Slashdot Mirror
ESR says Microsoft is right, for once
geekd sent us a link to a
Linux Today story by ESR where he says that
Microsoft is right. Here is a quick quote from the article:
"Indeed do we live in interesting times. Today Microsoft, the Borg from Redmond, is on the right side -- the open-source side -- of a dispute about network standards. I expect water to begin flowing uphill any second now, and look out for pigs on the wing."
Its about the Internet Messaging battle between AOL and MS. Check
it out.
Absolutely. AOL has every right to change their product to prevent competition. Just like Microsoft has every right to change Windows to prevent, oh.. DR-Dos from working with theirs, right?
But why isn't AOL screaming that GAIM and all the other "unsupported platform" AIM implementations are evil, because they are written by a third party and ask for your password? The whole username/password thing is a smokescreen. AOL has a few (very few) valid points in this argument (as does MS), but the "password hijacking" one is not a valid argument unless they enforce it across the board, with all AIM clients.
AOL really only has three valid options here:
1) Change the "standard" and not allow anyone else to write clients. Return it to a proprietary protocol. AOL loses a (sizeable?) chunk of user base, many of whom migrate to competing (Microsoft) technologies.
b) Open the protocol completely and let anyone and everyone write clients. Microsoft wins this battle, but AOL's AIM servers are suddenly flooded with many, many more users, many of whom aren't seeing AOL's advertisements, and therefore aren't a revenue stream. The system might eventually collapse here.
III) Close the protocol, and only allow "licensed" authors to write clients, approved by AOL. This would be a major headache for them, as they would have to negotiate agreements with every programmer who wants to make a Perl/Tk implementation, or a Python version, or a KDE/QT client, etc... The upside is AOL could charge MS a license fee to help defray the cost of the additional load on AOL's servers.
Am I missing any other options?
"You can be today's instant winner of $5000! Just download and set up this FREE program now, and check your Hotmail e-mail account to see if you've won!"
Look at that...M$ is trying to bribe people into downloading their Messager service...while I do agree that them going open source for this project is a good move, I do not think they are "right". Once M$ has got the overhand to AOL, they will dominate the market just like they have with everything else. M$ realizes they aren't the leader in Instant Messaging Service, so they are trying to dominate, its as simple as that. AOL did make a bad decision by closing off its servers but who in their right mind would let M$ in anyway? Just my opinion
arcane for life
Exactly. Ever the hypocritical company, Microsoft calls for a standard when they're not winning, only to provide an incompatible hack of a program supposedly based on "standards" and flood the market with it. Then, ta da, one more market under their control. Gee, can you even feature it?
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
There is a shorter name: i-Planet
I think AOL is clearly in the right to protect its servers from traffic that doesn't make it money (via advertising).
But I also think it'd be nice if we DID have an open, inter-operable IMing standard with distributed load.
So my question is: How do we do this? I'm not very familiar with IRC other than to say that I find it far too difficult to use. Would it be possible to set up a distributed load system for instant messaging? What would it involve?
I'm not too familiar with the details of this sort of thing and would be interested in hearing about it.
The only "non-published" spec M$ is using is the one AOL made up internally that doesn't follow the published spec. IE, as I understand it, they published a spec for the world to use, M$ did, so they changed the spec internally without publishing the changes, and M$ reverse engineeed teh deviation from the open spec.
If this is not correct, please explain. I DON'T like M$, they can rot in hell, but I don't see how they did anything other than what AOL wanted for free, other than being bigger and meaner.
--
Infuriate left and right
When you want a Netscape Navigator, people have to buy it from a store or download it. Microsoft made IE much simplier for users, bundled it with Windows. Presto! Market share of web browser climb so fast Bill got a billion dollar richer in a day.
Microsoft has always used Windows as it leverage to dominate any software market. Word vs WordPerfect. Excel vs Lotus123.
That's the price we price for IBM clone PCs. At least the hardware are cheap with so many competitors. Now only if we have a free! huh? open! operating...
There are ad-free IM clients around there, including GAIM for Linux. All of them use the published AOL protocol, and so far AOL has not complained about these clients asking for users's passwords. Now MS wants to use the same protocol; and AOL is whining.
Microsoft is right here, folks. If AOL has concerns about security, they should have prevented open-source people from using this protocol, too.
You can download MS Instant Messenger client from Microsoft's web site; but can't use it, since AOL does not feel secure about MS asking you your password. Yet you can go and download precompiled "Supa-Dupa IM Client Thingy" binaries from a script kiddie's free Web page; and it will also prompt you to enter your password; but hey, AOL is perfectly fine with it. Ridiculous.
Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
Except this has NOTHING to do with open source. Also, apparently Microsoft didn't use the mostly-open TOC protocol that clients like TiK use, but the unpublished one that the "official" Windows/Mac AIM clients use. It has to do with protocols, at least mostly. I bet AOL wouldn't have cared as much if Microsoft had used the TOC protocol instead, but that's just not good enough for Microsoft, I guess...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I've spoken with the Project Manager for MSN Messenger, and have a good understanding of where Microsoft is heading and what their plans are for future extensions. Also, I have a current copy of the protocol they are using, RVP, based mostly on the HTTP-DAV standard.
Being heavily involved in the Instant Messaging arena via Jabber, I can understand Microsoft's need to deploy this functionality and keep it as open as possible, since the fight is against the entrenched closed systems.
So far I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that they are doing anything sly here, it appears that they honestly want to deploy an open messaging platform, using their own protocol until a standard one is available. An upgraded client should be out this fall along with a server component that works with Exchange, but anyone is free to develop an independent server and/or client that interoperates, and that is exactly what I'll be working on adding into Jabber.
I can't guarantee Microsoft will stand behind their plans or keep it as open as they are saying, but I know that if they didn't it would cause a bigger press headache than AOL is experiencing over this, so I doubt that will happen. I think it's safe to say that for once we can look at Microsoft as a partner in this battle against closed instant messaging platforms.
Jer
jeremie@jabber.org
Like 'SUNetscAOLpe'?
I'm using ICQ right now on my Linux box. I'm talking with people that have Windoze, Solaris, Linux. I never see an advertisement. And more people use ICQ than AIM. Right?!
Did I miss something, or did Micro$oft miss the boat? Why couldn't they make an ICQ clone? Why not make that the open standard?!
Nothing is all good or all bad... how true.
But in this case, mistaken. Microsoft isn't wrong for apealing for open standards; they are wrong for:
TRESPASSING on AOL's servers
STEALING AOL's add dollars
STEALING AOL users' passwords
Standards should be opened, and a big fine slapped on Microsoft for the burden put on AOL's servers by Microsoft users and for forcing AOL users to violate their Terms of Service with AOL by requiring AOL users to give their passwords to Microsoft.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Well, even if they released their MSN Messenger client as open source (not likely), it'd all be Win32 code, so a lot of it would have to be rewritten into other APIs (POSIX APIs for system interaction, Qt/Gtk+/Motif/etc. for GUI, and whatever else)... so it wouldn't be pretty. I certainly wouldn't want to mess with it.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
NFS and NIS are open standards that have been recreated in free and proprietary versions. But I have no obligation to open up my NFS and NIS servers to anyone else to use. Microsoft has framed the debate over the protocols, but I don't see the hotmail servers allowing me to relay my traffic via their ports. Why not? So should AOL have the right to say who and how customers access their servers? Sure thing.
This is not about "open standards." I wonder if Microsoft paid off ESR? This is about access to AOL's servers. The AIM protocol requires access to AOL's server's and anyone using an AIM client does so with the permission of AOL. Why on earth should AOL give free server cycles to Microsoft, a competitor? This has NOTHING to do with open source/standards and everything to do with Microsoft illegally using AOL's computers. If a script-kiddie broke into some bank's computers and illegally used their CPU time, they could and would be prosecuted. Why is Microsoft any different? ESR just went down several notches of respect.
Then why doesn't AOL charge for the use of the AIM servers and keep the protocol open? That'd give them a return on investment for the development of the servers, and with clients available everywhere AIM would be even more popular. Of course, with an open protocol, they might start getting competition from other AIM-compatible servers, but since most people are using their servers, few people will want to change.
The only reason this unpublished protocol exists is because AOL got pissed that someone took them at their word and used their published protocol. Is that not so?
What's the point of publishing a so-calld open protocol if you change it the minute someone uses it?
--
Infuriate left and right
Are you saying you must be a hypocrite to the nth degree in order to really good at business? ... Microsoft has been saying all along that they aren't invincible and that they can't control everything.
Being a hypocrite is not a prerequisite for being good at business, but it is sometimes obviously necessary. Microsoft would never admit to being monopolistic controllers of our lives, as you seem to think they should, simply because to do so would be retarded. Such an admission would no doubt hurt them earings wise, and no one with half a brain would expect them to lose money for honesty's sake. By the same token, one cannot blame them for attempting to wrest some marketshare from AOL, nor can you blame AOL for attempting to keep them locked out.
But as soon as they find something they haven't been able to control, they whine and moan about how unfair it is
Again, the point is to make the most money for the least trouble, and if that means whining and crying about the competition, then so be it. Hell, the competition has been doing the same thing to MS for years, the only difference being that Microsoft is generally much bigger than its competitors, and automatically looks evil in the public eye. In this case, hypocrisy does indeed seem to be an everyday part of business. Not everyone subscribes to ideas of utopian moralizing such as are presented here, and in the world of business it seems no one plays fair. Microsoft isn't evil, they're just good at playing the game.
They did it themselves, voluntary, in the greedy (and perfectly normal) expectation of getting free clients written by others for their own purposes.
Once someone took them up on that offer, they whined and changed the supposedly open standard.
--
Infuriate left and right
Sorry. Folks like you and Eric have missed the whole point here. This has absolutely nothing to with OSS. The AOL servers are *NOT* public
servers although AOL lets the public acess them meaning that AOL has *EVERY* right to determine who gets to acess them.
Microsoft has shown that they fully intend to abuse these servers,therefore AOL has ever right to tell them to go to hell. As someone has pointed out, what Microsoft is doing is this instance with the AOL servers is no diffrent than what the spammers do to newservers.
Not to mention that there are federal laws concering computer tampering which it looks like Microsoft are violating by modifying their software to get around the AOL blocks.
Rember script kiddies, you can get your ass thrown in jail for hacking into/within AOL without their permission.....
I think the TiK AOL Instant Messenger (written in Tcl/Tk, uses the TOC protocol) client is still available, and there're other clients available that also use the TOC protocol (gAIM, for example). There are also open-source ICQ-compatible messaging tools (LICQ, GtkICQ, etc), as well as Jabber, which intends to support as many instant-messaging protocols as possible - I think TOC and ICQ protocols are both supported (check out their pages, though - I don't use it myself).
