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.
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
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.
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
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.".
There are, as I understand it, two protocols. TOC and OSCAR. TOC is the one they've released. OSCAR is the one the Windows AIM client uses. Microsoft reverse-engineered OSCAR instead of using TOC. I'm not sure what the difference is, though.
There are 2 protocols, TOC and OSCAR. There have been for a really long time. GAIM and TiK et al use TOC, the published protocl. The Windows AIM client and now MSN Messenger use OSCAR, the unpublished protocl. Microsoft reverse-engineered that one. They've both been around for a while. And you'll notice that GAIM hasn't stopped working because they haven't had to mess with TOC.
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.
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.
--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 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
...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
If you completely ignore the whole server thing. It's more like someone reverse engineering Microsoft's own Exchange server and using that as a relay.
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.
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.
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.
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
- t_t_b
--
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Yes, but it's AOL's own AIM client asking for the password.
What happens when some script kiddie hacks up a visual basic dialog box to look like an instant message client and gets people to download it. All it will do is gather AOL names and passwords while giving the user an error when trying to connect.
It's a security policy issue in my opinion. If MSN could find a way to jack into the network without asking for their AIM username and password, I'd be all for it. Open messaging standards would allow all IM networks to talk to one another so no one ever gives out their username/password to a client not provided by their network. MS is simply hacking into AOL's IM infrastructure to make a product marketable.
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/ .
...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.
Microsoft are indeed interested in open standards up to a point. That point being once they have a decent slice of the marketshare. Once they have that, open standards appear to go right out the window.
Does anyone here really believe that Microsoft will remain faithful to their current stance on open standards for Internet messaging? I don't! I predict that their righteous stance will win them their little tiff with AOL. After that, they will gain a decent marketshare, and (surprise, surprise) begin to introduce closed "enhancements".
For these reasons, I refuse to say that Microsoft is right, they are just less wrong than AOL. Microsoft will not be right about open standards until they are consistent in their stance.
Ahh - My eye!
The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
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.
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 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
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).
Sorry, I must admit that I doubted it. Microsoft has never, ever, supported "open standards," except of course when it allows them to strangle them. Think of Java. Do we need to go through that again with Instant Messaging? Do we need to have a more "compatible" AIM client than AIM?
How about standards for Microsoft? I think it would be much more beneficial for Microsoft to form an "industry" standard for it's Office products that all applications can read and write to. That seems of much more benefit than a little IM protocol.
But I agree with ESR here. This is a new world order. Old things have passed away, behold, all things have become new. AOL is doing what they need to do to "compete" and be able to continue to "innovate." However, they need to look away from the past, and look toward the future. It is not anti-competitive behaviour that allows you to compete anymore, it is open-source.
Yes, we need Open Messaging Standards. But we can't just say "Yes, this is a good thing, and then leave it be," we will need to get out there and protect our investment in Open Messaging Standards. When Microsoft tries to break it, we need to stand together against them.
ESR is right. We need Open Messaging Standards. But Microsoft *isn't* going to keep it "open." AOL needs to leave it open but let the Open Source community protect their investment
-BrentMicrosoft 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!"
I was just thinking of an old quote...
"The Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes."