Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to "publish code" to Instant Messenger
VFVTHUNTER writes "According to this article at cnet, MS, in an attempt to gain a share of AOL's Instant Messenger Service Market, announced today it is going to publish the protocol to its own messenger service. " It's important to note it's NOT the source code, just the protocol.
We're working on it :-) If someone would like to volunteer, we could send you a printed copy of the source which you could OCR. I think that is legal for some strange reason.
Because they're Microsoft, and that's all the reason they need. They simply cannot concieve of a world where some really ultra-useful software that someone uses all the time isn't controlled by them. It's all or nothing for them.
Take a look at some of the ICQ exploits published sometime.
---
DNA just wants to be free...
This is awesome! Now VB developers can quickly and easily work work instant messaging stuff. It can be used on the server-side of web servers, it can be used in stand alone apps, or in lots of places. Very useful for people who have lives (like myself). I'm very excited.
There is already an open-source effort to create a free instant messaging protocol: Jabber.
:)
It's made a significant amount of progress and has a tremendous amount of support behind it, and works with AIM/ICQ/talk/IRC/etc transparently. Check it out and help get it done if you are interested
Score: -1. Flamebait.
I don't need the code in this case because if I like a client, I can write it myself. I preffer the protocol -in this case- because if I decide to write a Linux client, the windoze code would be unusefull to me.
I still think that the REAL issue in the instant messaging chapter of the internet is a Unique, Open, well designed, security oriented, messaging protocol. I would like to communicate to all my friends and family using only ONE client and ONE protocol, an open one.
Just open your mind and read before type. I don't give a fuck about m$ and I'm sure I won't ever use that primitive protocol, but I still think we should start building a new Open protocol, or select the best from the ones that are already around the internet...
Remember: Read first, think and then type.
Rotten
You kids keep whining. When it comes out, I'm gonna release the best IM client anyone's ever seen.
Check out Jabber, a clean architecture designed to do just that and
support simple/clean/fast clients, and has made significant progress already.
It's an open-source project so it could use any/all help and suggestions!
Just make a master client that uses pluging to communicate with all the different types of protocols out there. One standard interface with the ability to deal with AOL, ICQ, etc, etc, etc.
The Jabber project is exactly that. Check it out, there is some work to be done yet so jump in and help out if you're interested!
So what if IRC was first? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...
I keep hearing the occasional IRC advocate saying how IRC is better than any messaging client - but from my experiences with IRC, it's not that great.
It takes forever to connect, if you can connect at all. Names aren't protected very well - even if someone registers their name, you can impersonate them for 60 seconds. Lag is sometimes measured in minutes. Sending spam messages to everyone online is common. Netsplits are abundant. And 99.9% of every server I've seen is pr0n/war3z.
The last time I used IRC was for the "Final Chat" with MST3K cast members. It was a mess. I now wholeheartedly avoid IRC.
--
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
And who needs their crappy code anyway? My RedHat system is unstable enough without Microsoft code in it...
-segfault
Uhm, AOL already published the TOC protocol that AIM uses. How do you think TiK and GAIM and all those unix instant messanger clients were made? I don't see why MS publishing their protocol which is proabley a whole 8 lines different (connecting to another non-AOL ad server?) would be such a big deal.
~Kevin
:)
Then OSS can suffer like all those who shake Bill's smarmy claw. I'm sure someone will try, all the time thinking "History be damned, this time I'll fool Bill, he's not that good at screwing people over." I just hope that it's not somebody from the Linux ranks.
So, M$ publishes it's protocol. That just means that the trap has been set and this is a press release for the bait. The OSS world should just yawn.
-- James
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
I believe that AOL publicly released the protocol, ostensibly to be used on platforms which they didn't want to write for themselves. They later pulled the protocol.
There has been a lot of discussion about this whole deal between MS and AOL on the messanging issue, but to me the biggest point here has been missed! AOL is running the servers that allow the connection between users. MS's client connects to these servers, using them to connect the user to other users, while implicitly giving Microsoft the credit for doing so!