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I was thinking the exact thing.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
But he's right, gotta go with the Open Standards
George
MS delivers a messaging service. They know they can't compete with the established userbase that AIM and ICQ have. Since nearly everybody else does those, why should a newbie choose MSM over where all their buddies are? So Microsoft decides that if they could just hack out a bridge to AIM (why not ICQ?) they could market it as a feature and get a better userbase. Eventually they'll integrate it into something to make MSM the "obvious" choice of instant messaging and kill AIM. Typical Microsoft business-as-usual.
So why in the devil is MS wrong? It's virtual tresspassing for MS to invade AOLs servers with messages from non-AIM users. Not only that, MS will be stealing revenue from AOL by not displaying AOL banners in MSM. AOL has the right to dictate how their servers are to be used. By tweaking the protocol, AOL is trying to say "Stay off our servers, Microsoft! They're not yours to play with." They have that right. What AOL should do is back up that No Tresspassing sign with a shotgun, instead of trying to put up bigger barricades for Microsoft . .
2. AOL is more right than wrong
As previously stated, AOL is right in defending their servers and tweaking their protocol to keep Microsoft off their property. What Microsoft is accusing AOL of, is using proprietary protocols. So? There is no law against proprietary products? If that was so, MS would have been long long gone a while ago. AIM users have made the choice to go with the proprietary solution. It doesn't mean jack for Microsoft or any oss/fsf/linux pundits to say "Hey AOL! Open your protocols or you're a mean, bad company." Ooooh, what a threat! Microsoft is a mean bad company and they're alive as ever. AOL can just shrug it off and say, "Don't like it? Go somewhere else." Nobody using AIM is going to go anywhere else, they've got all their buddies on AIM. No one can force AOL to do anything, so they'll keep on doing what they're doing and gain more AIM users everyday.
3. ESR has a deeper meaning than "MS is right" :) AOL knows where their money is, and they'll be dammned if they change to throw it all away.
ESR is saying "Microsoft is right about open messaging". Sure they are. Open protocols are good. However, you can't force another company to use open protocols, especially if you're trying to get at their userbase (read: MONEY!). What Microsoft doesn't realize, but ESR and AOL do, is that by turning instant messaging into an open protocol where all the servers talk to each other and it doesn't matter what client you're using; nobody makes any money. It's just like IRC. Nobody makes money from running IRC servers and you can use whatever client you want. If Microsoft was really smart, they would look at what happened when they tried to "embrace and extend" IRC with Microsoft Chat. It didn't work. MSChat users are the bane of IRC users when they're in Comic Mode. Eventually, they all just hang out in microsoft-only chat servers. Exactly what would happen to instant messaging under Microsoft's plan. Now you tell me, out of all the IRC users, what percentage use MS Comic Chat?
So, what does all this add up to? AOL is defending it's property rights. Microsoft is trespassing on those rights. ESR is championing Microsoft stepping on their own oxygen supply.
Microsoft is trying to open up the instant messaging protocols on the internet and unwittingly trying to create a unprofitable medium where the servers are run without any capital gain and the clients could be written by anybody. This is good for us! Bad for business.
Eric is right. You can cheer for Microsoft this time, because you're cheering for them and AOL to lose.
Hands up anyone who doubted it? Let's face it, there was never any doubt about this one; if it was anyone but MS who was wronged there'd have been howls of outrage by now. But it takes someone like ESR to point out the obvious before we listen.
I read your comment and I thought you were
right. But there's just one thing that
You are forgetting that AOL _pulished_ the
specs to their client. They were trying to
promote use on Unix boxes. Microsoft didn't
commit industrial espionage to get the specs.
IMHO, AOL should have seen this coming a mile away.
I still don't agree that MS is the "right" one
in this case, but AOL isn't the victim that your
post makes them out to be.
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
AOL's argument is a straw man, plain and simple.
Actually it's a red herring. A straw man is when you set up the other sides argument weakly, so that you can knock the straw man down.
I just had to say that because you said exactly what I was going to say about email clients. Amen, brother.
We know the only reason MS want open standards on this one is so they can gain market share from the market leader. Perhaps their argument would be good in court to insist that they open up their standards to remove the monopoly and increase competition?
Anyway, my main point is why don't we use this situation to try and persude MS to release their messenger as open source. As they seem to want to push for a standard to gain market share lets make them realise that the best way to do so is an open source solution.
My reasoning for this:
1) if a standard does arrive it would be very easy to port an open source instant messenger to Linux.
2) It would be harder for them to make undocumented extensions to their messenger as they'd have to revert to closed source and that would be very bad publicity for them.
--
Ok, let's take it a step further. All people who use MS-DUN (millions!) are giving their ISP username and password away to Microsoft every time. The difference is, MS-DUN isn't
a) leeching off someone elses resources without their approval
b) competing against another "dun" service which generates revenue from it's grown user base
One step further would be that everyone is giving out their username/password to their phone company everytime they dialup.
So for one (out of a million) Microsoft hit with the right rock... so what? :)"
...enough? to work with / os...
You can't really blame AOL... they're just like many of us "Trying to get as far from that company as its humanly possible
but like many of us... we have works, and we are not lucky
oh well there's nothing like home...
The main difference is your mail client (Outlook, Netscape, Eudora, whatever) is not directly linked to a competing service and simply leeching off the existing market leader's users and network resources to gain share.
Microsift get's on the soap box when someone screws with them...
Ohh they arent helping us with ipv6 by implimenting a beta driver are they? nooooooo...
they are as interested in open standards as Bill is interested in the contents of his refridgerator... it's mildly interesting to them and looks like something that would taste good for a snack. But Open standards aren't what they are based on... Microsoft is based on closed and prepitary.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ahem... it does...
Most systems are run under a metro-X server with almost every expieriment using Linux now.
This is old news though.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The simple answer to this debate, is what is best for the end users? I could give a flying shit what MS's motives are. For me, and the millions of other IM users, open source is right, and therefore, MS is right.
If Instant Messenger is supported by advertising, and not displaying those ads is theft of service, then why would they want to allow the open source Unix clients?
I would assume that the Unix clients are every bit as guilty as the MS clients when it comes to not displaying AOL's ads.
I assume the real problem is volume - there aren't too many Unix users out there, so the lost revenue doesn't make much difference. Obviously if MS is hijacking both their users and ads, this is pretty crummy for AOL. At the same time, if Linux grows to the extent that there is a significant number of desktop users (from AOL's point of view), I wonder what would happen.
I think AOL should have licensed the protocol on the condition that the ads be displayed by any client that was written. Then they wouldn't be in this fix, and the result would have been fair for all.
I'm not inclined to take Microsoft's side on this one, though. AOL did the open source community a favour by releasing the protocol, and got burned by our pals at MS. ESR or no ESR, I can't say that's a Good Thing.
I'm going to show symbolic support to IM by downloading a Unix client for it today.
D
----
While I completely agree that it's time for open instant messaging standards, AOL's security reasoning behind blocking MSN's messenger makes sense since MSN's messenger asks for your AOL screename and password.
.02, no change will be given.
AOL has been trying for years to educate their 400 ba-zillion "newbies" to never ever give out their name and password to anyone, ever. Now Microsoft wants it. Should AOL now go against this policy and allow MSN to ask for user's names and passwords? I don't see the value in that.
My
|DaBuzz|
PDABuzz.com
True, we'd be real happy if the shuttle was running Linux. On the other hand if it was running nt, i'd be running out to buy a hard hat :)
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
but that still feels bizarre on my tounge. "Microsoft is right." "Microsoft is for open standards." And I thought it was kind of bizarre when IBM started to convert...
We all know that there is the possibility that Bill Gates was/is a homosexual. But if true, such a thought would be something of a let down. My gut feeling is that he is just a socially inept fool who would be working as a pencil necked clerk in Radio Shack had someone else released the first BASIC for the 8080. Indeed, if Richard Stallman had spent his efforts releasing GNU BASIC in the late '70s, no one would know Bill Gates now ... except the ticket taker at the local dirty movie emporium.
If there were girls in his previous life, why haven't they come forward? Wouldn't it be fascinating to hear what kind of ``lover boy'' Bill Gates was? But reality tells us that any former tootsies involved with Bill have been silenced, either through hit-men or cash. Don't get your hopes up.
Don't let the screen door hit your ass on the way out!
LICQ (yes this is what it sounds like)
or JAVA ICQ
GAIM (again this is what is sounds like)
Java AIM
ZEPHYR
TALK , or IRC
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
So the M$ "re-education" team finally
got to ESR.
MS: Bill is god
ESR: NOO
MS: Well, kiss your nuts goodby
ESR: Wait, wait, NOOO, AOOWW
MS: Who is god ?
ESR: Lin. AOOW, Bill
ESR: Now, you may think I'm harshing on Microsoft too much here. If so, you can refute me instantly by pointing me at the Web page where Microft has published the wire protocol for its Exchange message servers. Hey -- turnabout is fair play.
Maybe they haven't released their wire protocols, but it's not as if (as with AOL) you have to use Microsoft's clients. You can use SMTP/POP, MAPI, or IMAP4, and there are COM objects for programming Exchange.
LJS
I have to agree with ESR's point. Motives aside, we have to support MS on this argument. In this instance AOL seems to be trying to "Microsoft" the instant messaging community. It wasn't good when MS did it on other projects so it can't be good for AOL to do it now. Open protocols are central to a functioning Internet. Efforts to keep protocols open should be supported regardless of the intentions, real or perceived, of the participants.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Meanwhile, who really cares if MS bundles MSIM with Windows? Just so long as it's uninstallable and replaceable. There's nothing there the OS is dependent on so that should be possible.
Anyway, open protocols are good for the Internet. Efforts to promote open protocols should be supported regardless of the perceived motives of the participants.
D. Keith Higgs
CWRU. Kelvin Smith Library
My office has been taken over by iPod people.
Why not just change the terms under which you look at the protocol to include that if you write software to connect to their servers and use their user database, it must show THEIR ads and it MUST be opensource(so they can look through to make sure its checking their ads if they want). That way they are protected from getting screwed on the hardware end by giving out free service and putting money in someone elses pocket, yet at the same time, people can write clients for whatever platform they want. They should also request that MS release the protocol for their service and write the functionality to be connected to both services at once into the next AIM client. This would be out of hand at first, but if a standard was approved(IETF or someone) then it would be easy to just pick which service you want to connect to, and have the client handle looking across the different DB's for people online using whatever service they might be. So long as the ads are displayed from the server you are using, the $$ people wont mind. Hell, I bet someone would throw up a server(im://i_like_to_im.slashdot.org??) and display some nice OS community ads(fm,t.o,/.,etc..)
