annoying than the fact that in order to install a service pack to fix the software that should've stayed in Beta another six months I MUST INSTALL IE4. There's freedom of choice for you.
The Tech
--Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government
They'll take the standard and botch it up so it is no longer standards-compliant most likely.
:)
talk has been around a long time.
so, since there in an open standard for e-mail communication, microsoft would be more than willing to open up their api for hotmail so that other clients will also be able to send and recieve mail through it....right?
ajit
akrishna@julian.no.spam.uwo.ca
It's called a duopoly. I agree, but it's best when there are many small groups whose products succeed and fail on their own merits and flaws. I think (at least for the rational-minded slashdotters) what's wrong with microsoft (and many other propriatry computer companies) is that they use the success of one product to make others successful.
1) The most significant group will bash Microsoft because, well, they're Microsoft.
2) A vocal minority will try and bring some sanity to the discussion by arguing that AOL's tactics hint of an attempt to become a very Microsoft-ish company.
Who wins is anyone's guess.
-- jar
I phrased that incorrectly.. Here's what I meant to say there: MSN messenger offers incompatable features that AIM doesn't have. Those features may not be very desirable, but if you don't use MSNM the people that do will be able to do more things than you. It's just like Internet Explorer 4.0, it did a lot of the same things Netscape did, but the codes to do them weren't always the same. That fragmented the Web development community and did a lot of damage to Netscape.
That said, I should also correct another thing I said.. It turns out that AOl is blocking the Yahoo! software too, since that's the only way to keep MSNM users out. That was incorrect, but I stand by my original statement: MSN Messenger is just Microsoft's latest embrace, extend and smother move, aimed squarely at America Online.
Paul Rickard, President of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign - MSBC.SimpleNet.com
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
MSNM looks harmless now, it's just a way to get more people communicating and interacting, right? WRONG. This will be like Internet Explorer - at first it was just a joke, but then version three came out and everybody stopped laughing.
MSN Messenger (what a unique name) has started out like a joke, but before long it will come with every version of Windows and offer features far beyond what AIM has. Oops, you can't see what I'm doing because you're still using AIM. Better get the cool new one that lets you do more stuff! Heck, MSNM already lets its own users communicate with AIMers, but not vice-versa. How long before it totally makes AIM unnecessary?
AOL is justified to do what they're doing, AIM isn't a standard. If it was a standard, Ms could do like they did with the W3C and pollute the standards to favor their products. AOL has let Yahoo! get away with cloning AIM because the Y! one has the same features as AIM and works well with it. MSNM is just a plot to pull people away from AOL. More power to them for blocking it!
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
I feal all the IM clients are dead anyway.
I want AoL to win becouse it's AoLs property.
AoL can change the protocal they use ANY TIME THEY WANT.
It wasn't nessisarly a smart move on AoLs part.. Still Microsoft is in no position to call for standards.
I don't actually exist.
For details, see Tom Christiansen's site.
Better to have two monopolies fighting each other, than have one super-monopoly and a pseudo-monopoly.
Because AIM and ICQ let you see when friends are logged on. I suppose you could run talk and a finger daemon, but finger is evil.
That was a joke.
JavaScript is -not- a standard.
Besides, IE handles JavaScript just fine. Most of the time it parses it faster than Navigator.
Where is ICQ in all of this? That's what *most* people use isn't it?
And also, a fine example of why closed source software sucks. AOL changes their code to *break* the microsoft messenger which really just amounts to regular people aren't able to do what they were doing before.
Tired of these wars being played out on *my* desktop.
It'd be cool of these people would work *fixing* bugs instead of trying to create bugs that break other software.
> Internet Explorer follows W3C's standards better than Netscape by a longshot.
Doesn?t is substitute \? for \? ?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Your post is notable for its failure to mention the astroturfers. Are they going to be shamed to silence for a change, or did you merely forget to mention them?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It was really rude for AOL to cut Micorsoft off like that. Almost as rude as... as... as changing SMB to break Samba! What kind of company would do such a vile thing!
Also, one wonders how much reverse engineering the poaching required on the part of Micorsoft, ever the stalwart defender of Intellectual Property rights.
Finally, one is struck by this quote from the Wired coverage:
MSN Messenger is the company's first entry into an already popular category of messaging services.
What was that bit about The Road Ahead, Bill? Missed the boat again, didja?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The whole MSN messenger idea disgusts me to be honest. It's just another case where Microsoft makes their own version of an already successful application, and somehow eventually forces everyone to use it. They want the ICQ/AIM user base, and they'll get it eventually. Don't be suprised if this MSG messenger or whatever comes with Windows 2000 and sooner or later all Windows users have to use it. Why can't they allow anyone to have anything that's popular? This is not innovating. AOL knows this, and they're probably worried that the same thing will happen to AIM/ICQ that happened to Netscape, so I don't blame them for their response.
