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.
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.
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
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
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!
"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 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*
Dan Gillmor's Messaging flap makes Microsoft, AOL instant hypocrites is great, and No truce in AOL, Microsoft war is also worth a read.
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.
So yeah.
Note - above page for TiK does not work afaik - ymmv
Jezzball
ls:
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
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!"
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.
Basically where the ICQ protocol is concerned, it's a case of "Security? What security?". I subscribed to an icq-devel mailing list for a while and to say it was eyebrow raising was an understatement. Amongst other things, features like requiring authorisation (for the non ICQ users among you - you can tell the ICQ service that other ICQ users can only see if you're online if you've authorised them first) are controlled by the CLIENT end. That is, instead of the client saying "is xxx online" and the server saying "you need authorisation" and the client saying to the user "Bugger! They've got to authorise you", what actually happens is that the server says "Yep, xxx is online, but you need authorisation" and the client is not supposed to tell the user this. So if you make an ICQ client, you have to specifically have code in it to honour the authorisation requirement, otherwise it's effectively non-existent. I wouldnt be surprised if the invisible function works much the same way - I should try getting a Windoze ICQ user to mark themselves invisible and seeing if I can still see them in LICQ :-)
:-) )
The protocol is also TRIVIALLY easy to spoof - LICQ even comes with the feature to send messages from any UIN. While I've not looked at the source I bet the code that does this is pretty simple. There were plenty of other examples of how bad the protocol was. No doubt some of the ICQ clone developers can go into far greater detail than I have (and maybe correct any boneheaded misconceptions on my part
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...).
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.
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.
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!"
I'm only happy if this sort of war allows a proper solution to sneak up on them, which I doubt.
Microsoft's pattern is just as reprehensable when AOL is using it. It's not the company, it's the tactics of screwing the user for profit.
--The basis of all love is respect
Exactly. Our business focuses on stock traders. Well, some of them were using AIM to send messages across the offices. These are trades, travelling totally insecure, and unauthenticated to AOL and back.
That's actually why we developed our own messaging and data system (ez-eXchange). It is focussed for our the financial market, but it is completely secure and authenticated.
www.ez-exchange.com
Kevin Osborn
Software Engineer
Eze Castle Consulting, Inc.
www.ezecastle.com
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.