Slashdot Mirror
Messaging Software Wars
Mark Spencer wrote in to say that since the AOL vs. Microsoft fiasco has begun, the GAIM team has been told they aren't allowed to use the AOL logo and other various terms in their documentation (with certain exceptions), so they have put out a request for new logo in the form of a contest. This comes after AOL has been blocking Microsoft from letting its MSN users send messages to users of its AIM service, and right before IBM unveils
messaging software of their own, though that looks to be very business-oriented, as opposed to Joe Random Netuser-oriented.
Has anyone else noticed that Tik (the TCL/Tk client) and TNT (the Emacs Lisp client) that AOL developed have been missing from their web site for about a week now? Going to the AIM web site and clicking on the links for the above give you an empty page now. Do you suppose AOL's yanked these as well? Lucky for me, I already have the source... 8-)
That should've been linux-support.net. I type too many .com's in a day :)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
>The other day somebody was mumbling about Zephyr , an Athena messaging system. I have no idea whether it's suitable, because I've never
>used it. But I've never used these consumer-based things either. Somebody might want to evaluate it.
Zephyr is used extensively at Carnegie Mellon University. I find it both powerful and easy to use, and I'm not even very experienced with UNIX; from a user perspective, it seems like it could be an adequate replacement. I'll let someone more experienced/knowledgable comment on the implementation side.
There's a good editorial on the San Jose Mercury News about the hypocrisy of both sides in this situation...you can read it here.
Basically, it points out that AOL is rabidly in favor of "open access" on cable networks, but refuses to allow an open system for others to communicate with AOL members (Prodigy, Yahoo, MS get screwed here, so do consumers). MS, on the other hand, wants standards for instant messaging but not in the areas where it already has a dominant position.
my feeling exactly. What is the use of having so many different messaging networks when there is one--email that works fine and everybody can use because it has been a standard protocol for ages. if you want to chat use irc. couldn't they build IM on irc protocol, i assume its because all the scripters and exploiters would take over in a day, which will happen eventually anyway, (look at ICQ)
"The obvious downside of this, from a user point of view, is that you may have a number of friends scattered across different servers, who may in turn be stuck using their owns servers because of what their friends have been using."
:)
That's easy to fix with an update to the namespace. Treat it the way you do email: include a domain in the name. Instead of being ICQ# NNNNN, you'd be icq://mirabilis.com/NNNNN. Using URL syntax would allow clients to support more protocols and complex names (instead of just numbers).
I suppose you could even have DNS records for instant messaging servers. Just as you have MX records for domains pointing to mail servers, you could have IM records point to messaging servers.
This is not a terribly hard problem. Someone just has to go do it.
Hrm, I must have been mistaken then..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I use Linux because it works. I personally support AOL decision, why? They are in the business of making money, and they compete with others in the same business. I find it beneficial for technology when companies are finally learning how to compete with MicroSoft.
It allows more competition, which spawns development, and advancements. Not just lame buggy features.
Microsoft doesn't want a standard, they just want to have access to AOL's IM users. So they can start pumping the 21 million with MS advertisements.
AOL has not hindered the community in integrating such open source programs such as GAIM. AOL is just defending it's profits and future. That's what businesses do.
I really like open source, and support ALOT of open source ideals, but I don't see it as the be all, end all solution either.
Just my $0.00:)
One last thing, "microsoft haters". What's wrong with disliking Microsoft? A company is only as good as the products and services they offer. I personally dislike them because "I" think there products are poor. Just like I dislike Pepsi. When MicroSoft releases a product that "I" believe is worth a damn I will purchase it. Until then, I like Microsoft as much as I like their products.
Awesome!
Oh. I wasn't really aware of how far they'd gotten in the process of drawing up the protocol. Well, that's news to me...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
i'd love you to make this if it came out for mac too. and another thing, put your e-mail in next time ;-)
I know that, at least with zicq, you can't actually see an "invisible" user when they're logged on. However, you *can* see the message when they log off.
(zicq is a curses-based ICQ clone, and will give the message "Sparty (7335712) logged off. But they weren't online. (Invisible??)" or similar when that happens.)
Perhaps you, and the many others who stereotype Slashdot's readers should take an objective look at the responses.