I totally agree. Microsoft is on the other side of the table for once. 9 times out of 10, companies like Corel and StarDivision as well as open-source projects like Samba have to bend-over backwards because Microsoft decides to manipulate its file formats. Now Microsoft is faced with the same types of gimmicks and what happens? They put their multi-billion dollar marketing team to work creating a stir.
AOL Instant Messenger is a *FREE* client that is totally funded, hosted, and improved upon by AOL and its employees. There are versions for Windows, Mac, and they even helped in the tik product so Unix users could use it as well. Now here comes Microsoft with its Windows-only client that hijacks connections to AOL's service and brings nothing new or improved into the IM arena except draining from the AOL hosted AIM servers.
Why do I have no sympathy for Microsoft? In their noble pursuit for "standards", they have once again brought us a Windows-only client with absolutely no innovation, and through their marketing are able to make AOL look like the bad company, even though they have been providing a good, solid, multi-platform service for years.
Ask yourself one question - does MSIMN run on Unix/Mac/etc.? If Microsoft is able to gain the upper hand once again through its embrace and extend tactics, do you think it will ever run on your system?
I'm sorry - but currently if you don't want to use AIM, you have what's called a CHOICE. If you don't like ICQ, screw it, use IRC or talk. Nothing binds you to use these products. However, remember the wolf in sheeps clothing that eliminates your choice by force-installing their products on their operating systems used by 95% of the world.
Until Microsoft demonstrates that they can cooperatively use open standards without manipulating them internally for their own purposes, I will never give credence these arguments.
And here we have Something For Nothing Boy. And what's he saying? "Make sure you don't include a license on your work that would prevent me from stealing it, cause I can't code, but I need to release a commercial version!"
The only reason people hate the GPL is 1) they can't code and want to be able to steal code (ie MS's TCP/IP == BSD's TCP/IP) or 2) They're easily excitable, and blinded by stupid anti-commie propoganda into thinking that 'bad for companies' == 'communism' instead of 'bad for companies' == 'good for users'.
How would you feel if you wrote a nice platform independant messaging client, with plugin modules to easily add support for AIM, or ICQ, or any future protocol, etc, and then MS came, took the code, released it in future versions of windows, and sold banner space, increasing their revenues while denying users the benefits of the OSS that you wrote, and without even paying you for it? That's what you'll get with BSDL.
Advantages:
Can someone explain why ntalk is sufficient or, if there is some little niggling reason, why we couldn't just add to ntalk rather than re-inventing the wheel?
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Wow...I think you got it right. I think this whole AOL vs MS thing is FUNNY! It reminds me of how my sisters and I would behave when we were little kids.
I also think that most slashdotters are in love with technology, and MS is a marketing-centric company who happens to sell technology products. MS's main concern is not techo-geeks, it's the suits, the ivory tower people. Therefore it's easy to have a certain animosty towards MS.
Then sprinkle on top of that the influx of newbies/sheep who think that MS really is THE INNOVATOR and...yeah..it gets even easier to have angst.
Then when you see this VERY POWERFUL EMPIRE proclaiming "standards" simply because it benefits them...well...yeah....my vision gets a little cloudy.
When Linus and his merry gang of coders built Linux, I honostly believe they wanted to build something for ME. When MS builds a product, I honostly believe they are building it to gain marketshare and crush the competition. Gosh... I wonder who I'm gonna root for...
The Almighty Zoltar
PS - I think the MS zealots are just as annoying as the Linux zealots...
ms products use their own ppp-compression, their file formats change every few months, they use undocumented functions of DOS/winblows in their applications (lots of 'standard' DOS tools), they are still breaking programs, that compete with their products (_like_ AOL), they 'invented' TWO NEW character encodings for my language (cp852 and win1250), they caused keyboard manufacturers to add few useless keys on most keyboards (creating new 'standard'), winblows is the only (real) OS using '\' and ';' instead of '/' and ':' characters! ;)
Yes, they love standards
who are knowledgable about computers actually have friends who are not so knowledgable.
if i want to get in touch with somebody who doesnt know shit about irc i'm not gonna tell them to get into irc. I gonna start up TiK and talk to him cause whenevers hes on AOL he'll show up. hes not gonna start up an irc client and connect to undernet.
thats the only reason i use an aol product -- all my friends are on aol. far and few between use icq, and none of them are sitting on irc all day.
This is *not* an 'open source/open standards' issue. This is an 'open market' issue. AOL created and nurtured a huge IM userbase - with their own products and customers, and with those acquired in the purchase of Mirabilis/ICQ. Now, Microsoft wants a piece of that action. Rather than develop their own system on the floundering MSN, they're trying to co-opt an existing market. Sound familiar?