-Matt Jankowski
I agree that AOL has no obligation to allow MS to 'borrow' their servers, and had good reason to dis-allow it. The correct response though would have been to have their servers refuse connections from outside of AOL. Mucking with the protocol (security by obscurity) is weak in any case, and reflects the wrong attitude.
The best response would have been "get your own servers, and we'll peer them.".
esr shouldve been kicked in the pants years ago. now we have evidence that he's sleeping with m$. does the jury need any more evidence? i think not.
MSM can communicate with and has the major functionality of AIM. However, MSM also extends the functionality such that both users should have MSM to gain all benefits. If MS were really interested in open standards, they would have worked with AOL to make sure both MSM and AIM had total interoperability.
Microsoft only cries "open standards!" when they are on the losing side. When they are winning there is absolutely no incentive towards openness.
>From reading the copyright notice it appears that AOL did indeed release this under GPL. Unless somebody is just saying "copyright by AOL" which is unlikely. How, then, can AOL make changes to GPL stuff without releasing the changes?
To release a software product under the GPL it is not necessary to surrender rights to that product.
:. They can still release updates to their pre-GPL version.
We use GNU/SunOS.
I think you're right. There is a difference here. Releasing specs to the open source community in order for them to write clients in order to allow Linux/*nix users to communicate with the AIM community is not the same thing as allowing Microsoft or some other commercial entity to write a client. The difference is the advertising space. AOL doesn't mind the OS community using AIM to communicate because we aren't exploiting it to sell ads. They do mind being exploited by a competitor though. Microsoft has it's own online service and community (even if it is a fraction of the size of AOL's), and that makes them a direct competitor.
This makes me ill. If Microsoft wants open standards, then they should lead by example instead of whining and complaining when someone else is actually doing better than they are in something. I don't see Microsoft opening their protocols to allow for open access and standards. When they do that, then I'll back them up completely when they want someone else to do it. Until that day comes, they need to quit complaining about getting some of their own medicine.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
>And if Microsoft isn't smart enough to do that,
>someone in the open-source community (a group
>very good at reverse-engineering) will be -- at
>which point Microsoft will get to use the
>results. So AOL loses either way.
Wait a second... the open source community codes a client that gets around AOL's blocks, releases it under the GPL, which Microsoft uses to derive its own client?
I can see it now! You're presented with the EULA during the install which reads:
Microsoft Instant Messenger 1.0
PREAMBLE
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.
...
Do you agree?
I am really sorry. But, there is not way in Hell that Microsoft could possibly be right - at least on this case. I downloaded the MSN Messenger on my PC at work - the only good thing I found was the fact that it was much smaller than the AIM client.
It seems a bit hypocritical that MS downs AOL for breaking standards. Yes, America Online did publish information on their protocol to the public, but they didn't mean for it to be used to make Macintosh and Windows clients.
Microsoft will do what they always do. If America Online bows to their will, Microsoft will make the MSN Messenger, pack it with two or three advertisements, and bundle it with Windows 2000, or whatever comes next. This will ultimately kill AIM.
As much as I would like for AIM to be 300 KB in size, it is more important that it remain the Mac and Windows client. I say this because AOL spent the money to make AIM, not MS... And MS wants to steal all of that.
Mind you, that Prodigy is joining this "open-standard initiative" that Microsoft began, too... Is it just me, or do all of these companies simply want a free ride? I didn't see them interested in making AIM bigger and better when it first started out... Now that it has a few million users, though... And the possibility for advertising... Yeah, now they want it... They want it all.
For once, America Online is right. For yet again, Microsoft is wrong. My suggestion, also, to Prodigy, is to back off or make a private deal with America Online. Anyone who joins Microsoft's side is asking for trouble.
This is about Open STANDARDS not Open Source. As I have tried to explain to ESR in that past, the two are not the same and are not linked in any way.
You do not need Open Source for Open Standards. There can be a reference implementation written and provided as part of the standard, sure.
GAIM or Licq.. Look around on freshmeat (www.freshmeat.net)
kcin
Quit being so indignant and acting like they're doing something wrong. It's called business, and they just happen to be better at it then most.
Are you saying you must be a hypocrite to the nth degree in order to really good at business? So AOL is actually doing well at something that Microsoft has not done very well at. Microsoft has been saying all along that they aren't invincible and that they can't control everything. But as soon as they find something they haven't been able to control, they whine and moan about how unfair it is. They aren't businessmen... they're a bunch of spoiled brats.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
AOL did open the protocol and I think AIM is the product that resulted from that. Now a monster like Microsoft comes along and wants to suck your life giving blood from your body to feed its minions. The best thing to do is build a mote. If Microsoft had a different history AOL might have acted differently. Open protocol standards are good but one has to be able to make money from a idea. Maybe there should be an allowance of X years before the protocol is opened when over 50% of the market uses the protocol? AOL should be allowed to make money off its property but not allowed to control the market.
This is not new for Microsoft. They do this whenever they aren't in control of a popular product. This is not new, they're doing it with Java also. It's in their financial interest to get a protocol open so they can 'enhance' it so it will only work with Windows apps. Look at FrontPage and how it only posts to NT servers instead of the standard ftp protocol as others do. Microsoft is NOT your friend just because they want someone to open up their protocol and they are NOT doing this for our sake.
A better solution needs to be found for the opening of dominant network protocols. That solution must apply to Microsoft, Sun, IBM, and all others. Personally, I applaud AOL for doing to Microsoft what was done to Bill Gates in Belgium (in your face, succa). They deserve it and more for all they have done to others in the past. IMHO
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
This just goes to show what we already knew:
Open standards benefit everyone. Closed standards benefit the owner of the closed standard if they have a majority of the market share. In this case Microsoft is on the opposite side of the issue from usual.
- Ken
> Anyway, open protocols are good for the Internet. Efforts to promote open protocols should be supported regardless of the perceived motives of the participants.
Blah blah blah. Care to respond to his points, rather than spewing religious dogma? What is so magical about open protocols that somehow make them immune to critical reasoning about how, when, and if to support them?
MB
MS simply wants the same thing everyone else has.
No, everyone else has access to the client code and can make use of the AIM network for communication, not for commercial profit through advertising. That's what MS is doing that is wrong. Not to mention the fact that MS is notorious for hijacking other companies' ideas and tech. That alone is good enough reason to fight them off on this one.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I am fairly certain that AOL did not change their IM protocol because they wanted to "limit consumer options" and make it so only AIM users could use the IM protocol. Rather, AOL had a somewhat-legitimite reason for doing what it did.
IM clients must access a database which tells users who is logged on, who is ide, etc. Currently, this database is only located on AOL's own servers. Servers cost money, not only to buy, but also to maintain and upgrade. With 20 (?) million users, this server has to be tuned tightly. I think we can all reasonably assume that this maintaining this server takes more than just an AOL janitor kicking it until it works.
Agreed, AOL should not mutilate standards for its own gain, but I can understand why they would be pissed about other IM clients using their servers. M$ and other IM client-making companies should create their own servers and work with AOL to develop some sort of back-end protocol for inter-server cooperation. Either that, or they could all pay AOL a fee for the added load. I'm sure there are other, better ways of solving this, also...
Umph.
-MRcow
Maybe I am just obtuse, but aren't there already "open standards" for "Instant Messaging"?
I am pretty sure that IRC is open standards based, and if a DCC chat is not an "Instant" message, than I don't know what is. My IRC client alerts me when people on my alert list log on and off. Granted, if I am not on a server with a nick-serv, I may get alerted to a logon by someone using a nick that is not a buddy of mine. I still fail to understand what the big deal is about ICQ and AIM. I don't use either. If you want to chat with me, come find me on EF-Net, I'll be the guy called CountZer0.
If it's a features issue, it would be VERY easy to make an IRC client that acted just like AIM. (esp if you used a server-net that had a nick-serv)
As far as Microsoft embracing and extending "open" protocols, doesn't anyone remember their failed IRC client "Comic Chat"? You could use it to connect to any IRC server, but if you used it on MS Comic Chat servers, then everyone had a dorky avatar and graphical emotes. Nothing new about MS using open protocols for its own gain. Anyway, maybe someone can clue me in as to what all the fuss is about.
Yes I have tried ICQ and AIM, so I am speaking from a position of knowledge. These things just didn't impress me. They both seem to be limited versions of IRC clients. AIM is at least moderately useful in that it allows me to chat with clueless morons who insist on using AOL. Then again, why would I want to chat with clueless morons?
-CZ
This posting received a rating of "4, Funny"?
What will be "funny" will be to see it happen. Because if Microsoft can
get away with it, you damn well know they will.
Being a hypocrite is not a prerequisite for being good at business, but it is sometimes obviously necessary.
It may be necessary for the company to continue its sucess at any expense, but I wouldn't say it is absolutely necessary. It should not be tolerated. If Microsoft wants open standards, let them open their own protocols and formats. Otherwise, what right do they have to use their influence to badger another company to do what they still refuse to do themselves?
Such an admission would no doubt hurt them earings wise, and no one with half a brain would expect them to lose money for honesty's sake.
Here's where you and I definitely disagree. You seem to be saying that businesses are there to make money by any means necessary and if honesty gets in the way, then we should expect it to be sacrificed. I don't think I'm being too idealistic when I say that this is absolutely the wrong way to look at these things. It's this kind of thinking that has brought us to the point we're at. If we start assuming that businesses will lie, cheat, and steal and do nothing about it, then we deserve to be the ones getting screwed in the end. We should be able to point out the hypocrisy and demand that Microsoft either explain their actions or shut the hell up.
It's a pity we don't have a law against hypocrisy. Unfortunately, if we did have one, it would be misused and nobody would ever be allowed to change their minds on anything, or at least they wouldn't be able to admit it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Let me point one thing. I hate AOL. I can't digere in any way their network. But in this particular point AOL is probably playing relatively fair.
Let's point the difference between a UNIX AIM client and M$ one. The *NIX clients are not bound to one platform. They are not promoting a particular product. Besides it seems that AOL is less interested on client support in this world. So AOL is making a good job letting the protocols free. I don't need any Windows crap to look at someone at AOL. Frankly it looks to me as a good agreement between my freedom to choose and AOL's interests.
But this does not go with M$. First they are promoting MSN, at least indirectly, through the "feature" of their client. It looks too much as hypocrisy to lay behind "open protocols", a feature that promotes a direct concurrent to AOL. In fact has anyone noted if any MSN or HotMail features are easily accessible by AOL users? Are any "open protocols" in the services M$ provides? Can AOL use them?
Besides it seems that this feature looks quite "on the side" of some rules AOL determines for its AIM client, in this case is completely the inverse of what OSS has done. Yes we do hack things. We overcome limits, barriers, bugs and tons of features. But we don't go against the stream of the creator. If someone claims OSS is playing against its desires, we usually let him die slowly and lonely. But M$ is not hacking. It is CRACKING!