Yes, Slashdot and the open source community have more than their share of Bill Bashers, but I think you mis-used the word "most". "Most" of the postings have criticized AOL's behavior.
I think that "most" of us appreciate the irony in seeing such tactics applied to Microsoft, but do not approve of them.
Not so much a sig as a lack of one.
So America Online and MicroSoft are fighting over instant messaging. I think AOL is in the right here though. To access the AOL Instant Messenger users, the user must provide his AOL screen name and password to the MicroSoft software. It doesn't take a rocket science to surmise that this could potentially expose sensitive AOL information to MicroSoft. This could also expose other unintended holes to the outside world. I'm willing to bet there will be a cease and desist or a lawsuit filed by the end of the week. To me what MicroSoft is doing is no different than what they accuse the creators of BackOrifice of doing:
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/news/pr1 9990719.html
The case for Yahoo! and Prodigy is somewhat different since they used AOL's publicly posted information to gain access to the IM features of AOL. I disagree with what AOL has done to them and do agree that there should be an Instant Messaging standard but it's not MicroSoft's place to enforce it by hacking around AOL's security. What MicroSoft is doing is hacking, plain and simple.
"The lie, Mr. Mulder, is most convincingly hidden between two truths."
--
And Justice for None
please explain why ICQ != talk + write + ftp
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Wow, your right, I hadn't really noticed..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
http://www.jabber.org
We're still alive, and actively working on it.. Take a gander over..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I believe it is being developed with the possibility of adding additional modules for other communication systems as they become available.
As far as IRC vs AIM, I believe IRC could easily alienate the average computer user. Sure the network of servers is better than all of the servers being concentrated in AOL, but they don't care about that; what they care about is the simpler interface. And to some extent I have to agree with them. Look and feel is very important.
"Normal People" haven't heard of IRC. In all seriousness, the largest growing market of people coming "online" are people who want to know what this "world wide web" thing is all about. My father's been using what he calls the Internet for a couple years already, and he hasn't even heard of FTP, IRC, or a bunch of other stuff. And believe it or not, he's the "average user."
So, there ya go - IRC would solve the problem, it just hasn't been heard of.
You should never take life too seriously - You'll never get out of it alive.
Okay - someone out there develop an open-source messaging technology and get it out there. It's obvious that certain other players would rather not play fair.
I'm not of the 'open-source it or it is evil' camp, but it is cases like this where there is obvious merit to the open-source idea.
- Darchmare
- Axis Mutatis, http://www.axismutatis.net
- Jeff
AOL is not and will not be in tune with the Linux community.
The name of AOL's game is to be the easiest to use at everything it does. Linux is not easy. Therefore Linux is below AOL's radar.
Common enemy is one thing, but their market is another. And the market is not us.
Can anyone comment on the security of these messaging protocols/systems?
An insecure messaging system used in a business context is less than useless. It's dangerous.
Well, at least AOL has a cluepon when it comes to being able to read Microsoft's intentions nowadays. The whole spat over messaging is a prime example of Microsoft using the 3 E's to get ahead, and AOL knows it, thankfully.
Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish.
Bowie
PROPAGANDA
Bowie J. Poag
Sure, but you're talking about the user interface, not the protocol. The UI has exactly nothing to do with whether it's IRC or AIM on the wire underneath.
Before everyone starts flaming AOL for this request, just realize they are just prepping for the possibility of a trial.
Awesome!
In my opinion, AOL responded to Microsoft's move simply because they *know* that Microsoft never uses open source or open *anything* unless they are not in control. They *will* use it to *gain* control, and then close it tighter than AOL or anyone else ever tried. AOL did in fact have the info needed to access their messenger until the Microsoft move, which they [and I agree] has to be considered hostile, with the end result desired by Microsoft no doubt being total control.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Does this mean that now whenenver I get an ICQ message I will have to reboot my pc?
One thing strikes me funny. I would've figured that AOL would be more in tune with letting the Linux community do some of the things they do. After all, both organizations have a common enemy, M$.
I guess it doesn't surprize me that AOL would request the removal of the logo from this IM, but what purpose does that really serve? It was developed because there were people that wanted to communicate with others via AOL IM. Having their logo there would've been a plus as far as I see it.