I'm not a big AOL fan, but let's give them a little credit here. This is their bread and butter, and they won the eyeballs fair and square. Microsoft is essentially demanding access to AOL's user community through a back door and camouflaging the attempt with a media-savvy 'open standards' plea. Don't believe the hype!
A standard (perhaps an RFC?) would be good. Then developers wouldn't need to spend time on reverse-engineering protcols like what is the case with icq.
Microsoft has been working on MSNM for a year now. It was announced in July of last year and was supposed to be working (in beta form) that August. There was also a report from the same time that said that Microsoft was part of a group working on a standard messenging protocol. (I can't find it again, but you'll forgive me because it was a year ago.) Microsoft did not stick to their schedule and gave this reason: "We went down a technology path that didn't work as well as we thought, so we retrenched."
I don't have any inside info on the MSNM project, but I do know that references to it started appearing in other applications (beta versions of Outlook Express, etc) in October of 1998. For those of you who think Microsoft has been slow to release such a project, you are correct, but they have been working on one for a while.
This is *my* current view on what Microsoft is doing, I have nothing to substanciate it other than observation. Be warned, I don't think MS is evil and what I have to say reflects that view.
In an attempt to make the life of every user easier, and make open communication more possible Microsoft wanted a standard for messenging. That way the user wouldn't have to learn how to (or be forced to) install/run/configure/use a handful of programs. Instead they could just use one vendor independent program and communicate with everyone. Failing to reach any common ground with other companies, Microsoft decided to do the next best thing. With MSNM one program currently does the work of two. And it appears if other protocols will be added later.
Is this better then a unified standard? No. Is this better then running serveral apps that do the same thing? I think so.
With Yahoo! also supporting AIM I would have though that AOL would be cheering, because in order to chat with anyone on AOL you have to first sign-up through AIM. This is going to create more traffic for AOL. As we all know on the net traffic=money.
But, let's get back to Microsoft. Is MS going to be happy with implimenting everyones protocols in their product and only have partial cross protocol capability? (eg the ICQ protocol has many more features then the AIM one) I don't think so. I think MS wants to create a true standard. Does MSNM reflect this? Let's take a look.
Another disclaimer first. I have no knowledge of the internal working of MSNM, but here is possible scenerio based on what appears to be happening.
In order to use MSNM you have to have an account with Hotmail. Now a lot of people are going to say that this is because MS wants more people to use Hotmail. This may be true, but couldn't it also be the case that the e-mail address is used as the unique identifier and MS can therefore only verify the owners of people who use Hotmail. If this were a standard that would mean that the users e-mail domain would be responsible for verifying that user before allowing them to be online. Each partisipating domain would then have it's own messenging server software that communicates with the others. This would mean the server could not be controled by one group, and that clients could be available from multiple vendors.
Also, what is the feature set of MSNM currently? Well, it sucks. There isn't much to it. For features it's certainly not a threat to ICQ. But, wait. MS has been working on this for a year, and all it does is let you send messages and give yourself different status'. What's with that? Well, if they do want a standard, wouldn't it be nice to get input from other people before you impliment everything?
In short, I think MS wants to do the Right Thing for users (any hey, that might also be the Right Thing for the company)and is causing a stir to get some media attention (and geek attention) on the subject.
I think I'll stop now.
My gripe for the day about them is their "Media Player"/"Netshow" product. I have some *.asf files that I want to play and only have Linux and Solaris machines. I remembered they had a player in beta a long time ago and came up with this link here... of course it's a broken link when you actually go to download it. :( After much digging, it seems that the Unix clients are no more. (Which, if any of you still have it for Linux, I'd be interested...) They don't standardize the format and keep it proprietary which is what creates problems for folks like myself. Of course if this format were an open standard, I'd just have to snarf the latest xanim bits and play away. Apple seems also to be making the same mistakes here.
I got a laugh about this when I saw this story a month ago where a MS drone pushes Open Standards versus none other than a SUN product... seemed a bit ironic to me... :)
AIM is AOL's product. It uses their servers to work will their subscribers. Microsoft has no business messing with it to begin with. AOL might have more members then MSN so what. AIM is not a standart (thank god) and neither is AOL. If you dont like it switch to another ISP. I use ICQ and if you dont have it TuFF and if you can,t install it, I don't have time or need to talk to you anyway.
If it ends up that they (any IM service) starts embedding ads in the programs, I will stop using it. I got along just fine without em. Telnet to my server and lets talk shall we.
#DEFINE PLAYING_DEVILS_ADOVCATE"
:-)
/* constructed */ opinion. So now, I ask you, the readers of Rob's creation, can you honestly say MS is the evil one this time?
#include "and_no_not_the_movie_although_it_was_excellent.h
/*
Alright slashdotters, I'm going to go against 99% of you and say "I'm with Microsoft on this one." Why? Just because discussion is good.
*/
First, AOL scares me. Like previous posts have said, they cater to newbies. But they also cater to a worse off group. The uniformed. AOL puts thousands of people on the net a day who have no idea what nettiquite is. People have no idea what a computer is and how it works, and AOL lets them jump onto this mysterious void called "The Internet" and do stuff. Meanwhile, AOL indoctrinates them. People start thinking the Internet is a big happy fun loving place, where you click on the pretty buttons type in stuff, and *BOOM* you get a happy reply. AOL users are forced to use a half-baked software product because that's what AOL tells them is out there. Replace "AOL" with "Microsoft" in the previous sentance, and you see an argument stated many times on Slashdot.
Yes, that's right:
AOL:Internet::MS:Operating Systems
"Ok," you say, "AOL is as bad as MS...so why do you say that you're going with MS??"
I'm looking at the track record of the two companies. AOL seems pretty consistant. Deliver junky service and mess up billing. Microsoft, on the other had, has proven to deliver sucky products. But they've heard the cries of the people, and they are (very slowly) responding. Their web browser keeps on improving. Win2k crashes less than NT which crashes less than 95/98. Microsoft products are improving, which means, they are starting to listen to what people are saying. They're starting to take steps in the right direction. Whenever I've heard of people complaining to AOL in the hopes of change, AOL has been less than hospitable.
Another item: MS is working with other people to establish standards for internet communication. They at least made the effort to include AOL's populace in their work...and AOL stuck their packet sniffing nose up in the air at them. MS at least made the effort to work with others.
So, by a nose, MS edges out AOL in my
/* My real opinion? I'm touched that you asked...
Both companies suck, and I can't believe they're both squabbling over small stuff.
I have some advice for each company tho:
MS: Kill marketing. Beat them with the Office97 paperclip if you need to. They're forcing you to realase software when its not done. Elminate them, and NT has a chance of becoming respected among the *nix community.
Sun/AOL/Netscape: Sun, I'm sorry you got stuck with those two. Drop them ASAP.
*/
--------------------------
it is AOL's protocal and database so they can do whatever they want. Technicall, yahoo Prodigy and MSN are the technical equivilent to poachers in a private hunting ground. They should work with IETF, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
OK, so as I understand this, what happened is that MS basically wrote their own Instant Messenger, that communicates with AOL's IM. Well, so what? Currently, I run LICQ under RH5.2. LICQ isn't supported by Mirabilis, and they don't provide any help to the developers. The developers figured out the protocol, and wrote another copy. Since this seems like what MS is doing, I have zero problem with it. If they figured it out, and are using it, then more power to them.
When I was using IE4 and Windows95 I found it to be faster than Netscape 4. However, I agree with you that IE4 was used as a test-bed for Windows98. It was their pre-beta beta.
#include "mysig.h"
I agree with you. AOL is doing this precisely to avoid the Netscape/IE thing. AOL now owns Netscape and I bet M$ is just itching to do it to them again, albeit indirectly.
This is yet another 'embrace & extend' tactic designed to destroy AOL's market completely.
This is currently the most effective way for them to stall micorsoft. I thought at first that it would be hypocritical to support AOL, but then I realised exactly what AOL is trying to avoid.
Wow, a number of recent events have me seeing AOL in a different light. When AOL bought Netscape, JWZ was afraid that they were going to end Mozilla but he said that AOL were really cool about it. Now AOL is supporting Linux, and supporting choice in high-bandwidth home connections. Hey, if AOL or any other ISP can give me a less restrictive acceptable use policy than RoadRunner on my cable modem, then I'd actually switch.
Slashdot asks for your Slashdot password, not for your e-mail password. Eudora is a client program for e-mail that's sitting on your computer's hard drive, it's not distributing your password anywhere. If Eudora has code that relayed your password back to Eudora HQ, that would be evil. Likewise, if Slashdot was asking for your e-mail password, that would be evil. Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS KNOWING WHAT YOUR E-MAIL PASSWORD IS!
The problem with MSNIM is that your password is relayed to MS servers. Why do they need to know? If the AOL password was just stored on your computer, fine, but why do you have to give it to them?
So who is Slashdot going to go for?
Hopefully neither. Both protocols are proprietary. Better to take an open standard based on an RFC (e.g. ICQ) and make it better.
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
(e.g. ICQ)
We all know, of course, I meant IRC... *blush*
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
So you're saying, if the tables were reversed you'd side against Microsoft? So given the current situation, why won't you side against AOL?
Microsoft's past history is irrelevant just for this moment. This issue is about AOL breaking stuff on purpose just because they can, and no matter who gets hurt (be it Microsoft or anybody else), AOL is in the wrong.
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Ok, so *now* they want standards that work... how about writing a browser that reads a standard called HTML properly?