AOL has told M$ to stand outside of their system. What they did? They broke the blockings. They didn't say a word, they didn't come to the public to state any opinions about this. They just picked their client and implanted a new crack. This is not OSS. This is the typical script kiddie MazzDie world with its codebreakers, serial numbers and cracks. This is not open standards. They even didn't tried to be diplomatic. At least in public. What they did is just the same crackers do.
Frankly, anyone can pick CdC press release and replace "BO2K" by "M$ client". The philosophy is the same. Now we know the spring that feeds all this world...
Microsoft only wants open standards when it is to their advantage and so they can get their foot in the door. Then they will twist and distort them and make them propriety (i.e. Java, etc.).
The specs AOL released, the ones TiK is based on, are the specs for a protocol called TOC. The protocol that AIM uses is called OSCAR. TOC was the only spec that was ever released. Microsoft's client does not use TOC, it uses a hacked version of OSCAR.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
Microsoft should be able to write a client. They just shouldn't be allowed to exploit AOL's servers for commercial gain by using the client for advertising purposes. If Microsoft would just open their protocols then they would have no problem getting people to back them up when they call for others to open their protocols. In this case, they look like complete hypocrites and don't deserve any backing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Hi group, I'm ask a genuine question. I'm not familiar with this internet stuff. I want to know if it's physically possible to write a new protocal, a instant message protocal that is impossible to hack --hence, you HAVE TO use aol sofeware to communicate with people. Let's say they can do it--and any kind of hack will involve properitiry protocal violation-- aol can name it Instant Messenger Safe (AIMs) and easily "upgrade" this version to break Microsoft's 3 E polocy, with MS's own sword.
/.ers who discuss open standard in this thread is too idealistic. AOL has absolutely nothing to gain if they open AIM, why would they do it?
Sorry to say this, but
The AOL4.0 is already force-feeding auto upgrade. They will just have to abandon "AIM classic" zealots who signed up with AIM via Netscape4.X. Big deal, it makes business sense. We already can see a lawsue is coming. So, the question is, when will aol upgrade/break AIM? If they do it months later, they probably can force a lot of hotmail suckers to use AIM(Netscape), isn't that better?
--My_favorite_anonymous_coward, who has to post AC because I have "3graded" this article.
I am a car Mic,o
Hi group, I'm ask a genuine question. I'm not familiar with this internet stuff. I want to know if it's physically possible to write a new protocal, a instant message protocal that is impossible to hack --hence, you HAVE TO use aol sofeware to communicate with people. Let's say they can do it--and any kind of hack will involve properitiry protocal violation-- aol can name it Instant Messenger Safe (AIMs) and easily "upgrade" this version to break Microsoft's 3 E polocy, with MS's own sword.
/.ers who discuss open standard in this thread is too idealistic. AOL has absolutely nothing to gain if they open AIM, why would they do it?
Sorry to say this, but
The AOL4.0 is already force-feeding auto upgrade. They will just have to abandon "AIM classic" zealots who signed up with AIM via Netscape4.X. Big deal, it makes business sense. We already can see a lawsue is coming. So, the question is, when will aol upgrade/break AIM? If they do it months later, they probably can force a lot of hotmail suckers to use AIM(Netscape), isn't that better?
--My_favorite_anonymous_coward, who has to post AC because I have "3graded" this article.
Well, certainly, but nevertheless MS claim that they their success is based on listening to customers, not listening to shareholders :)
If you don't like it, go live in a tarpaper shack in some communist country...
No, please stay where you are and make a difference!
protocol. This is not true!
AOL did release a special public version of the AIM protocol called
"TOC" that connects to special TOC servers made for that purpose and
even released several open-source clients to connect with that special
server.
The AIM clients for Windows and Macintosh connect to another set of
servers whose protocol is undocumented. MSN Messenger is connecting to
that other set of servers with the UNDOCUMENTED protocol. Microsoft
reverse-engineered that protocol, in fact.
The story should state that:
1) Yahoo Messenger and Prodigy were using the publically-published TOC
protocol.
2) MSN Messenger is using a reverse-engineered protocol.
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/
Kriston
Maybe "tribe" has that connotation to you, but I think anyone with a tribal heritage would be offended at that implication. The definition in Webster's doesn't suggest any such connotation. In fact one of the definitions is simply "a group of persons having o common character, occupation, or interest". So unless you can quote something more authoritative than Webster's, that's your opinion.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Every time someone trys to create a product to work with an M$ Product M$ modifies something to break it...
Gee pah, they used yer own gun to blow yer tires out...
I find it amusing that M$ frantically trys scrubbing themselves clean of soot to call the kettle black on this one.
Any way it goes, they ARE right finally...
Zanthor
A million monkeys on a million typewriters will eventually pound out Shakespear. 10 Monkeys, 5 typewriters - Windows98, 1 Monkey and a ball of Dung - Windows 2000.
Zanthor
Yes, but remember that Linux is exonerated from any wrong-doing just on the principle that it's Linux. Don't forget that Linux is blessed.
I personally prefer the console-based micq, but I think the most popular is licq. There also seems to be something called clicq...
licq is here
others, search freshmeat.net for icq.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Kriston J. Rehberg
http://kriston.net/
Kriston
Yes, Even MicroSoft is right sometimes, like a broken clock is right twice a day.
But...
The point is...
ESR is the one who notices that Microsoft is `right' - just like an idiot who notices that a broken clock is right twice a day thinks he has seen something that nobody else sees and that he's a genius for having done so.
Therefore, the analogy is appropriate to ESR's use of hindsight as the person who observes the phenomenon, as it is appropriate to Microsoft's likening to the clock itself.
Now, if you still don't get it, don't let it keep you awake at night. You've made it this far, just keep going straight ahead.
I have no problem with an open source standard for
the the software, BUT isn't all the traffic going through AOL's servers? Don't they have the right to limit who can use their servers? I'm not an AOL fan (although my son does work for them), I work for an ISP.
All I'm gonna ask is this.
/bin/true, that I want to sell.
How much did M$ pay ESR? ESR has proven time and time again he's a total sellout, as is the vast majority of OSI. One of the reasons Bruce Perens left them, IIRC.
So how much does it cost to get ESR to slap that oh-so-important Open Source label on my software? I have this script,
-RISCy Business | Rabid System Administrator and BOFH
your company here.
shelby != ford
I just run an IRC server on my box. If someone wants to get hold of me, they can log into my IRC server and /summon me.
>Win 3.11 : Broke Win32 compatibility in OS/2
???. Win 3.11 is Win16 operating system, not Win32 operating system!.
>Win32 API : Incompatabilities used to drive >competing office software market share down
What major incompatibilities?. Can you provide real proof instead of 'everything M$ does is bad..' etc.
>Win98 : When IE5 was removed reports of >increased Netscape stability
So what?. Btw, Win98 is bundled with IE4 (at least it was when I bought my notebook) not IE5.
And I think IE5 is much much better than Netscape 4.x and Mozilla (I tested M8).
If you're downloading an AIM client from anywhere but AOL, you run a much greater risk of getting a trojan anyway.
When I can get packages like the newer versions of Netscape to stop automaticaly shoving down my throat an AIM client that I then have to manually delete from the system, I will start taking your sentiment seriously.
This is just more fuel to add to the fire surrounding the AOL/Sun/Netscape consortium. That conglomerate is out to do one thing: destroy Microsoft and simply take its place. They've made it quite clear. This is just an example of that. They are far more dangerous in the long run than Microsoft. :)
For once, M$ is on the outside, trying to get in. They're crying for an open standard because AOL is keeping them out of the game. Don't side with AOL simply for the sake of retaining an anti-Microsoft stance, because in this case it is wrong.
And no, I'm not an MS drone. I'm a proud FreeBSD/NT/Novell using MCSE/CNE
Of course MS is supporting open standards in this case... it benefits them. What do you think about people that give money to a charity for NO other reason than it being tax deductable...? If MS didn't benefit, you could be your ass they wouldn't be screaming "standards"... Hey look. Isn't this really just MS trying to steal somebody else's shit without paying a dime? That's like a theme to their whole company I think.
--I agree that AOL is wrong for keeping things proprietary. But I almost can't help but root for them on this one, simply because if Microsoft has CONSISTENTLY used closed standards to get a strangle hold on the market. The "its ok for us, but not everyone else" attitude is just annoying. Open standards are great, but MS should try DOING it before whining about others.
just my 2c.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Seriously though, Microsoft may be right, but they certainly do look hypocritcal as hell when they in general like to make their products proprietary and only advocate open standards when they can't get into a market any other way.
When they start opening up the formats for their office products, then we can start saying they are for open standards.
*Sigh* It was so depressing when I first got my "I wanna suck your hot cock" messages with a URL on ICQ. Did I have my email listed? Nope. All they have to do is "Add Users" and type in a random name like "Doug" or "James" and they get a stack of people whose names start with "Doug" or "James" whether or not your email address is entered. Sure, they can't email you. They'll just ICQ you instead.
*Ut-oh!*
I find it absolutely disgraceful that anyone would even think about defending Microsoft. It doesn't matter if they're right or not, we should attack them simply out of principle. I for one, wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I thought that I had given Microsoft even a back handed compliment. To think that this Linux Today character has openly sided with them... Nah, I can't even think about it.
I am all for open standards in this messaging stuff. It might even make for some interesting stuff especially if there are open servers. Open standards are definately something to cheer for. despite there being reasons for having closed forms of this - too many servers, spammers, etc - it is a good thing - open standards lead to more choices, choices are good, noone can subvert it etc. However I do wonder how long it would be before the open standards would lead to M$ trying to tweak theirs to make it run better. Kinda what they did with Java. I can't imagin M$ leaving something open and not trying to make it their own.
-cpd
You just pointed out some reasons why we should not agree with ESR, and they are valid. MS is using open source as a pawn to get what they want. They are not often in a position like the one they're in now. Something is being controlled by another company and they're having a hard time getting in on the action. Boo hoo. MS is famous for using the exact same tactics and it infuriates me that they have the nerve to whine about AOL doing it to protect their interests. Microsoft won't even play by their own rules! I hope MS rots for this.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
userfriendly had it right from the beginning!
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
A spammer can pretty much randomly guess an e-mail address at aol and get it right, especially with the AIM. Now, i have ICQ, and my e-mail doesn't match my nickname, nor is my e-mail listed. So your argument is pointless if you don't put your e-mail in.
Gee... this looks a bit wierd for MS... unless you look benieth it... where you see that MS just wants to tap into AOL's (instantant messenger, and perhaps even the main AOL service) userbase. They care nothing of it being open... they just want AOL to 'share' people with them. They are only interested in themselves, and primarily their wallets..
"Now what about AOL? They killed the open source versions of AIM for TCL, none of the AOL system is open sourced or even uses standard protocols or API's.",
Are you on crack? Dou read Slashdot?
Look here AOLServer Open Sourced
I agree with ESR, basically, although I do have some reservations. This is, at the moment, not much more than a pissing contest between two giant corporations that would like nothing better than see their competitor have to pull in their horns. The free software community is pretty much just being stomped on by one or the other giant (which one it is depends on the phase of the moon, the position of the constellations, etc.)
It wouldn't surprise me in the least for MS to come out with an "improved" Internet messenger protocol within days of stomping AOL into the ground. That's the way it works - they're just looking for an advantage, any advantage, and they both have less than zero concern for "right" and "wrong".
Actually, it's not what you think - my comment started at 2, as will this one I expect. If you have enough highly-ranked posts you can increase your default score from 1 to 2. This was a lot easier a month or two ago when there was more moderation == more chances to be marked up. I'm not sure how long it takes for the lack of positive moderation to shift your default score back to 1. I haven't had any posts moderated up in a while but I still end up defaulting at 2. Since this post is completely off-topic, I expect my default will change soon :)
That being said, I preferred /. a few months ago with more moderation, rather than less. More moderation increased the delta between good posts and bad posts, so that it was pretty clear when the comment quality was falling off rapidly. Now with less moderation, good posts usually get marked up and poor posts sometimes get marked down, but not often enough. Result: you have to dive deeper into the 1 and 0 level posts to make sure you see all the good comments.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Microsoft just happens to be on the open source side, because this is a good BUSINESS decision on their part. It has nothing to do with their views on open source. They are a closed source company. Don't let this fool you.
Not having used MSN Messenger but having used AIM, don't you have to have a Username/Password to access the AIM network?
The real problem here is that AOL isn't going to open up the AIM server stuff, which really needs to happen if they're going to get anywhere w/ this. If they had an open server standard this wouldn't be a problem at all; we could put up our own servers (or MS could put up their own, or Yahoo, or whoever). Of course, this might mean that there would be even more security problems w/ AOL screennames, but they should have seperated those out in the first place, IMHO.
;)
Of course, ICQ is still my favorite messenger so this whole thing affects me not in the slightest...
And then we can use the same argument to force open the SMB protocol. Contradicting yourself in such now well-known matters creates REALLY bad PR.
OTOH ESR is dead-on when he chastises AOL for their tactics--this was a stupid move on their part. I'd love to play Case & Co. in a game of chess... they'd probably fall for the four-move checkmate every time.
AOL could have been a lot more subtle about it, like MS was with their fake warnings and so on (cf. QuickTime, DR-DOS)--maybe by spiking their protocol to limit use only to "registered" users, or by deliberately bringing out a new, more invincible version with weak encryption or whatever. But no, they made a public fuss and openly tried to yank the carpet from under MS while ignoring the banana peel under their feet.
Case: Aha, I got your queen! (giggles)
Gates: Fine. Checkmate.
Boneheads...
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
After calcium becomes a big deal for health fanatics, AOL is quick to enrich all their products with calcium. After a year, Microsoft throws some calcium crystals into Microsoft Flakes(R), which are sharp and taste awful. Microsoft then attempts to convince the world that Microsoft Flakes(R) are the world's only source of calcium.
:-)
Both AOL-O's and Microsoft Flakes have this proprietary bowl, lid and tube, which prevents people from seeing the cereal or milk as it enters the bowl. It is against the license to try to reverse engineer the shape or texture of the cereal, or eat them without the lid.
AOL spends millions of dollars developing this super-enriched AOL Instant Milk (called AIM for short), which is provided free and supported by advertising on the milk cartons and boxes of AOL-O's. Millions of people start to use AIM.
Microsoft reverse-engineers the shape of AOL-O's, and makes Microsoft Flakes(R) compatible with AIM. But in order to use it, people must submit their name and addresses to Microsoft.
AOL, who has spent a lot of time teaching its new users to never give out your address to people like that, modifies AIM so it doesn't work with Microsoft Flakes(R).
Microsoft then decides that the lids should be taken off the bowls.
I say, they should have never been on in the first place. So I'll just stick to IRChex.
-Joe
-Joe
...they KEEP the standard open once they have it. If they force AOL to open the standard, and then capture the market with their own messenger, and THEN close the standard once more - then everyone loses...
Gentlemen, start your penguins
I think it makes sense to have a standard, and in fact, if there were ONE user database this would be nice too, other than that, it will be technically silly to have the AIM user db, MS's, yahoo, icq, etc. Im sure once the standard was open, all the software could connect to any of the databases, but whose hardware would it sit on?? And who would control it? Those are really the only reasons a proprietary database(not a proprietary standard) is a good thing. Not sure how you could compensate for using someones database with your client, maybe there would be an ad standard and X percent of the ads in your client have to be pulled from the hosts database(since thats the reward in hosting it anyway)
-Matt Jankowski
That could be interpreted wrong. I meant to say something like finding a way to use Microsoft.com's own Exchange server as a relay for SPAM or something.
Looks like Slashdot is degenerating into a forum for fanatic now...
If this trend continues, I think I'll leave...
The hypocracy is unbarable now...
Yeah, Microsoft is right. But not about the neitre thing. I mean, yes, they're asking for an open source messenging protocal. And yes, AOL probably should not have changed their server protocol to break Microsoft's code(though one could argue about the ethics of poaching on someone else's service like that. Did Microsoft contribute anything towards the maintanence of AOL's servers before they did this? I think not). But should we consider the ethics of including your messenging software bundled with your OS, your browser, and your email client? And yes, I know that AOL did the same thing, including their client with Netscape.
I suppose my point here isn't that AOL is right. It isn't that Microsoft is right. Its that *both* companies suck and that we *ought* to just develop our own solution and tell them to go away.
Shuttle runs mostly a proprietatry OS designed for the computers. But the laptops run Solaris.
>I wonder if Microsoft paid off ESR?
*!* ROFLMAO.
"Thanks for the good press there Eric, here's your check. Try not to call Mr. Gates an Uncle F**cker next time we ask you to do our PR."
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!
>I wonder if Microsoft paid off ESR?
*!* ROFLMAO.
"Thanks for the good press there Eric, here's your check. Try not to call Mr. Gates an Uncle F**cker next time we ask you to do our PR, mkay?."
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!
err, that's not assimiliation. that's cross platform ability (something which NT has been losing). Assimilation is if linux took every peice of software it came across and integrated it into itself, which is what MSFT has tried to do.
Clearly, M$ is only in favor of standards when it's in a catch-up position. Don't let the trillion-dollar gorilla have it both ways!
>Think about it - wouldn't you prefer to have a single client on your desktop that lets you communicate with every other
>type of messaging client? I think AOL is running scared, and rightly so. While they haven't managed to turn ICQ into something profitable
>just yet, the potential is there. Microsoft has the potential to leach it away from them with a unified client.
And the curious thing about this battle is that it is over marketshare where no one has made a dime. Yet.
No one will use either ICQ or M$'s IM client if they have to pay for them. However, there is a potentially lucrative market for the server end. If so, AOL might be able to reverse their history of buying technology companies & running them into the ground.
Then again, IM becomes an open protocol, it'll be a simple matter to create a free sourced IM server. And chances will be that the free source version will be better written.
Somehow, I can't help but see this as anything but two unloveable corporations bloodying themselves over a worthless piece of code. Let them go at it -- the rest of us have better things to do while they waste their time & resources.
Geoff
I am reading daily about how these two industry behemoths are fighting over opensource standards for instant messaging. The open Source consortium support microsoft in it's stand. I wonder where I fit in. I am a user of instant messaging services. I use them almost constantly and I want to know where I can go to get my 2 cents in. How can I make suggestions on net policies and the laws which govern my abilities online!.
If there is no such service. Should i make one?
Do we want to be passive and be forced to choose between A, B, or whatever someone chooses for us, or should we try to take some degree of responsibility for our actions.
Just thinking out loud.
-Joe "You ought to think about this deeply" - Miyamoto Musashi
This happens a lot. I have a Linux Today slashbox set up at the top of my /. page, and I always wonder why the /. folks don't do the same to get the news at the same time. Maybe it's journalistic courtesy - if somebody else gets the scoop, you let them have it for a while before publishing your own article?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
to hack the code into spamming everyone connected, time people out, and other malicious crud.
Keep it closed.
Isn't the password entered by the user just being passed on to an AOL server so that the user can gain access? They're not being sent to MS are they? If they're not I don't see a problem with this.
Actually, TiK is an "open source" project, placed under the GPL. Therefore, AIM is an established open standard. There is nothing to prevent J. Random Hacker from writing a TOC server from scratch, and that would be used instead of toc.oscar.aol.com. Not license, not law, not ethics...
If you download TiK, take a look at COPYING. Then look at PROTOCOL. Here's the beginning of it, if you want to try to deny it being an open messaging system.
# Copyright (c) 1998-9 America Online, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
#
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
# as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
# of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
Version: TOC1.0
This document describes the protocol between TOC and TOC clients.
The protocol is built on TCP. Framing is done by SFLAP,
described at the bottom of this document. Inside each
SFLAP frame is a TOC command.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Isn't that the Open Source alternative to all the "big boys" instant messaging software ?
Gentlemen, start your penguins
Tribe does have that connotation. For example, the Rwandan genocide was, out of Western bigotry, mistakenly described as a 'tribal' conflict i.e. interpreted as 'these stupid African tribals are killing each other again', leading to a lack of world response towards the genocide.
This is not to insult anyone with a tribal heritage, but I don't think describing anyone as a 'tribal' or having 'tribalistic tendencies' is complimentary; I think it does have the connotations I listed earlier.
- t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Hey, I wrote the comment you are responding to. Now you
have me confused. Either the client AIM stuff was released
by AOL under GPL or it was not. Somebody is lying.
Open Source developers don't have the right to GPL something
which is proprietary without agreement of the copyright holder,
in this case AOL I would assume. Or, was this whole Tik thing
constructed from a few hints and clues dropped by AOL to
help out the "reverse engineering" while looking the other
way?
From reading the copyright notice it appears that AOL did
indeed release this under GPL. Unless somebody is just
saying "copyright by AOL" which is unlikely. How, then, can
AOL make changes to GPL stuff without releasing the changes?
I guess they just changed the server side code which is not
GPL to block messasges coming from MIcrosoft Instant Messaging
clients or to deny use of their database to such clients.
I'd be interested to know whether AOL's changes to block
Microsoft also block Tik users. Probably not. AOL is not
directly competing with users of unix or linux for client systems,
yet. But Microsoft is an immediate threat to them and AOL
resents having surrendered to Microsoft in the past.
Well, I stand corrected. I guess it is ok then for Linux users to
use AIM with Tik and other products based on the GPL code..
AOL deserves a pat on the back in that case for releasing
the code, and I still think they should block Microsoft from their
servers, if they can.
AOL is still right for once. Also, congratulations on working
on this project so unix users can communicate with AOL
users (and others) without using Windows or AOL.
I work with Microsoft, Linux, Solaris, etc. What makes Microsoft so successful is that they know how to pick a market apart and press the correct hot buttons.
Right now the hot buttons are open standards. Sure parts of Microsoft are kicking and screaming. But there are plenty of people in Microsoft who see the writing on the wall.
And this is what will make them successful again. Linux needs to take the same approach. Look at Linux not like a religion, but as a business. And then press the correct hot buttons with it.
I would really like to see some public opinion polls to influence the design of Linux. This is called running a business...
Why does ESR persist on describing the open community as a 'tribe'. It gives me shudders everytime I read that.
'Tribe' suggests primitiveness, a limited sighted group driven by instinct rather than rationality, xenophobic towards anyone not from the same tribe.
Tribalism isn't a complimentary attribute; I'd suggest that ESR stop using 'tribe' to describe the open source community.
If AIM was for AOL members only, then why did they let me, someone who does not use AOL, register a username? And, why release AIM in the first place? If it is for AOL members only, why do they need it? AOL software has an instant messenger built in.
I have been using it since it was first released about 2 years ago. And never have I had an AOL account during that time. Everyone I know that has it does not have an AOL account.
I agree with Microsoft on piracy becouse Microsoft dose sell Windows as they have a right to. :)
But just as Microsoft has a right to protect and control the code and services they provide AoL has exactly the same right. They can at whim change IM.
Microsoft is just getting pissy becouse SOMEONE ELSE has a monopoly and they don't like it.
If Microsoft wants an open standard maybe they should make one themselfs. Port to Linux, MacOs, Palm Pilot, Commodore 64.. my watch... you get the idea
Personally I'd like to see a ytalk proxy server set up... No need to make new software just support the old software allready in place.
Thankfully this IS just two mega giants yelling at each other. Nothings going to happen. Anyway if IM dropped off the face of the earth I wouldn't care one bit.
I don't actually exist.
ESR goes to the Redmond campus, and now this!!!
--- disclaimer ---
This is a joke. This is only a joke. Had this been a real conspiracy theory the subject would have read "Clone!!!" and been followed by statements attesting to first-hand knowledge of a MS janitor's claim of creating the clone or disposing of the bodies and being fired for threatening to go public about those and the theft of GPL'ed genentic code.
--- end of disclaimer ---
Have a nice date!
Microsoft is absolutely right in this case, but their intentions are definitely not in parallel with the spirit of OSS. Here's the plan :
1. Give it out as a free goodie.
2. Package it in Windows.
3. When everyone has it, throw proprietary extensions on it. Remaining non-M$ clients have to switch to the M$ client to get the cool functionality.
4. Rename it, integrate it into everything from Bob to Office to MSN.
5. Hey guys, look at this neat new product we created ! Aren't we innovative ?
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
In order to use AIM, you have to connect to the AIM servers. If AOL doesn't want you connecting to their servers, then legally, you shouldn't be able to. Just like I can't log onto your box, even if its for a non-malicious purpose. Except the purpose isn't really non-malicious; Microsoft wants to decrease the AIM userbase, or at least stop its growth.
Many of us figured this out a LONG time ago. Maybe you need ESR's hindsight as a substitute for your own lack of insight, but please speak for yourself when you are in a mood for deprecating yourself and all the rest of us at the same time.
Yeah, I'd bet it's something like that (what cooperation? but I thought competition was the only good thing ...).
Maybe it's also that nobody wants the sites to become mirrors of each other. Hell, if you want the latest greatest Linux news, use the Linux Ticker available from LinuxMall.
But they do have different styles, /. is more of a "community feedback" kinda place on News for Nerds (wider interest) where LT is more "news about Linux." So the focus on /. isn't on scooping at all, it's about posting stories that are gonna generate some interest and discussion among nerds.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
...that Microsoft is not only poaching AOL's user-base, they're piggy-backing off of AOL's IM server farm as well. So, as MS adds users, who interact over Instant Messenger, AOL has to handle the increase of traffic by purchasing new servers and new bandwidth. And AOL doesn't get the benefit of getting ad revenues from the new users to make up the costs.
Microsoft gets the user-base, with none of the work, while AOL has to sit and watch MS win a market yet again. Microsoft is the fox in the henhouse. Are you surprised AOL has reached for the shotgun?
The Open Source issue is a canard. Don't let it fool you into believing MS is right on this issue. As usual, their Open Source posturing is for their benefit only. Do you think they'd be implementing a standards-based protocol if Instant Messenger didn't exist? Their new Messenger's own protocol isn't standards-based.
To use the AIM network, you must have an account. The client is merely a lauching point to get on to the network. If MSN Messenger allows you to access that account, then what is wrong with that?
If to access OSCAR, you need a username/password, then MSNM would not work without it.
To extend where I am going here...
Jabber is going to support many different Networks (ICQ, AIM, Jabber's own protocol...)
If it requires your username/password, would you consider it wrong too?
AIM's original attraction was that it allowed a
/. today about this). Screw 'em.
non-AOL user to contact his drone friends who
had been sucked into the AOL vortex. As far
as communications software goes it is ad-laden
garbage. I wrote a better messaging system
*yesterday* as part of another piece of software.
And didn't realize until I looked at it
that my protocol was essentially a chat
service -- so I slapped a GUI on it for
kicks just to have one of my own.
Do I feel like I deserve millions of dollars
for the effort, or that my product could have
been worth that? No, that's utter bullshit.
So, now MS comes along and offers the same
service (a piece of "write-it-in-a-day-if-you're-
a-mediocre-programmer" chat software) and
invites AOL users to use their client instead,
while allowing AOL to host the connection.
Tik *was* doing exactly the same thing --
adding load to AOL's servers -- it's just that
TiK wasn't making $$$ for anyone.
The fundamental problem is that AOL isn't
really providing anything useful other than
the connection to their user-base. Their
client is a piece of crap, their service is
crappy, and they made the mistake of running
AIM only through their servers to try to
capitalize on ad revenue. At some point early
in the design phase any half intelligent manager
would have asked "well, what happens if somebody
makes a client for our service?". Even after
the design phase (if they were that stupid) TiK
was a perfect example that it *could* be done --
they were just lucky to have been warned.
They chose to ignore the question. They chose
to ignore the warning. They chose (probably)
to assume they could litigate a solution if
the problem arose. I say "fuck 'em". They
dug their own damn grave. They should have
outsourced the servers to some other bunch of
schmucks. In a free market (which I wish we
had, but we can pretend) shitty products
fall by the wayside.
I see a trend forming here of corporations
whining that someone is taking advantage of them,
but, under closer examination, noticing that they
are really whining because the free ride of
advertising $$$ on a substandard service/product
is coming to an end because people are no longer
forced to view their ads (there was even another
story on
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
A person is judged by their actions. "If your gonna talk the talk, you must walk the walk". I am really surprised how so many self declared leaders of Open Source are stating that MicroSoft is right. No they are not. MicroSoft is not interested in Open Source or Universal standards. MicroSoft is only concerned with controlling standards, posting quarterly profits, and pleasing shareholders.
If Microsoft is so concerned with IM standards how come they decided to make their IM compatiable with AOL and NOT Yahoo or Prodigy. I will tell you why, because they want access to AOL's 40 Million Users.
Here is what will happen if a standard is set:
Microsoft will adhere to the standard for about a year, that is how long it takes before people drop AIM like a rock, because MSIM has been incorporated into Win99 (released first quater 2001).
MicroSoft will then add "features" that go against the standard, but who cares. MicroSoft is the only one left making the damn thing, because it's another "feature integrated" into their OS.
I am all for Open Source but give me a break. Linux has yet to hit it's first Major Obstacle (Fragmentation), and that should rear it's ugly head pretty damn soon. All these so-called distributions that are touting how their all for open source, until one day they wake up and say "Oh shit", we can make money from this and all we have to do is download RedHat, add KDE, and compile with PGCC. Now their offering their distributions in stores for $29.99.
About the only Company I see "making" it from Open Source is VaLinux. VA sells hardware right? wrong, go check their webpage, no more RedHat, now you get VA OS Linux 6.0. One stop shopping, hardware, and OS, with support. Now a company doesn't need to worry about BlueHat, or GirlDrake or anyone of the 100+ distributions that will be available. All they have to do is get their OS from their Hardware Vendor.
But who cares, between Stallman bitching about the Damn name of an OS he didn't write, to Perens whining about ESR for God only knows what, or ESR and this blind, noforsight support of MS, and the X number of other times he's jumped the gun on something only to release a public "amendment" to his orginal statement(apple open source anyone).
peace.
BTW, I am thankful for the contributions of those above, however I don't look up to them as some Open Source Deity. One for writing some HELLA GREAT CODE, one for a great Essay (C&B), who tried to make companies understand, and the other... for airing open source dirty laundry to the public.
Awesome!
Microsoft's direction to try to suggest an open standard has spurts some discussions. It was a non-issue before. Yahoo did not make any foremention about entering into AOL instant messenger market. I see it like this, Microsoft is trying to leveraging the goodness in open standard and sway the public to encourage AOL to open up. There's mixed feeling.
In accordance to standard, there's needs to be check so that Microsoft cannot take the open standard and run with it. We have seen their tactics over the years. They slowly move users from MS-DOS to Windows and integrate new API and functionalities to derail competitors. In addition they learned to leverage MS-DOS market to push forward Windows. By dictating the operating system market they sign exclusive deals to preinstall MS Office.
My recommendations:
1) Microsoft IM should not be bundled to IE web browser
2) Micorosft IM should not be bundled with the operating system.
3) Microsoft IM should not be bundled in any application software that they sell.
4) Microsoft IM should not be in Windows CE.
5) Microsoft IM should not change protocol unless approved by a standard body.
Kent
This is not so strange: if you don't already have a monopoly, then you favor open standards:
If your goal is to maintain a monopoly, jack up prices, and limit consumer choices, then you can't live with open standards.
Microsoft's browser has been more standards-compliant than Netscape's because it was, until recently, on the losing side of the browser wars.
Similarly, companies or countries tend to be in favor of free trade if they don't have a monopoly to protect, particularly if they want to break in to someone else's monopoly. But they will be protectionist if they have any hopes of maintaining their monopoly.
Simple, no? It's just immediate self-interest that determines what they do, not a global view of what's in the public's best interest. Welcome to capitalism as practised by the players.
I like SoftwareJanitor's comment on ESR's `insight' - a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Apparently you are missing the point of Open Source. The point is not security by abscurity, but security by the fact that:
1) If someone "hacks the code" to spam connections. It will be fixed quickly.
2) "Other malicious crud" can be prevented before it happens.
I personally don't care if software is free (money wise), but I do want source code with everything, so if I want/have to make changes I can.
AOL's closing it's protocol? Switch protocols:
m l
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.ht
Don't like that one, try this:
Jabber
And people will find a way to prevent this all, and in the end, not only will we have a better product, but it will be open source :)
Um...enlightened malicous individuals will always find a way to do not so nice things.
Every emulator on the market has been hacked into existence...something as complicated as processor emulation is accomplished for nearly every system out there...and you dont think people can will hack out proggies for any non-oss messenger.
Its going to happen no matter what shape the protocal takes...its up to the designers to make
sure they make it difficult.
If AOL realy wanted to mess with microsoft this was definently not the way to do it. A much more effective means would be refocusing their marketing to AOL users away from Microsoft. 12 million users is a large group of people to have influence over. This type of tatic is more subtle and effective. Not to mention almost imposible to prove in court.
Many of us did figure this out a LONG time ago. Many others, though, including the dolt who moderated you down, rely upon ESR's hindsight as a substitute for their own lack of insight. They also are relieved when some of us do fall back upon mass deprecation if that's what it takes to make ESR look like he knows what he's talking about. Like the SoftwareJanitor said - even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That just about describes ESR's insight into this one, too.
Okay, yea it would be nice for all of this IM stuff to be opensource,
but look if AOL doesn't want MS to make money off this it is their right!
AOL put money into AIM and it's advertizing, now MS comes in and
wants to use all their hard work by taking advantage of AOL well meaning
gesture of makeing the spec avalable to the public!
If MS is that concered
that "it isn't fair" why don't they make THEIR software, and protocals open??
Huh what's that you say $$$$$$, yeah that's all MS wants, Money they
don't care about Opensource they just want IM to SHOW THEM THE MONEY.
I have a lot of respect for ESR but, how can you ever say MS is right,
if there motives are contrary???
Overflow on
Microsoft is just serving it's own interests, as it always does, and is just playing the "open source" gambit here, to serve itself..
Let us not forget that looking out for its own interests is what any company in this society is *supposed* to do. It's how you make money, which is the whole point. If you don't like it, go live in a tarpaper shack in some communist country but quit bitching about how MS is evil just because they're doing what they're supposed to do. If you ever expected them to actually *aid* the open source movement w/o some self-serving motive, you are living in a world of make believe. Quit being so indignant and acting like they're doing something wrong. It's called business, and they just happen to be better at it then most.
Well said mate. They will "integrate" a messaging client into Win2000, it will give them a big market share and as you rightly point out, they will then start to "innovate" by enhancing the protocol.
It's obvious that the chip implanted during his visit to Micrsoft has been activated.
I think the Shuttle (which I saw last night, orange, with con-trail over half the sky) is runnin' some LinuX.
An interesting question from an AOL spokesperson.
I don't know. Maybe it's because it's so early in the morning that it looks punny.
"Why isn't Windows open?"
"Because locks is on them."
See what I'm saying?... Nevermind then...
of all the times M$ has pull this same stunt in the past. Looks to me like AOL (though not in the right) is just given M$ a taste of their own medicine.
Now for start of a list.....
Win ?.? : The DR-DOS check and "Warning Windows is only Guaranteed to run on MS-DOS" message
Win 3.11 : Broke Win32 compatibility in OS/2
Win 4.^H^H95 : No more need for (DR-)DOS Um, MS-DOS 7, yeah we need that...just fon't tell anybody.
Win32 API : Incompatabilities used to drive competing office software market share down
Win98 : When IE5 was removed reports of increased Netscape stability
Any others?
I really don't mean this as a flame. I would really like someone to explain to me why we should care about what he says.
asinus sum et eo superbio
asinus sum et eo superbio
in omnibus veritas
This isn't about access to the standard,
it's about access to AOL's servers. Why should
they have to give up space and cycles to an
MSN-branded messaging service? MS are trying
to make it look like AOL are blocking use of
the protocol, but they're not. They're
trying to stop DOS attacks against their IM
servers.
ESR's got the wrong end of the stick. If he's
interested in open messaging protocols, he
should promote the IETF proposal, or the use
of IRC. He shouldn't be wasting everybody's
time trumpeting Microsoft's cause, just
because it's vaguely similar to a mutated
version of his own.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
My question is "Who needs all this anyway?"
We had standards for "instant messaging" long
before AOL or ICQ came along. Go read RFCs 1459,
821 (SEND in particular), talk(1), and talkd(1).
Standards, schmandards.
Cyrano de Maniac
Those 12+ Million users of AIM didn't just come out of the sky. AOL Spent millions, if not billions of marketing to get people to use AOL/AIM.
AIM is a closed proprietary server. The only servers for AIM exist on AOL servers.
There are companies that spend a great deal of $$ to advertise on the AIM client.
Now Microsoft comes along. For free they want access to the 12+ million people that AOL has. They want to use AOL's customer base to promote hotmail(you need hotmail to use Microsoft Messanger), and to get thier foot into the mix by just hijacking the millions of AIM users.
All of the time, all Mircosoft did was code a client. All these people that are using it are using AOL's servers. It's wrong for AOL to go "Mircosoft is getting these ad dollars, while we have to have the increased load on our servers for free? We aren't putting up with this"? Maybe if AIM servers were all over the place like IRC, this wouldn't be a conern. But they aren't so it is.
Now AOL has to go to their advertisers and go "We now have 15 million useres, but now, even though it's our service and server, you can only reach 12 million of them" While now, Microsoft can go to the same people and go "Get our ad space and reach the whole 15 million, and it will cost you less"
So, to stop Microsoft, they changed thier own protocol so MS Messanger wouldn't work. AOL said "We spent billions to get this user base and to where we are now. We'll be damned if we are going to let Microsoft come in and take them for free."
This isn't like TiK, where it was a totally free program, that in the whole scheme of things not alot of people used. This is Microsoft. They will put this program on every install of Windows2000. It will be installed by default in the next version of IE. Wouldn't be surprised if in the next consumer Windows release, MS Messanger was "part of the OS"
So it's still ok for AOL to sit back and let this happen?
What are the open-source alternatives? How about Jabber (www.jabber.org) or Ding (www.activerse.com) or good old IRC? Are there others?
As someone who works with another aspect of the open standards community (CORBA) I have to laugh when I see comments such as:
"We are going to continue to provide interoperability for the foreseeable future"
"It's obviously something consumers are demanding. That's why Microsoft and a number of others are supporting 'proposed standards'"
and
"They [AOL} are maintaining their hold on what they think is right for their own group of people"
I just have to laugh when I think of everything people who work with CORBA have had to go through to work around Microsoft's non-cooperation in this space.
Microsoft flies the open standards flag when it works for them. But when it might threaten their market dominance they are as stubborn as a two-year old who's not ready for bed.
since when did an open standards protocol for access to a base of data actually require that the data it accesses be public? the protocol and the data are two separate things.
in this case AOL are perfectly within their rights to close their database, and by whatever means they choose (no open protocol). where does it say that the database is a public resource?
when an IM protocol does come into existence (if it gets through your local firewall) there will be still no requirement on any content interchange to accept all clients.
What you are describing is EXACTLY has MS will do it. People will still be able to chat with each other, but if you don't have MSChatCrap v1.3, you won't have access to all these "extra" features.
All told, this is weird. I don't like AOL, but at least they're playing fair on this one. It's their chat, and they are free to do what they will with it. Too bad that may render my Tik client useless though. Hopefully they release a binary for Linux/BSD/Unix so I can keep in touch with my less fortunate family members caught in the AOHell.
Digital Wokan, Tribal mage of the electronics age
M$ has a problem. It sees that people want IM, and it wants to play. It doesn't seem to want to build its own critical mass (which is what you need to make IM work) so, since it is late to the game it insists that "for the users" it must have an Open Standard.
Let's talk about applications that people use a great deal. The one most people use a great deal is a word processor. And what people would really like, more than IM would be a standard that would allow them to use the word processor of their choice because documents could be shared in a Open Standard format.
Of course this would limit MS's ability to sell their word processor to everyone (so that they can share documents). I mean, if there was a Open Standard on documents then someone might actually write a word processor that could read and write to that standard and give it away.
I'm all for open standrds, but let's demand that M$ create one for documents first, and give up their almost monopoly of the desktop word processing space, and then we can talk about opening up IM.
AOL/Netscape/Sun alliance fighting Microsoft is a good thing - it's competition. I don't see Microsoft withering any time soon; as a matter of fact, I see the ANS getting attacked by Microsoft who has drawn first blood.
AOL is fighting back! Good for them - THIS IS WAR.
The only real problem I see for ANS is that they have distanced themselves from Linux. If the ANS tries to fight both Microsoft AND Linux on two fronts then they will surely lose.
Linux could tip the scales one way or the other.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I think the recent battle over internet messaging is just another example of MS strategy. Time and time again, they enter a field where they haven't existed before, and use their formidable resources to change the playing field to suit them. In this case, I'd guess that they want to be able to design a messaging client that interacts with every other messaging client out there, and ship it with either Internet Explorer or Windows 2000. Think about it - wouldn't you prefer to have a single client on your desktop that lets you communicate with every other type of messaging client? I think AOL is running scared, and rightly so. While they haven't managed to turn ICQ into something profitable just yet, the potential is there. Microsoft has the potential to leach it away from them with a unified client.
The only difference is in market control. Since AIM is so popular, AOL wants to use AIM's success to force people to use the rest of their services. To do this, they have to make sure that no other company can integrate AIM into their services that compete with AOL. That's the same integration and control strategy that MS is using with IE: forcing people to use a competitive product (IE/AOL) because it's integrated exclusively with a monopolistic product (Windows/AIM).
Remember, AOL published specs, they wanted other people to write clients. So M$ wrote a client. What else did AOL expect?
Let me phrase that differently. If AOL opened the spec so, for instance, Linux could have an AIM client, why should M$ not also write a client?
Or let's try a third way. AOL wanted other people to write programs for AOL, without getting paid by AOL. AOL wanted a free ride in exchange for a free ride. M$ took them up on that offer. What is wrong with that?