MS cannot "innovate" (by this I mean change "standards" to keep out competition) because they do not provide ANY servers to change the standards on. If the servers do not recognize new "inovations" then the clients cannot use them! Right now AOL is the only one out there who is providing ANY servers (both the AIM and ICQ servers), and they are doing so for FREE!! No advertisements, no banners, no NOTHING! They are doing this because they thing that having their name out there on a product that you use daily will entice you to sign up with them as an ISP (I also think that eventually they will start advertising..).
Now Microstoft is comming in and pirating their servers, using the same idea to advertise themselves, and giving AOL no credit, while still making AOL foot the bill for running the servers that make this all possible. In my mind this is dirty pool, and Microsoft is just using the standards buzzword as a smokescreen so that it can use its monopoly to crush its way into another sector of the internet. How long do you think it will be untill we see instant messaging as a "intigrated part of the operating system"?
This not a news get excited
I wouldnt mind doing this, assuming theres not TOO much source, and that my OCR package can manage to distinguish between l and 1.
Contact me via the above email if you want.
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
From my ZDNN daily email this morning:
MS TO OPEN IM SOURCE
MS says it will publish the protocols for its instant messaging program.
http://www.zdnn.com/a/zdnn081899/2316354/
Of course, it's not the source released, it's just the protocols. But either ZD's reporters are too dumb to tell the difference, or are deliberately confusing the issue.
When in doubt, i *always* remind myself to never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. The advantage is that i hardly ever blame anyone for anything now. The disadvantage is i've come to think the average human is about as bright as a cabbage.
---
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
I'm not the author, so I'll need to check with him first. But we can probably get something worked out.
If you are a network administrator, then presumably you maintain a computer network so that others can do work. Why do you think that you have the right to limit their usage. They're all morons and they'll download viruses and install unsupported software and they might know something but they are dumbasses! I hate this. I have bumped up against this with IT personnel who will not do what I need them to because they don't think that it is necessary, or worth their time. Total BS. Get off your high horse.
Well, isn't this very nice. By developing their 'proprietary' IM protocol in-house, then 'publishing' the specs, the press (and developers?) are suckered into believing that it's an 'open' protocol. Wow, if it's THIS easy, M$ (or whomever) can just repeat this process over and over and come out smelling like a rose - that 'just wants everyone to get along'. Then they just have to modify a few .dll's/system calls that AREN'T published and we're all right back where we started. Neat, huh?
Hey! We're talking about a Microsoft protocol, here! Of course there are going to be bugs! But don't you worry, a service pack'll be released any time now.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I won't even read that protocol on mere principal. Besides if I were to make a client, 3 years from now it'd be non-fuctional as MS "featurizes" it and makes older versions unusable.
If they pull out completely, then ICQ would go down with them too, right?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not really the source code? Isn't that like the time someone had a "1966 Mustang GT" for sale for 4 grand in "mint condition," and it turned out to be a matchbox car?
Dan
Are you living in some alternate dimension where security isn't necessary? Why would anyone want yet another insecure IM protocol?
Why *not* release the source code, then?
Perhaps the MS Instant Messenger sends default HTML encoded messages. These show up as attachments in other IM software and in general are just a pain. That would suck. Oh! Wait! It ALLREADY does suck!
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
downloading netscape does not mean signing up for an aim account. it just means getting the client. You actually have to register seperately for a username on the aim servers, and you can't use aim without one.
the user count = the number of paying aol users + the number of aim only accounts.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
where is ICQ during all this? does ICQ not have the greatest # of users? and did ICQ not pioneer the IM concept? why do none of the other messengers use the ICQ protocol? and to top it off AOL OWNS ICQ! wtf?!
-fixe
The best IM is to hit the send button on your e-mail client really fast!
Check out Caliban:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~bucy/IM/
which uses a new yet to be named protocol that actually has real encryption and authentication, unlike Microsoft's new protocol, AIM, ICQ, Jabber, etc. Coming soon will be support for ACLs and group chat.
Blindly supporting Microsoft in its attempt to co-opt AOL's user base is extremely shortsighted and does nothing to further the goals of the open source community.
We might win a small moral victory by showing that we can put aside prejudices and support our greatest foe, but we will lose the war when Microsoft has completed its decimation of AOL. Then they will go back to doing things their way and nobody will be left to stop them.