:)
Boy, you must have a taste for irony... surely everybody here is adult enough to just admit that IE is a hell of a lot closer to W3C compliance than Netscape is? They both suck, but IE sucks less.
Even AOL/Netscape must think that Communicator is crap, otherwise why would they have trashed the Communicator code base for Gecko?
or how about one called JavaScript?
(a) JavaScript is not a standard. (Since when does Netscape set standards? Their "standards" are the primary reason half of the world's web pages don't work in all of the available browsers.)
(b) IE runs JavaScript just fine - at about twice the speed of Communicator.
And how about some APIs that work the way they are documented to?
Huh? You mean the argument's changed from "the APIs aren't documented"? Gee... the argument's evolving... a moving target!
Sorry, I must have eaten something bad a lunch, 'cause I'm sure in an argumentative mood. Didn't mean to take it out on you. Apologies
Cheers
Alastair
-- "I believe the human being and the fish can coexist peacefully." - George W. Bush, 29 September 2000
Yea, I looked at jabba.org and I have something very similar in development. Except my focus is on crypto and it's still in early alpha. (And it's nothing nearly as big as the jabba project)
If anyone wants to help out, drop me a line at larry@lar.penguinpowered.com
Kill yourself
as I wade through these posts I notice certain things... People Suck... I want to kill everyone... Murder is the only way to end Microsoft. A nuclear aresenal will be unleashed in 4 days... welcome to the age of terror people... welcome......
This is a clear example of MS's attitude that every computer in the world should be running *only* MS software.
and it seems to not only be M$s idea.. but a vast majority (I think) of computer makers, as they make Windows standard, and usually don't offer options on the OS.. tsk-tsk
Insert mind here.
Aol's move is proprietary. We should all know AOL's strategy; buying Netscape does not make them Freedom friendly. Open source for them is a tool they hope will pay off.
Microsoft calling foul is hypocritical considering their Windows API dominance, and office produticvity suite monopoly.
I can just see it now... Micro$oft also making it ICQ compatible and including their updated IM client in a service release to W98. Let's hope they manage to use this to shoot themselves in the foot in the antitrust trial.
Bzzzzzt..."AAAAaaaaarrrgh!!!" Thud.
...but with Hobbes usurping Calvin's authority.
;)
Microsoft likes to play Calvinball [Ed. note: Calvinball is a game where Calvin makes up all the rules as the game is played and you can never use the same rule twice.] but only when MS gets to be Calvin. I guess they, like Calvin, don't like their own tactics used against them.
I can hear the cry already: "But you critized MS for using those tactics. To be consistent you must critize AOL for using them against MS."
Sorry, but as an Old School disciplinarian I must wait for the "eye for an eye" standard to be satisfied before I complain about others using MS's tactics against them.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
but if the MSN client can see who is online on AIM doesen't it stand to reason that they need to access AOL's servers to do that? I'm not all that well versed on how it works but it seems feasable. If that is the case then AOL would have to of allowed MS to access it. Maybe there is something larger going on here. And, no I'm not a conspiracy theorist, or a speller for that matter.
-- This space intentionally left blank.
Not at all. Its all about marketing, mind share, and brand image.
AOL had instant messaging for their internal network for a long time. Along comes this unknown startup called Mirabilis with their ICQ - and a grassroots following. AOL opens up their customer base to the internet in general with AIM.
What you ended up with was two very distinct marketing groups.
AIM consisted mostly of AOL customers and beginner computer users.
Meanwhile, ICQ's grass-roots support had created a more technically aware userbase. In addition, there was a considerable install base outside the US.
AOL wanted access to this demographic, so they purchased it. ICQ provided them with something AIM wasn't getting for them.
But there was a problem with this; AOL's stigma. AOL is not viewed kindly in technical circles. Many technically minded people want nothing to do with AOL. AOL would have to tread lightly lest all the eyeballs their purchase was supposed to bring them bail out. In fact, ICQ lost a percentage of users on the purchase announcement alone.
If AOL treated ICQ with a heavy hand, they would have destroyed the ICQ brand. This would probably include combining AIM and ICQ. Destroy the brand, you've destroyed user loyalty, and you've lost your users. As it is, AOL has played the ICQ card carefully to maintain its value.
Now... whether they're developing the product properly is an entirely different matter...
I know this is heretical and all, but I do hope they improve it. In fact, I know they will, because they are competing against ICQ, the biggest and the baddest IM'ing software out there.
But the main reason I love this thing is because you don't have to incessantly check your hotmail box to see if you have new mail. I would love to see a standard form for im'ing software, as long as icq isn't included, its just too different to work...
I think you all should stop worrying about who made this product and actually go look at it. Its decent and if it does improve then I will definitely start using it instead of AIM...
The Typo Daemon
This is the only post you need to read. :)
Here's the summary:
1. Half the people are saying that the Slashdot posters are automatically going to criticize Microsoft, no matter what.
2. The other half are saying that AOL is acting like Microsoft. In other words criticizing AOL, not Microsoft as predicted.