--
Infuriate left and right
Microsoft® has consistently shown an ability to use any tactic to further their global cash flow ends and stockholder loyalty (which is perfectly natural, just not great computer science, i.e., software that sucks) - beware. Don't take your eye off the ball or be fooled by diversionary fluff; if keeping source code in Ft. Knox sucks dollars out of customers pockets they'll do it. If putting on an 'open standards' mantle accomplishes the same... These guys are famous for 'open, extend, incompatible'. If AOL allows MSN uses to schmooze with their customers, you can bet the sheeple will be led right up to the AOL->MSN migration utility. AOL can chat w/ MSN, MSN can chat w/ AOL, suddenly MSN is 'improved', suddenly AOL is broken - opps, better sign up with MSN and drop AOL, they don't work anymore! I don't think it's hipocritical for AOL to demand access to a monopoly cable bandwidth, as long as it's paid for, and then act to keep their paying customer directory servers from being used by competitors who can't succeed on their own. Microsoft® has raided other companies customer listings w/o approval before, like their 'strategic partnering' w/ 3COM for example while pushing lan manager.
Lookout! Some may say "They're being nice now". I don't beleive it; when push comes to shove they'll shiv ya' in an instant.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Microsoft is not hypocritical. They're doing what they always do. When something comes up that they don't control they develop a competing product. If necessary they fight for an open standard to do this. Then they keep "enhancing" their product so that their competitors have to play catchup. See Java for a recent example. See the MS Windows API for that matter. See the Halloween documents for detailed descriptions of this practice.
In this particular case this would probably mean supplying the client, then putting up their own servers & then changing the protocol.
I'm not surprised that AOL would keep trying to lock out the Microsoft client. If Microsoft wins then expect Microsoft to eventually own the Instant Messenger service.
It's true that entrenchment can prevent this from happening, but I don't see entrenchment occurring in this example in the same way that it has occurred for Internet protocols. With Internet protocols there's a large mix of equipment and operating systems. This prevents Microsoft from being able to change things by caveat. But, IM is an app level protocol with lots of clients mostly running on MS Windows & only 1 server - AOL's. In this case MS can easily put out their own server & then change the protocol.
Everybody, sing along now!!
"It's like raaaaa--aiin..."
Ok, that was enough of that. Back to your status quo!
darius
I'm a bit confused. I've never really used AOL's Instant Message App because I've been using TALK from unix. Isn't that the same as all this stuff between MS and AOL. Why can't they both agree to extend TALK and keep it open?
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
I've recently (yesterday) switched my home PC completely to linux (redhat 6.0), and in light of this conversation, I've realised I have nothing like ICQ right now. I know this is Nastily Off Topic, but what do all of you linux users use?
Thanks SO much...
I don't think it counts as "being right" if they only do it when they're on the benefits end. It doesn't take a genius to point out that they'll be self-righteous when they can use it to get something.
Microsoft is, I think, trying to make us (the "Open Source Community (tm)") believe that we have to support them in their call for "Open Standards (tm)" because if we call for them in one area, (OS APIs etc.) we must call for them in all areas. They are trying to make us think that we need to be "consistent" in our argument to open standards.
What they don't understand is that we are too smart for that. And ESR has fallen right into their trap! We do not need to be consistent. Consistency is the mantra of the small-minded. We need to say to Microsoft that we can see right through them. We cannot be blinded by our own argument in one area to the obvious differences here. This is a matter of Microsoft trespassing on AOL's server space!
It is not "open-source" vs. "corporate bullying." It is Microsoft assuming that we are too stupid to see the difference. AND ESR HAS FALLEN FOR IT!
This is not a call for openness. This is not a call for standards. And AOL has one remedy that ESR totally forgot: the courts. AOL could probably get a restraining order against Microsoft for trespassing on AOL's servers.
Support AOL: We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by our own argument. We must be able to see the difference OR WE WILL ALWAYS FAIL!
There comes a time in every man's life when he must say, "No mother! I do not want any more Jell-O!"
More like the freedom to get caught BEHIND in emerging technoligies ONCE AGAIN and then, in a dramatic comeback, push, shove, lie, cheat, steal, pilfer, plunder their way to market dominance, yeah! Lets see if AOL gets 'Netscaped'.
Trivia note: Aol started out as a company selling a downloadable video game service for the Atari VCS 2600.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
1) If someone "hacks the code" to spam connections. It will be fixed quickly.
Ahh, but what if whoever "hacks the code" to spam connections chooses to not distribute said changes and only uses them for malicious purposes Sorry, but it won't be fixed quickly if at all.
What are you a moron?
The ability to have your operating system run on multiple archetectures is NOT being borgish. its called GOOD. Microsoft Likes to go around and BUY companies that Possess Software that can make money. Microsoft then takes this software integrates it Propritorizes it (is propritorize a word?) Making it so writing applications and tools to interface with it are a pain in the ass, and then selling a hastily thrown togheter "completed product" to unassuming consumers. Who think that its OK to use sh*tware
The fact taht linux can run on multiple archetectures IS NOT the same thing.
And Yes. The Shuttles do run soem linux... Nasa likes Debian by the way..
Tang: What the Astronauts took to space
Debian: The Tangiest OS ever
>If I kept coming into your house at night
>and helping myself to the contents of your refrigerator, I'm pretty sure
>I'd quickly find myself staring down the barrel of a gun. And the
>MS-AOL situation is exactly analogous to this.
Pretty much. An argument to this would be that all the GPL/OSS clients for the IM protocol out there are doing the same thing. SOME times you let a friend eat from your fridge. But if someone you do not like, or a stranger comes along and does the same. I bet you would be pissed.
When AOL opened its protocol, its kinda like a semi open party. You let some friends in, and allow them bring their friends. But you don't want a bunch of jerks to come along and try to take the party over now would you? You know for a fact that your friends and therefor their friends are pretty harmless. But the other people are going to take over the party, brake some stuff, get smashed and leave the house a mess.
My point? WHY would Microsoft have ANY reason to make THERE OWN client to AOL's 'open' IM protocol when there is already an existing client for windows. Reason, so people would use MICROSOFT'S not AOL's. And this can lead to all sorts of problems.
The reason its alright to allow *nix/Linux/*BSD clients to be built around this protocol is to allow non windows users a chance to use a service they normally can't (unless they want to use a SLOW ass Java version...) And the amount of people who use these versions are rather limited compared the number of people using AOL's IM clients for windows.
In the end, I think AOL was wrong for 'changing' their protocol to avoid Microsoft. This makes them look like the bad guys here. A better tactic would be for AOL to goto court AGAINST Microsoft saying that Microsoft is trying to OWN (not support...) yet another standard, (and effectively,.. REMOVING the standard) using most of the reasoning I gave above.
Then again, this is just my humble opinion here. I am not a good business man and I do not ever care to become one within my life time.
Just another programmer,
Luke
The "stopped clock" analogy was being made to MS not ESR.
Microsoft is bad, mmmmkay? If microsoft did something, like say, hypothetically, make other vendors programs not work under Windows, the same people who are supporing AOL would be throwing a fit! But AOL does something that is essentially the same, and well, that's just good buisiness practices, damnit! You people have just been conditioned to believe whatever MS is doing is wrong, and apparently no longer can think for yourselves. Nothing is all Good, nor all bad... I know its hard to do , but sometimes you just gotta admit that someone you hate is right.
I always said that moderation was a bad idea, tyranny of the majority etc etc.
Go on, moderate this one down too... shame there isn't a "Critical of SlashDot" reason tag for moderation.
--
Well, Microsoft is crying for ONE open standard
now and as soon their implementation gets shipped
with Windows by default they WILL screw the
standard and make incompatable with anyone elses
implemntation. This happened so many times that it
is strange why people keep to be soo shortsighted.
Open standard is not some blind definition. Take
the banks for example:
You may fit all requirments for current
income etc, but a bad credit history is a perfect reason to deny credit.
So, NO credit, Microsoft!
I was just thinking of an old quote...
"The Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes."
record cold temperatures, with the possibility of freezing rain as the week progresses...
AOL & Microsoft go to court over this. The court orders AOL to use an open standard. AOL is happy.
Sure, they now have to open their protocol, but they don't care because they had already opened it. They just didn't like the fact that Microsoft was making use of it.
They're happy because such a case could be used as precedent to force companies to use open protocols. Better yet, they would have tricked Microsoft's lawyers into making their case for them! In the future, when Microsoft tweeks their SMB protocol, or their Word formats, or the Windows API, AOL can just take them to court and force them to provide specs for the changes. This could be a way to destroy the Microsoft monopoly.
I'm sure there are holes in this theory, so fire away!
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
What Microsoft is doing has nothing whatsoever to do with Open Source, however. Their motives are painfully transparent. They are using Open Source as a bludgeon here in an effort to destroy a competitor's lock on a particular market (instant messaging software).
Microsoft deserves no credit here whatsoever. They've simply looked around for a weapon to use against an enemy, and picked up the most likely rock to throw.
I am no fan of AOL, but Microsoft can kiss my grits. I can't stand 'em.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
You've managed to alienate the Linux/Internet/open-source community. Uh, no, Eric. Maybe AOL has, and maybe it hasn't. It's not for you to say. Regardless of whatever delusion you've been suffering under for the past few years, you're nothing but a gun nut who has no right to claim to represent the community. Maybe RMS does, but you certainly don't.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
The AOL/SUN/NETSCAPE vs MS thing is interesting, Microsoft may technically be right.. but is also wrong. Microsoft is crying for open standards which is kinda right, but with this AOL has the right to deny Microsoft a competing company from the software BECAUSE of network security. The Fact that you must log in and give your password out to the client is reason enough. If Microsoft were to release an OPEN SOURCE Client than there should be no PROBLEMS but I highly doubt they will, and since they are not Who's to say that this sensitive information isn't being redirected to One Of Microsofts Computers? I dont really see a reason off the top of my head why they may do this, but we all know how microsoft likes to keep tabs on people, they have lots of built in lets gather as much private information from our users as possible tricks who's to say that they won't pull another stunt.
Plus the fact that Microsoft has been the leader of Inaccessability and Propierty since day one Why have them change?
And anyways tis for the greater good.
Who wants to see microsoft demolished?
I trust Sun and Netscape More than MS (not aol all that much) so
lets here a
GO AOL/NETSCAPE/SUn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was under the mistaken impression that you have to pay for AIM access even if you use a non-AOL client. That sort of ruins the comparison I was making -- use at your own risk ;)
Umm...There's Yahoo's instant messager, ICQ, and
AOLs....then along comes Microsoft.
Microsoft is just whining because theirs isnt the
singular, dominant instant messaging method. If
the MSN instant messager were the leading one,
they'd defend its closed nature tooth-and-nail.
Where's the open source community's answer to these instant messaging methods? No, I dont mean
ICQ client-clones....Where are the servers?
(No, IRC doesnt cut it,...I like IRC, but it's not
really a background user directory and pager).
Something like traditional UNIX chat, w/ a more feature filled server, would do....clean up the protocol a little --- make it line based rather than character-transmission based.