Look at Netscape. When they started adding stuff to HTML, Microsoft yelled and screamed that Netscape was bad for not following the standard. Now that MS is on top, they do whatever the hell they want with the standard because nobody can stop them. Let's not repeat history again for the sake of a minor boost to our image. Let's instead show that we are able to think rather than blindly follow our basic principles even when we see that they will lead us off a cliff. Following principles even when they lead to certain death just makes martyrs. That may inspire others, or it may not. I'm not sure martyrs will be enough to fight off Microsoft.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Let's give credit where credit is due. MS wanted AOL to open up their standards, so it's only fair that MS does that same. Good for them. Who cares if they're only doing it to wipe out AOL - it's still a good thing. Now maybe the GAIM people will add this to their client and we'll be able to talk to MSNers as well as AOLers... C'mon, it's the little victories that make it all worthwhile.
What about sending files, doing video/voice, and shareing desktops? MS Messenger (MSM) integrates with NetMeeting if you have it installed, so it can do all these things. But people using other clients won't be able to do this.
Now, ironicly, the NetMeeting protocol is also based on a public standard and that protocol is freely available, but I don't see anybody making NetMeeting-compatible clients or integrating NetMeeting functionality into their instant messengers.
As it exists now, there is no authentication. Therefore, impersonation is trivial.
Yeah... I get a message or two every week that appear to be coming from someone on one of my lists that tell me to forward it to everyone else on my lists or my ICQ account will be deleted. Now I know that nobody on my list (only 4 people) sent me that message, so it's obviously faked.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
MS 'had' to have the web browser in the kernel
No, Microsoft did not put a web browser in the kernel. IE is in user space where it belongs.
I'm continually amazed at the number of lies the anti-Microsoft crowd is willing to spew in their attempts to further their questionable cause.
I am just glad that Microslap could wait to make yet another IM service, you would think that having so many already would be enough. Now to figure out how to hack it so it never works... oh wait, it's microsoft, that will happen anyway...
"Microsoft learned working with standards groups bolstered its position over competitors."
What is this shit? MS if all for standards, as long as THEY control it. The standard has changed. You must now upgrade to the latest version. Funny how i'm being taught that the way to design software is to keep it backwards compatible. You know, not changing the interface? I hope MS gets smashed to tiny little bits.
I can see it now. The instant messaging devices built into your MS toaster and MS refrigerator and MS toilet paper dispenser advertising "Microsoft Frozen Pizza" and "Get Rich Quick!!!!!"
um, i'm moving to linux b/c i'm SICK of buniess' involvement in how i do things on my computer. I'm sick of MS and other software vendors treating me like i'm worthless and that even tho i paid 50 they still can restict in every way what i do w/that software. Besides MS is already nervous.
This action is wrong so very wrong. To "publish" protocols for technology that isn't their's is not only ethically questionable, but how can Microsoft guarentee the acruacy of the specification of their specification or protocol? "Well, it works," isn't the right answer.
This is just Microsoft's ploy to take advantage of technology they don't control.
Hmmm... why not have a non-propriety protocol established and set it down in an RFC? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems to have worked in the past.
The added advantage is anyone could develop their own app, perl script, what-have-you, to use it as well.
-Bill
SlashSig Karma: Excellent (mostly affected by moderatio
I thought that MS wanted an open standard for messaging (read: they're loosing the war)? So, if they open their protocol, who cares? The whole thing will be a standard protocol anyway, so they're really not giving anything away, are they?
They can't release the source because it probably has about 50% of the IE code and 25% of the Windows 2000 code in it... and that code must remain sealed.
I use linux, windows (all flavors), AIX and Mac. Does that make my comments unbiased?
What Mircosoft is doing is just to screw over AOL. They are no more intrested in IM being open standards then AOL are. Sure we get the protocols, but they will just change them once AOL have been taken out.
I have bumped up against this with IT personnel who will not do what I need them to because they don't think that it is necessary, or worth their time. As an IT person I have _personally_ had to help rebuild systems messed up by email worms. Not to mention dozens of Office Macro viruses... Go ahead an ignore their advice, but I don't expect you to run to them for help after you've double clicked "goodtimes.exe".