AOL is saying that Microsoft is asking for AOLer's passwords. This is completely untrue. Their program is asking for their passwords and not sending them to Microsoft, merely storing the password on their computer. Hell, Netscape Mail (my mail client) asked for my POP password, and I have it saved so I don't have to type it in. Damn them!
auto updates: also Netscape and Yahoo!
>IE is a damn find browser
I second that. It does HTML a lot better than Netscape does.
I see a problem coming up. Most people at Slashdot hate Microsoft because they are Microsoft. Most people at Slashdot hate AOL because they cater to newbies. So who is Slashdot going to go for? I don't think anyone at Slashdot could actually be unbiased, and having ANYTHING good to say about Microsoft, so I guess AOL wins this one.
Then I guess Microsoft HTML is a lot better than Netscape HTML.
This is somewhat confusing. Why would those "biggies" fought over a ruthless piece of code?
Even a pigeonhole need windows.
.sigs are useless; it doesn't protect you from imposters.
Honestly, I think IRC is not now and likely will never be suited to take over this niche of the online communication market. IRC is well populated, but by tech-friendly people.
I use ICQ to communicate with my less-computer-savvy friends, some of whom had trouble downloading and installing ICQ on Win9x systems. I can just imagine the chaos ensuing when they connect to an IRC server for the first time from mIrc.
Aol's AIM is, well, obviously for the same crowd as ICQ. It is, after all, newbie-hunger that most characterizes AOL. Tell your standard AIM user to connect to #ohsoeasy on efnet and, well, see what the response is. Sure IRC can do basically everything that ICQ/AIM can, (perhaps auto-login stuff excluded, though I'm sure there are scripts...) but good ole 'mail' (or better yet telnet mail) can be used quite adequately to send mail. That doesn't change the fact that my uncle will still and for the forseeable future use Outlook.
That, and to be perfectly honest, I find ICQ easier for simple messaging than the somewhat cumbersome IRC.
Check out http://www.jabber.org
Every time MS senses a competitve edge they go against industry standards. Take COM for instance. MS knows that once they can get into a market they can bundle that product to the OS and effectivly stamp out competition. Soon we'll get MSNmesenger on our new computers when we buy them. It make sense for MS to create a standard. Once a standard has been integrated into windows MS can change it and the rest of the industry is forced to comply. If, 3 years later, MS desides to change to a proprietary standard they can. That way only MS clients will work on anyones server.
It's like MS Java. Someone had a great idea and MS decides to steal it. Once they have a market share they can eliminate all competition. Even if they have to take a loss to do it. This is a clear example of MS's attitude that every computer in the world should be running *only* MS software.
First facts, then intelligent points, then less intelligent ones:
>>There are 5126 users and 43774 invisible on 46 servers
>>190 operator(s) online
>>20630 channels formed
>>I have 7907 clients and 1 servers
>>-
>>Highest connection count: 7923 (7922 clients)
>>-
>>[23:41] -irc.concentric.net- You are client >>#124934 to connect since Wed Jul 21 15:27:57 1999 PDT
1."Four thousand maybe?" well, here's 49,000. Note that this is the number of people actually connected NOW, not the number of people that have the ability to connect. Note also that this is only efnet (maybe only part of efnet, i'm not sure), not all irc.
2.AOL does have netsplits after a fashion, or have you never gotten "AIM service cannot be reached"? Ditto with ICQ, but i don't use it enough to quote the error message.
3.If you don't know who the person you are talking to is, you ought to get to know them better, anyway, i happen to like being able to change my nick whenever i feel like it and be as anonymous as i want.
4.Simple text and the ability to configure your chat program however you want instead of having to use the exact same windows etc. as everyone else make IRC inherently better than AIM and ICQ.
5.IRC is free and will stay free.
6.Um, five minute lags, i've seen 12 sec maybe, usually under 2 sec (and i'm on a 28.8 modem) perhaps i just use the wrong server or something.
7. We like "fun debates and political wars" dammit, the only problem is thinking up a clever enough channel name that people will be willing to fight for!
There is a good GtK-based AIM clone called GAIM that functions much like TiK, but looks better and doesn't look as kludgy IMHO. I've been using it for a month now and have been more than happy with it. You can find it at http://www.marko.net/gaim/
The objective of a marketing agency is to promote and distribute products. Not merging two competing products allows them to simply corner a market - the instant messaging market. It's a leverage decision. When the time comes, they will be able to push either one by eliminating the other, and not risk competition - if they keep buying out instant messages.
I think AOL does plan to phase out ICQ - that is pretty clear. The decision to put AIM in communicator and not ICQ shows you that much, as well as the bloating of ICQ. Eventually, they'll force everyone (well, instant message users anyway) over to AIM.
Is this really a good thing? Probably not. I don't think it will be too harmful after all. Instant messaging systems like ICQ and AIM are already going out of style -- they are FAD programs - like doublespace and stacker were. They aren't useful, so eventually they will fade away. Hopefully, AOL will too.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Gimmick does what you're asking for
Wah!
>how about writing a browser that reads a standard called HTML properly?
They have one. We're waiting for Netscape to join in.
>or how about one called JavaScript?
That's a standard? How so? It was created by Netscape.
Do you have ESP?
Maybe MS and AOL will nuke each other, and we'll be rid of both of them.
...
Both of the Big Browsers will be gone then! Everyone will be using lynx!
I gotta dream, you know
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Hey Bill, I got your fancy standards right here. You made your bed, now piss yourself in it.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
>>(a) JavaScript is not a standard. (Since when does Netscape set standards? Their "standards" are the primary reason half of the world's web pages don't work in all of the
available browsers.)
JavaScript may not be a standard, but ECMAscript is.
This is so funny. The try to turn Java, HTML, and the likes into Windows-only (or rather Microsoft-only) assets, and here they are whining because someone did what they've been doing for years. There was no great outcry when they mangled HTML, there was no great outcry when they "improved" Java, there was no great outcry when they changed Windows so that Samba wouldn't work, but do that to them and OH MY GOD, WE NEED SOME STANDARDS RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT US FROM THE WHIMS OF MONOPOLISTIC AOL! While it would be nice if one of these (ICQ, AIM, etc.) opened up, I certainly DON'T want it under M$'s control. You can bet that they'll manipulate it for their own financial gain, and try to break compatibility. This, as is most things about M$, is just FUD and hypocrisy.
Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.
I have only one thing to say: Here is a quote from the article, read it and think.
Historically, Microsoft has made a living by
jumping into a new market and proposing a
standard that does not include its entrenched
leader--in this case, AOL. Two years ago,
Microsoft tried to establish a standard for data
warehousing without Oracle's involvement.
Oracle, a database giant, balked at the proposal
originally, but it recently succumbed and
announced support for the standard.
After the dust settles from the collision of the juggernauts, I think MS will come out on top.
Though they may use the same bundling tactics that made IE so popular, their use of automatic updating virtually insures their victory. When the update was available for MSNM after the AIM protocol fiasco, a screen popped up in MNSM that allowed me to download the fixed version. This is the same idea as their Windows Update Notification program. With WUN, bundling, and promoting MSNM on MSN, getting MSNM to desktops is a small problem.
This makes MSNM extremely more versatile. Hypothetically, if AIM were compatible with MSNM, all umpteen million users would need to manually go to the web site on their own initiative and download the new version. AOL clearly was sideswiped by not including this feature, even though automatic update features are very convenient and popular (RealPlayer, WinAMP, Windows 98, virus scanners, etc).
Of course, some people may dislike windows for the constant updates it "needs", but it is my understanding that Linux users download patches and whatnot quite frequently also.
Also, I agree that MS's forte might not be innovating, but they are excellent integrators, and that is very important in making a product with a low learning curve.
And that's capitalism,
Aaron
www.ktheory.com
IE is a browser? I thought it was a frontend for mosaic... (nice licensing; x% of free is always $0.00) That being said, it does seem like it renders pages faster than netscape.
Read Tim O'Brien's book "The Things they Carried". I learned about the m&ms there. I then visited a US army recruiting station in Mass, where I found it was, in fact, true. They use those standard packets (the dark brown ones with about 20 in them that normally cost about $.60 in the US and $.99 in Canada.) According to Tim O'Brien's book, the m&ms (were) given by an accompanying soldier. Either way, I recommend the book. (Its one of only two books I've ever read that I simply could not put down - the other one was Night, Eliezer Wiesel.)
OFTC: By the community, for the community
As an aside, it occured to me - by free association, I suppose - that MSNM looks so much like MNM - (how most people say M&M) - that I started getting hungry. Then my association got worse: US Military standard equipment includes a single pack of m&ms. Its been standard practice since at least Viet Nam in the USM to give the fatally wounded m&ms as their last taste of life. So now we have AOL AIMing at M&Ms.
:)
:) )
Why doesn't everyone just use ytalk?
(ok, ok, so this really doesn't help the discussion. sorry.
OFTC: By the community, for the community
Microsoft is responsible for everything in quotations that I see being read as question marks. Standards are always a good, portable thing, so long as M$ does not create the standard. Of course, once the standard is created, M$ will either embed it in their OS and then change it slightly so as not to be compatible with anything else, or they will buy the standard and then sell it off as their own. Either way, I love the tik tcl/tk windowing script available for us Linux/FreeBSD users who talk to people on IM.