I do have to admit I was proud of AOL for sticking M$ the way they did with their protocol tweaks, but I hope this doesn't mean it's another M$ in the works. Having both ICQ and IM in their corner I don't really see much for M$'s future in the IM market. Maybe AOL should just take it easy. Then again, it is M$ that we're talking about.
Decisions, decisions, decisions... just get me a reliable communbicating tool so I can play StarCraft and Quake with my friends....
The technical SPECS exist in draft form, but as of yet, no predifined protocol exists.. If you want more information, zap me over an email and I can send you the draft RFC's..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Just use IRC.
I can't even think of any clients that don't allow scripting. You can do PGP encryption with simple scripts. Hell, with clients like x-chat you could write a module to do it.
What's all the fuss with lame messenger clients like aim and icq? Put everyone on IRC servers.
It doesn't say they're using IETF's messaging protocol - mainly because the protocol specs still haven't come off the drawing board, to my knowledge. I don't know what protocol M$'s messaging client is using to talk to their own service, but it's not IETF's IMPP (Internet Messaging and Presence Protocol), since it's not finished.
Don't read in things that aren't actually said.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
The most exciting one I know of is called Jabber. www.jabber.org
Probably because they want to help draft the IETF standard (like with some other things - like CSS, DOM, DHTML...) then prove their true colors by providing only a broken implementation of said "open" standard.
To those who say "Maybe they'll actually do right by users this time", I say this: Maybe, but I think it'll probably be a cold day in hell before they do.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I am currently working on PUMP.
It is secure and will not allow any of many problems that can exist with messaging software, such as spoofing, sniffing, self-authorization, etc.
It will use PGP for authentication and encryption,
and will use digital certificates for contact list authorization.
It doesn't have a central servel, but it works similar to email. (ie user@server.net)
I'm working on it (biggo@netvision.net.il) with another guy (larry@lar.dyndns.org).
Contact me if you wish to help or join the project.
---
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
Kinda the point of jabber.. But we're a bit more open.. We also support an IRC transport that allows you to IM thru IRC to/from AOL users, no less!!
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
The AOL part of the GAIM logo has been gone for quite a while - this is not a new development. I'm pretty sure, anyway... :-) I'll bet that in general, harrassment of all of the Linux IM clone developers will step up a notch in the coming days, though. *sigh*
They're not even ON the drawing board yet.. Merely the requirments OF a protocol..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Is the IM's really any faster than normal email?
How much time and trouble are spent writing little messages back and forth that could actually be used in something productive?
Is this really something that the OS movement would want to be associated with when it really comes down to nothing more than just another email system that sits on your desktop and beeps loudly when you get a new message.
Dan Gillmor's Messaging flap makes Microsoft, AOL instant hypocrites is great, and No truce in AOL, Microsoft war is also worth a read.
AOL gives away the protocol specs for their "unsupported" service. It's really a very nice gesture -- it lets the hackers write their own clients and have fun, and keeps most of them happy enough so they don't bang on the production servers.
I'm rather curious about where Microsoft's AIM support came from. Did they get support from AOL, or did they reverse engineer it themselves? AOL Legal has been nice enough not to attack the folks who have reverse engineered the AIM and AOL service protocols, but I can't imagine they'd let a giant like Microsoft get away with it..
Where I come from using software to hammer someone elses computers and reduce their service levels is called a denial of service attack. Releasing over 20,000 copies of software to do that means that the company is knowingly attempting to deny service of registered users of that server access to the resources of the server.
In simple terms, what Microsoft did was attempt to hijack the services of AOLs server, and now they are perfoming no less than a denial of service attack on those servers.
Last time I checked, people go to jail for releasing software designed to damage other peoples servers.
And just how is Microsoft embracing and extending AIM consistent with open protocols? Microsoft is just trying to do 2 things: Steal AOL's user base, channel them into their own, and set up its own proprietary Windows-only message system. It's the lesser of two evils: At least AOL wants everyone to use their software, and not use it to lock people into Windows
MS would deserve it. AOL deserves it too- why doesn't it occur?
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
I don't know which is more hilarious: AOL claiming they are only trying to protect their users privacy rights or Microsoft accusing someone of using unfair business practices to maintain a monopoly.....
You can't buy this kind of entertainment...
"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."..........Dark-Phoenix
...just dynamic DNS. talk and write are both based off of username + domain and ftp is host + domain. No static IP needed.