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
If you are interested in participating send a subscribe message to one or both of:
John Hascall / john@iastate.eduHow is MS the big player in IM space? AOL has two HUGE services, IM and ICQ, that are both now running on AOL Servers. AOL is working on a way to merge the databases... good luck...
Now, M$ releases a client, and they are instantly a major player? This is why Microsoft is dangerous. Because they are perceived as a bid player in the industry, any product that they release is assumed to become dominant. Quicken is still beating them. AOL CAN win this one. AOL needs to put out clients for different systems, not necessary open sourced (free beer, not speech) and ignore Microsoft. They need to keep Microsoft from attacking their servers, and send out a cease and desist order. If Microsoft continues, sue them.
This whole thing is rediculous. Microsoft will include the MS Messenger in W2K and Millenium, with autoupdating pulling down their latest way into AOL servers.
AOL should support open standards, not open methods for infiltrating their servers. AOL Clients (perhaps ICQ at first) should support the standard, and you should be able to message between them if you know their IP (your ICQ Client that supports the open standard could also register you on the MS Servers), but AOL should keep their servers proprietary. That way, people will still use AOL (hell, it's a superset of MS), and they can get the advertising revenue.
My 2 cents,
Alex
scorpion@mit.edu
Developer Comments
Wait until you read the protocol spec.
they planned to release it since '97 iirc...
Ok, fools, line up and swallow a protocol maintained by Microsoft. At least they've spelled out their intentions to you, in no uncertain terms. This poster is right. 1) You will write your killer applications; 2) MS will call theirs a "natural extention of the Operating System"; 3) MS will add propriatary and "erroneous" features; and 4) they will remove you and your silly toys from competition.
No. They wont..
They will control the server side of the whole deal and it only makes it more profitable for them is there are many different client tools available.
I have never understood why people are even bothering with these pitiful excuses for messaging clients. Yahoo, AIM... ugh. ICQ has been the mainstay for a good long time now and is much better than the others, IMO. Why doesn't Microsoft battle with ICQ instead? THERE is where the gold is, IMO. There are dozens of Unix clients, Win, OS2, DOS, Be... That's where the people are.
Nobody's been able to give me an answer to that so I'm hoping someone here can.
This instant messenger stuff must be put into the kernel quickly! MS 'had' to have the web browser in the kernel so why not IM! Quickly!! More bloat ware!! Hahhhhhhhahhahahahhaha! Microsoft is playing russian roullette with a shotgun.
Much ado about nothing. But sure gives headlines to needy tech-writers at zdnet, cnet, Salon etc...
While I am happy to see the protocol documentation released, just because Microsoft is documenting the protocol as it exists now does not mean that they will continue to do so.
Time and time and time again, they have released documentation for a standard, only to latter add functionality that they do not document. Their undocumented extensions to their published SMB/CIFS standards are one good example of this.
My point is this: don't rely on the Microsoft protocol if you don't want to get the rug yanked out from under your feet later. You might be able to keep up by reverse-engineering, as Samba has, or live with the small subset of functionality that was documented, but do you really want to have to do either?
If you do use this protocol at all, use it only as a "bridge" for compatibility with MS clients. Don't make it your primary protocol. That way, if they make undocumented changes later, they end up cutting off their users from the world at large, rather than cutting off your users from Microsoft's world.
---
DNA just wants to be free...
Has it actually been released yet ?, is there a actual microsoft pressrelease on the matter somewhere, i.e. as to a release date and location
Where is the actual microsoft information, that zdnet article doesn't have any actual links to any real content.
C.
In the PC world "specifications" and protocols have been owned by companies since the inception.
On the Internet, RFC's mandate protocols and code evolution determines how things will work.
These two methods are completely at odds with each other. The reason we have an open Internet today is because these standards have been open and easily accessible.
We shouldn't just accept open protocols, we should demand them.
----- obSig
But are you really surprised? What have we learned about MS.. code quick, crappy, and try to beat competitors with the interface, not the content.