Of course, if M$ wins this, I'm sure things like tik will no longer be offered...
--VFV
Time is honies.
Ok, so *now* they want standards that work... how about writing a browser that reads a standard called HTML properly? or how about one called JavaScript?... And how about some APIs that work the way they are documented to?
Are we going to have to rewrite all the tik programs now?
*sigh*
h tml
Instead of bashing Microsoft and AOL..
Why don't you head over to IETF and provide feedback and/or help out with the standards work on Instant Messaging?
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.
I know MS only backs standards when they're losing, but hey - They are right. We do need a standard.
When I hear instant messaging, I think, ICQ.
Personally I find AOL IM annoying the way it comes up with Netscape even if you chose no to install it.
As we say in Jamaica fire-burn for Micro$oft and their "standards".
If they want to do something why don't they INVENT something or write some of the software they sell..
that is write it themselves!!
Just my $0.02
Recently there was an Ask Slashdot regarding the Jabber project. I haven't used Jabber, but supposedly it works with AOL Instant Messanger and ICQ. Seeing that AOL is attempting to prevent 3rd parties from using their service, how will this affect Jabber?
This is just an example of the kind of company Microsoft is. It will make a decision based on getting them market share and keeping it. If the tables were reversed there is no way in hell Microsoft would open their standards. But standards are always a good thing, even if Microsoft gets some marketshare in the process.
who the hell would think they would have the courage to say that to the public? for a moment i thought i was in segfault.org or something.... standarts, got standart for you right here... Kicq!!! hell yeah! >)
----====___SUBLIME___OR___NOTHING___====----
Arg. I can't believe AOL is engaging in this stupidity. AIM was presumably removed in an attempt to keep their protocol propreitry and hidden. At any rate, I've put my Tik distribution on my web server. In case anyone is still looking for it you can grab it here:
http://www.rhythm.cx/tik.tar.gzNot sure what version that is, but I downloaded it within the past month, so it is quite new. Get it while you still can.
Something tells me that we're going to need an open source messaging system that uses open protocols real soon. We obviously can't count on these companies to do the right thing anymore.
If you're still looking for a copy of TiK and would rather not put up with AOL's stupidity, I've placed a copy on my webserver.
http://www.rhythm.cx/tik.tar.gz(sorry if this is a repeat post, I think my previous comment got lost somehow).
Another option is to use real video cameras (reasonably cheap now - sub 100$ models readily available)... Coax them to a central location (100M run shouldn't be an issue) and you've then got the option to put in a video switcher and a single framegrabber, or you could put in multiple framegrabbers.
A real video monitor or TV could be used to get a much better realtime image.
For the grabbing, a video switcher and single framegrabber has the benefit you only need one capture card - biggest disadvantage is figuring out which camera you just grabbed from -- however this might be a limitiation you can live with.
The multiple video capture cards will probably be more expensive, and while easier to figure out which source the image came from it could be a problem setting up drivers. Some capture cards have multiple inputs on a single card (eg the bt878 chipset allows up to four inputs on one card).
Ready made software to do the webcam thing probably won't be readily available, though a competent user shouldn't have too much issue scripting something themselves.
Good luck.
BTW: just checked the size: 562k memory imprint. Not bad, for Microsoft, and certainly competitive with the alternatives.
As a note, I installed Microsoft's IM toy and really liked it. It's relateively light, quick, has a nice simple interface. Coming from a company that is constantly criticized for creating bloatware (feature and size, and fairly so!), I think this is a pleasant response to ICQ. No, it's not original... PAL and AIM are fairly similar, but it does improve where AOL and Excite have been stuborn too. And, realistically, we whine that Microsoft is ripping off ideas, but it's no different than what our beloved Yahoo's been doing for the last year (including a very similar product to this, actually). Personally, my only beef with Microsoft's messenger client is the fact that it REQUIRES a hotmail account. When I saw that connected wtih the AIM servers, I was quite happy... I thought that was a big win for Microsoft (to be clear, I have my problems with MS, but I am certainly no friend of AOL.). From the consumer / user perspective, what I want is one nice light client that connects to ICQ, AOL, Microsoft, etc. I know this doesn't necessarilly make business sense for proprietary monopolies, but if they want to call for standards, personally I can put aside the motive so long as it meets my needs and desires as a consumer.
Take a look at the two most popular clients..
;=)
Aol Instant Messenger, and ICQ. notice how COMPLETELY different they all are. if there were standards (and everyone followed them) how would they turn out?
I like AIM, because it's quick, no chat requests or anything like you have on ICQ.
But I also like ICQ because of all the other things it has, such as abilities to send a message when the person is offline, game requests, etc.
I think It is good that there are no standards, because we all have different ideas on how a message client should work. It would be impossible to make everyone happy.
I know there was more I wanted to say, but I forgot it while laughing at Microsoft
dns error