---
Put Hemos through English 101!
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
* AOL provides the servers, and makes money off the advertising.
* MS makes money off the OS.
* If MS OS users use MSN Mess, then AOL does not make any money, and for some strange reason, MS still does.
MS pleads, open-source, open-source, but do you see MSN mess source posted anywhere? Do you see MSN mess for other OS's? No MS makes money off the OS.
The yahoo and prodigy made money, but they don't make money from the OS. And at least yahoo's client is not a exact clone of IM 1.0. Hey I tried yahoo's out, and it is really good, and there is a java version for those who want it.
And MSN mess, is a mess. If you install MSN mess, it INTEGRATES ITSELF, by default. Open outlook, and you have opened up MSN mess, without realizing it. Even after you kicked it off the damn taskbar, it still fires up when you fire up outlook. Talk about forcefull.
No, AOL wants to ultimately provide a machine, running NO OS, just AOL software.
This is pure, unadulterated evil. Make no mistake.
MS is trying to SAVE the world from this kind of monopolistic crap, and you're all too blind to see it. I know. I work for Microsoft! We're the good guys!
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
So yeah.
Note - above page for TiK does not work afaik - ymmv
Jezzball
ls:
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
Yah, but at $20/desk and $5000/server, kinda pricey.. Besides, who's to say that if enough nerds find it useful it won't be 'emulated' in an Open flavor?
On the surface it does seem to be a bit hypocritical, but access to incumbent cable lines and access to AOL's IM servers are two different things. AOL using AT&T's cables into the home, where the homeowner is going to choose one or the other doesnt place a burden on AT&T. They got to build those facilities under franchise agreements and will still profit from the use of those lines.
M$ on the otherhand is outright hijacking AOL's servers and using them to attract customers away from AOL's services. M$ was perfectly free to set up their own servers and negotiate an agreement with AOL to somehow link the two systems. This way AOL doesn't have to pay for maintaing systems that it isn't seeing revenue come out of. What M$ is doing is outright theft of service.
I don't think so. They're really different, at least in appearance and implementation. For one thing, AOL has nothing close to kerberos (in functionality or difficulty of installation). The only real similarity is that you send messages in real time to other people online. Their ideas of classes are really different. AIM's classes are just groups that you can put buddies in. Zehpyr's classes are different: for instance, when I was at MIT I was in the "rsi" class. I could zephyr everyone in "rsi" at once. In that sense it was a little like IRC. Can't do that with AIM.
No, they want to lock them into AOL. No difference. A closed, proprietary protocol that is changed at the whim of a large corporation to inhibit competition is bad. (It didn't just hurt MS guys- Yahoo's and other clients stopped working too.)
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
didn't AOL release their TOC protocol documentation? isn't that what GAIM, FAIM, and all the other clones are based on? it says on the GAIM page that it wasn't reverse-engineered. so whats the big deal about MS using it? it was legal, i suppose. (on the other hand, we all know what MS is going to try to do, once it has a foothold in the market)
yeah, i think a good RFC is needed, as stated by many above.
-- My Sig is a P228.
Well, because it's statistics, dummy.
Microsoft thrives on creating statistics, which become a tool for painting a very positive picture of the company by the Marketing geniuses here, in Redmond.
In fact, the marketing statistics are probably MORE important to Microsoft's success than software sales. Look at the inflated stock prices of Yahoo, Amazon, etc. THAT'S what I'm talking about. Microsoft wants a slice of that. If they can spin statistics to say that Hotmail is taking over 90% of the email market, then - DAMN.
So yeah, go ahead and make some new Hotmail accounts. Who cares if they're ablatible. Make a million throwaway accounts. Our Marketing folks LOVE you for it!
Download IE 5, install it, say it sucks and delete it. It still counts as a stat we can use against Nutscrape in the marketing war.
warning: this user and his comments are intended solely for the purpose of parody.
Microsoft is using AOL's properity OSC protocol, which is copyrighted and may not be reversed engineered by anybody including Microsoft.
The Free clients (GAIM, FAIM, etc.) are using TOC, which is fully documented, and you are encouraged to create clients that are compatible with it.
Microsoft chose to reverse engineer OSC because they felt that OSC users get better service (since they are using AOL technology and are viewing the AOL ads that are paying for it) and better features.
It's too bad they couldn't have gone the TOC protocol method... it would have saved them alot of bad publicity.
In addition to Jabber, there is a server/client pair called Teaser and Firecat. Firecat is in java, so it can be run on any platform with a JVM. It's also based on user@server, like PUMP. I'm not sure how well it works, thus far.
---
END OF LINE
Also, other companies were *prevented* from putting in cable lines while AT&T was. Nothing was stopping MS, or anyone else, from releasing an IM service. Those situations are not analagouas at all.
---
END OF LINE
I don't know, I guess it's okay if they tell GAIM
;-)
not to use their trademarks. At least the AOL
people allow them to continue to develop GAIM so that we finally have a decent AOL IM clone for Linux. I remember back when the only thing available was their JAVA client... It sucked.
Greetings to Rob and Jim and the others too.
All the messaging programs at the moment suck really badly. ICQ and AIM are both pretty woeful.
The free software community needs to produce it's own, secure messaging software. Including strong encryption would be a great "selling" point (of course that leaves you with those nice little US encryption laws...).
I know there is an Open Source IM project out there. I wish I could recall the name. In any case I feel that AOL is unable to advance it's products technologically. MS has an agenda, and IBM is frankly ... inept at this sort of thing.
An OS IM would mean anyone could have a client and anyone could integrate the IM into other OS applications. It would be nice. I say we find that IM OS Project and start to push it instead of clinging to ICQ or AIM.
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
2) After a while, the servers become bogged down, and either go down, or lose connection with another server or group of servers, essentially splitting the people up depending on what server they're connected to.
3) A few people get sick of the bad service and decide to set up their own servers and connect them together, possibly modifying the server software to give additional features.
4) Eventually, everybody and their brother is running a network of messaging servers, and many people have accounts on multiple networks.
For those of you who haven't been on IRC for six years or so, this is basically what has happened to it. With the exception of unique logins/passwords, IRC is pretty close to an open source messaging service. A few of the IRC networks have set up bots to do the login/password work so that people can reserve nicknames, keep channels in order, etc. I'm not certain whether or not I'd want to see the possible open source messaging service end up like IRC, but I'm leaning towards nay.
- coug_
Hmm, then why does M$ require you to be registered with Hotmail to use the service?
Uhh, I'd use it, but I don't have your e-mail, oops, I guess being anonymous sucks.
But if you want everyone to use it, you should/must port it to many different OS's. Linux, Be (please?), mac, Windows (yes, yes, I know.)
Good luck, if I could code in anything but C & pascal(woohoo) (and both badly), I'd help . . .
hasta la pasta
Dan
TiK is great! And for storing the config locally? Goto Tools, General Options, Store Config. You can store your config locally, on host, or both. I think that's what you meant, because everything else is stored locally, under ~/.tik
AOL has released the TOC client/server protocol, but not the OSCAR protocol which AOL's Windows client uses. The TOC and OSCAR clients access two different servers. If AOL really wanted to play games with Microsoft easily, they could just kill off any support for TOC clients and stick with their unreleased OSCAR protocl. Of course, that would also kill off support for TiK, and Tac, and GAIM, and whatever other TOC clients there are.
Brandon
Sorry if I've misunderstood what Jabber is all about; but if I've gotten it wrong, you should probably try and clarify this on the web site, because it's really hard to tell what your architecture and goals are, and why.
I also don't understand why anyone would use AIM instead of IRC, except for the reasons of ``my new computer came with AIM and not IRC'' or ``my friends all use AIM and not IRC.'' The latter of which a multi-protocol client solves nicely.
GAIM *does* use TOC.
Kris
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/
Kriston
Has anyone written up / agreed to any sort of open protocol yet? If so, where's the RFC or other source of documentation? I'd love to create a messaging client (maybe server, too) but I'd want to make sure it would work with everyone else. Obviously this wouldn't help people connect with AOL's or M$'s proprietary messaging users, but if they keep pissing people off it shouldn't be hard to get people to switch over.
Over at www.jabber.org work has been slowly but steadily going on a cross-platform, cross-protocol instant messaging system. The architecture of this client will allow communication between any combination of the native Jabber client users, AIM users, ICQ users, and more. I'm afraid by the time I myself beefed up my (at-present) meager programming skills, it would be too late or they'd be done by then, but perhaps someone will read this who can help beat Microsoft, AOL, IBM or whoever may come to try to make sure instant messaging is divided up into exlusionist camps where you need powwow, AIM, ICQ and 12 other programs running just to talk to everyone.
Gee, attempting to choose the lesser of two evils. But, in this case, I'll have to side with AOL. America Online knows what Microsoft is capable of. First, create a messaging client. Second, add it to all new applications (for team support, of course). And, finally, integrate it into the operating system, thereby killing AIM and ICQ.
It's Microsoft's pattern, and I'm so glad that Microsoft finally attempted to go against the only company, at this time, who has the power to fight back.
Closed, proprietary protocols that are changed at a whim by a large corporation to stifle competition are
- Good
- Bad
It seems that most of the Slahdot readers believe (2) with a passion, unless of course the target is MS, in which case (1) appliesDoes MS deserve it? Sure. Doesn't make it right though. If you truly believe (1), and I would argue any Open Source believer would, then what AOL is doing is simply wrong.
Eric
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
OK, let's see where we are: we'd like an open source, multi-server, messaging system. Necessary features are ease of use and security, which means client-side encryption and authentication among other things. Ultimately, as with PUMP, a system that is server-agnostic and gives no specific server control of the system would be ideal. However, if these clowns don't want to be compatible, we should counter their proprietary standards with an open one that they can either support or not - we shouldn't waste much effort chasing after them.
What's required to make this work is that it get widely used, which means not just the Linux/geek community. Ease-of-use again, and obviously Windows, Mac, etc. clients, but also a way to simply get it prominently "out there". Perhaps the best way to get such a thing around would be to integrate the server side with Apache. Then every ISP who uses Apache could offer this as a default service to their users. A competitive plus for them, which would incline them to advertise it for us, and it would be great for the naive users, who may not be great or confident at signing up for or installing anthing, but will happily use whatever their service provides (the secret of AOL's success). Our system would get a plethora of servers, which is more scalable, more secure, frustrates traffic analysis (somewhat), enhancing privacy, and creates the kind of ubiquity play that MS cannot counter. Good idea?
We have a protocol. Why can't we stick with it?
In other news, AOL is in court to win the right to use AT&T's cable networks.
The stories aren't completely analogous, but I think AOL is playing both sides of the closed access argument. With AT&T, they are demanding the right to use a network that was built completely with AT&T money. They are willing to pay, but not too much. In this recent battle, they are closing their "network". For this network, AOL has written the software, distributed it, but has not built the bulk of the physical network that it runs on.
While I don't agree with MS for just hijacking a protocol that wasn't open and using AOL servers without permission, I also don't agree with AOL's reaction. If theft is what MS is guilty of, then AOL should be suing/pressing charges and asking for a cease and desist order to keep MS from further distribution until the court decides. This reaction just weakens AOL's position in the AT&T case.
I used to work at the Lotus/IBM office that
is responsible for Sametime. For fairness sake,
I just wanted to point out that the AIM/MSN
Messenger functionality is a very small subset
of Sametime. I'd try to explain everything
that Sametime does, but I suppose Lotus's
own literature would give you a better idea
than any attempt I could make. FYI.
will these people PLEASE develop a friggin RFC?
I am glad AOL, M$ and IBM where NOT around have these little bitch fits, when smtp, http, ftp, pop3, where purposed to the world.
Having 116 differant incompatiable sendmails or named would just plain suck.
Thank you Mr.Suit(TM)
Mark is currently using a rather cute logo for the gaim client. It used to feature the AIM logo with the AIM man hugging a penguin. Now, the AIM symbol and man are cut out with a punch-out shadow on white where they used to be and a message stating that AOL was rather unhappy about the use of the logo.
;) ). While you're at it, the gaim team is also looking for a reasonable demon image for the client to satisfy the *bsd users.
I can understand why AOL objected...it's obciously a trademark issue as far as they're concerned, but Mark's client wa actually a good thing...it's not like he was defaming them, and he certainly wasn't in the business of making profits off their logo.
I have to agree that a new logo is needed. If my graphics skills were up to it, I'd volunteer (having gotten enough linux support from him that I can't possibly repay him
Good luck, and good drawing!!
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?