;). Just like almost everything else they have ever put out.
with every release of something include features that require an expensive microsoft product
upstage the comeptition with media hype about suprememacy and then blame programs crappiness on other factors
And the most important thing I've learned about microsoft make sure 3rd party stuffs will be obsolete without special or expensive other MS products.
Why don't people integrate Netmeeting? Generally, I guess the reason is that it SUCKS
not that serious. It's IM for chrissakes... Most of the problems can be overcome in the clients, if Mirabilis would ever get off their asses and fix the bugs.
I was in contact with Arik or Sefi Vardi for a bit way back when Mirabilis was not bought by AOL. They had no intention on listening to user input to fix bugs, unfortunately, only their own buglists.
I still think, however that the base ICQ protocol is far better than anything brought forward by anyone else. We'd just need to throw authentication at it (verify that a packet is coming from the UIN at the IP specified) to get rid of the hardest-to-kill exploits. THe others are easy to rid yourself of: turn off Web Presence, turn off show IP (yes I know it's a client thing), turn off the mini webserver. Trash the SMTP part of the ICQ client and bring it back to plain IM/chat/smallfile transfer.
Give me open protocols and open file formats before open source any day!
I don't mind open source, but I don't ever expect it of other people or companies... the choice is theirs both legally and morally. However, proprietary protocols and file formats are unforgivable.
From a personal viewpoint, I much prefer a well written protocol spec over trying to decypher someone else's spaghetti code. I release my progs as open source simply because I have nothing to gain by keeping them closed, not because I believe that the source is inherently all that useful by itself.
-- Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle, the Fiend of the Fell.
ICQ has almost -no- server-side security. The only real security is the user authentication for receiving events, and possibly for invisible users.
ICQ has not released any "official" protocol, which was probably originally out of fear that security flaws might be discovered and third party clients would be made. All network communication could be seen without reverse-engineering, and third party clients did come out (along with security "flaws", i.e. lack of security).
Obviously, ICQ was not designed with the user's security in mind. Remember the password buffer overflow on the server? At least they fixed that within a day.. Quite simply, a secure client and insecure server is outrageously stupid if you don't restrict access to your official clients only.
...and that's my $.02
-K
Since their client has monopoly control of the desktop, how many others do they need?
Toilet paper dispenser advertising "Get Rich Quick!!!!!".
Now we're completely off topic, but has anybody actually tried this? Printing advertisements on toilet paper and then selling it at a lower cost, subsidised by the advertisers? I don't see any real harm in it, and it would be very satisfying to wipe your rear with the ads you didn't like.
Too bad I'm an engineer, not an entrepreneur. :-)
Div.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle, the Fiend of the Fell.
http://209.67.75.168/hardware/fatgen.htm Awhile back even(back in may). Suprised I missed hearing about it.
There are in fact two sets of servers here. There are the MS Instant Messaging servers which are at Hotmail, and there are AOL's IM servers...
MSIM is designed to work with both, using the MSIM servers to communicate with MSIM users and TOC and the Oscar servers for communication with AIM users.
I'm intrigued by your statement that AOL doesn't use their services for advertising. You're obviously using very old versions of the AIM client - as this has been streaming adverts for the last year or so... My partner runs a content channel at AOL UK, and I use AIM to keep in touch with her, and it's a pig having to ignore the advertising...
You also don't seemto have been tracking MS's IM strategy very well. MSIM has been rumoured for a long time as part of either the Platinum or Tahoe releases of Exchange, where it's being suggested as a basis for internal communications in a business setting. By pre-seeding a client before general use of the server, MS are building their market (look at how it integrates with Outlook and NetMeeting).
S.
Read the article. They're releasing the specs for MICROSOFT'S messaging service, NOT AOL's.
so where is the spec then ?, has it actually been released, or is this just complete vaporware.
There is the MSN messenger centralized hotmail system, and there is the MSN decentralized Exchange protocol.
Do we get both, or just one? How about hotmail?
Do we get the server backend?
Keeping the pressure on MS until it completely puts its code where its marketing is, is still needed. You scream open, you had better mean open.
It's "Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!", not warning. Yesh.
Typical, anything thats not anti MS or even *gasp* pro MS gets flamed. Try opening your mind before you open your mouth and stick your foot in it.
Is there one? Anybody working on it? URLS?
We have an OS, now it looks like we need an IM'er, and a browser. These are the things people want on their desktop. World Domination won't happen without 'em. The public at large is sick to death of this crap. They need an option.
BTW: AIM's user base number (and Real's) are total crap. Every new copy of Netscape comes with it, download the 'Scrape and you're a "registered user".
+&x
> Gee, you'd think AOL developed ICQ, and it wasn't just another company making a product that became popular..
We are looking in to that actually. But we want to finish a few more features first.
Wouldn't it be cool to have an open source IM-client which would support ICQ + AIM + talk (the last could check for online with ping? -
of course not for sure, but still...)
how do you know this and what have they done in the recent past that proves they are going to do this?
An RFC is being created ...
h tml
Check this out...
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/impp-charter.
One person from MS is on the team, but it's mostly non-MS people.
Seems to me that if MicroSoft makes the protocol public, that makes it easier for crackers to hack the server. After all, for MicroSoft or AOL to make money on the Instant Messaging market, they have to control the servers and force feed advertisements to users. With the protocol public, clients which reject the adverts can be written which use MicroSoft's server (costing them money), or a public non-advert server can be put up which is compatible with all the MicroSoft clients.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I agree with the basic idea of the previous post, assuming the following interpretation:
It's not that there's anything wrong with open source. It has all the listed benefits, and the philosophy is certainly appealing. However, aside from the philosophy, the benefits tend to be pragmatic matters. It's one development model with it's pros and cons, but it's not necessarily the only model that amyone should ever use.
The pros and cons of OSS vs. other models are really not relevant here -- what really matters for purposes of freedom, competition, etc., is open protocols. If you write an OSS client and I write a proprietary one, and they both use a standard protocol, then people can decide which one to use based on factors that are really nobody else's business but theirs. According to the OSS arguments, yours will probably, but not necessarily, be technically superior. If so, people who appreciate such things would use yours. Or, if mine is superior despite being non-open, they could use it. Others might choose mine for any number of other reasons, such as finding my user interface more appealing. Even if mine is superior, those who oppose proprietary software for philosophical reasons would use yours. The point is, choices exist and everybody's happy. Open-source is not relevant, except to those who care about it, or as a means to achieve the real goal of high quality.
The key is that we both used the same protocol. If not for that, our programs would not be able to interoperate, and people would have to either deal with both or only be able to work with other people who chose the same one (and those who refuse to use mine for philosophical reasons would be completely unable to interoperate with those who chose mine for whatever reason). Assuming both became at least moderately popular, the scene would turn ugly as people evangelize the one that they prefer and fight over which one "everybody" should use. Ideally, I suppose, mine would "lose", leaving everyone using the OSS version. However, I think it's much more reasonable, and perfectly satisfactory, to simply have me use the same standard protocol, since that would eliminate all the unpleasantness. Maybe my version offers some particular features that some people want, and are willing to pay for. They could use it, but nobody else would be forced to do so simply in order to be able to work with them. My version would be adding value for these people but not making any trouble for anyone.
Like I said, I find the OSS/free software philosophy attractive, but I don't think it's absolutely essential that all software follow it. However, it is absolutely essential that all communication protocols, file formats, and APIs be fully open standards. We can't have some software vendor making, say, a word processor or a spreadsheet program that uses a proprietary file format making it impossible for users to use a competing product because of incompatibilities.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
ICQ includes hooks into Netmeeting.
Because this will not be an Open Protocol, merely a published one. Open protocols can be critiqued by all and eventually revised on the desires of the community (OpenGL comes to mind).. No way this is an Open Protocol.
Wasn't the Mozilla project going to do something like this?
Maybe I'm just on crack.
It sounded/sounds cool.
Someone do it! I'm not comprehending enough yet, else I'd do it myself.
Okay, this comment ends now.
Unless I have a sig that I forgot about, but I think I got rid of it.
it's clear that Microsoft will do anything they can at this point to distract from the point of this: servers.
AOL isn't complianing about use of the protocol, it's use of the servers. Microsoft is trying to say, look, we're open and AOL isn't, by the fact they're publishing a 'open' protocol which is almost as versatile as UNIX 'Talk'.
Meanwhile AOL has a completely open protocol (TOC) which they have published a completed open-source implementation of (TIK).
The point is, if microsoft wants total openness, and they're expecting AIM to open their servers, why not we make use of the servers Microsoft's put up for their messenger? i mean, they didn't invite us-- they just posted the protocol-- but i guess they're kinda _implying_ they want us to abuse their servers, the way they assumed that AOL wanted microsoft to abuse OSCAR when they posted TOC.
So, let's do whatever we can with/to the MSM servers. And i don't mean use them for messanging; that would be pointless. I mean just do whatever the hell we feel like. Route things through it. Send large files to friends. Or just heavily pingflood it at random or something, i dunno. If a pingflood is nothign more than "unauthorized use of a computer network", it's no less ethical than what MS is already doing to AOL, and i doubt they could really complain about it.
I have no clue how the MSN servers are set up, or even if they exist. Nor do i care; i use AIM, and i don't use it because i like it, i use it because i have friends on AOL. i have no use for another instant messenging protocol, particularly not one such as MSM which is devoid of any redeeming features. Hell, i have little use for _a_ instant messenging protocol. i have IRC. if i had my way, we'd all have accounts on dynip and just use DCC to talk to each other (it even has file transfers!). Or ICQ, it's pretty nice.
But there's probably some way you could send packets of any type with a MSMessenger-like wrapping that would allow you to use the MSMessenger server for other things. I'm just saying, let's look. There may even be ways to shell through it, or run SETI@home. Either way we should certainly _check_.
Comments, anyone?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Standardize the protocol? What a crazy idea!!! If that were to happen, there might be a chance that no one would need to sell or give someone something with their name on it. Where is the fun in that?
I don't think so. I've created accounts that were used for testing mail clients and nothing else that have never gotten any spam. I've also got accounts that I've used when posting to a newsgroup, those accounts ALWAYS get spammed. All it takes is one usenet post with that address to get spam for the life of the account.
Well the difference is that those of us working on Caliban aren't a company who can afford to do things like advertise, aka pay off journalists (which Mirabilis could do), and Malda keeps turning down our annoucements. Plus ICQ was marketed towards moronic Windows users, while Caliban is aimed at discerning unix users (though if someone wants to write a Windows port, please do). Obviously the former doesn't understand the benefits of a GPLed cryptographically secure protocol.
This is a good example of why OSS isnt nescessary. As I have pointed out to ESR in the past, you only need open PROTOCOLS not OPEN SOURCE to get the benefits of cooperation. Source is just implementation. I don't want to work on your source.
The big problem here is, people will use it. They will have no choice. Microsoft will bundle it with Win200x and make computer manufacturers customize it with their own nifty 8-bit images. Sooner or later, someone will figure out how to pry into your Win200x system using this messeging protocol. Microsoft will consider it only a throretical security flaw, and blame open-source developers for not paying enough attention to it. So now its all your fault. But hey, MS is the good guy for proving that the open-source model is/was just a phase and that we should just trust them to do things.
Right about then, you'll be able to jump into your Microsoft Explorer and drive down to MicrosoftMarket and buy some Microsoft Beans for your morning coffee. But dont dare call it Java...
Can't we make a client that runs under say GTK and/or QT that does AIM, ICQ, Yahoo!, Excite's thing, *and* Microsoft's thing? It'd be better than having 4-5 windows open just to talk to people....
. Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
No. The "mud-slinging" is based on the fact that Microsoft is Microsoft.
If you believe otherwise, perhaps you haven't been paying attention to what's happened ever since Microsoft was hatched?
If such be the case, I can recommend any number of sites and news articles that will get you up-to-speed quickly.
The day MSFT goes open source is the day they publish all their "extensions" to the protocol.
...", Bill G says.
"Oh, but we don't have any
Yeah, right.
Will in Seattle
If you are a network administrator, then presumably you maintain a computer network so that others can do work. Why do you think that you have the right to limit their usage.
The simple answer: Because I run the damn network. The not so simple answer, let me quote you: ... so that others can do work. ICQ != work. I have worked for various companies, one of which did not condone the use of the Internet for anything but looking up company related information. On the other end of the spectrum I worked for an ISP that allowed you to basically 'play' as long as it didn't interfere with your work. Meaning that sitting on ICQ is good, but better make sure you're 'n/a'.
Other than that, if you want IT personnel to do something for you, it might help to ask them nicely, and not flat out demand it and possibly threatening to go to their managers if they don't do it. The reason they are in IT and you are not is because they know a lot more about it than you do, so personally I'd say it's you who should come down off the high horse.
I'm not insulting you here, but being a network admin/sysadmin myself I see this attitude a lot, and it gets very irritating after a while. Here you are doing your best to keep a network going so that people can work, and you don't want people to install ICQ with the possible risk of spreading a virus all over the network, or maybe causing it to not function properly.
As a note, read this to get an idea of what might happen if you piss off your friendly neighbourhood sysadmin ;)
There is no sig...
What product is better than NetMeeting for *all* those tasks it does (whiteboard, video/audio/chat, etc)?
Hmmmm well AOL could add MS's protocols into AIM so AIM people can communicate with MSIM but not vice versa. HAHAHAH :)
The protocol is enough to go and start coding, the real issue is, who needs another messaging protocol if we have so many around. The real need is a standarization of messaging protocols, so we can stay in touch with everybody using just 1 client. I don't know if there's one around, is there any? That would a GoodThing (tm) to see in the future... forgot my pass at home... Rotten
Now, it is time for AOL to go a step further and to publish the source code of (at least) the protocol communication routines of their messager program.
Open source with request to acknowledge the use of an AOL code derivative (in any product which uses it). This would make AOL advertisement in the MS application if they use the code. This is better than having MS reverse ingeneering the protocol and giving no credit to aol in their messager.
1) people that create messenger servers -- either sold or OSS on other platforms (i'm guessing MS will only offer theirs on NT)
2) people that create messenger client alternatives -- either for sale or OSS
3) MS, who can draw you in to using the protocol, then change it on a whim & not release the new protocol specs, and you're stuck with a basically non-functional client or server. (then again, think of samba. that's a big reason why linux has the market share it does have. MS messed with SMB just like AOL messed with their protocol, but samba just continues going, better than ever.)
OK, so Microsoft is publishing their protocol. First, that means squat--even if people code around their protocol, they'd still have to develop their own source. Second, I'm afraid that that's what people might do. The article mentions backers like Prodigy...might that be a way to start undermining open source, by attracting commercial companies with something similar (open standards), and yet allowing them to keep their code sacrosanct (closed source)? It's a step in the right direction, for Microsoft--if we look at them 10 years ago. But now it's just another attack on the open source ideology.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
then again, if they actually did release _all_ of the source code, they'd be acting too much like pseudo-OSS [because, as M$, they could never truly be an OSS company], and they couldn't possibly stand to do something good. that would be sinning against the very evil nature of their soul.
Insert mind here.
Here is why Microsoft wins time and time again. MS realizes that they cannot win as usual. But they need to win the IM wars. So what do they do?
People want the protocols to be open. Since this is the problem in the first place. The partners love this because that way they write their own clients and their own add-ons. There is a market opportunity. AOL took that market opportunity away. And if you say, NO AS A POINT I WILL NOT READ THE PROTOCOLS, fine tell me what is your option? NONE! So something is better than none.
This is why I think if OSS was a necessity then MS would adapt. They would publish the source to Windows 2000 and that would be it. They do so because they are business oriented and want to make money. It is that simple. What AOL did was block MS because of personal feelings. BIG BAD MISTAKE...
As a side note LINUX needs to be this business oriented. When they are then MS will become nervous.
They figure: "This whole thing with AOL back and forth is getting really old. There's gotta be something we can do."
Then, one of those guys who REALLY doesn't like working for Microsoft (but does so for the money/experience) approches the executives and says: "Let's release the Source Code!"
The executives ponder it, and eventually come out with: "No....but we can release the Protocol specifications!" thinking that they can get the public to write MS compatible versions of an Instant Messenger (They don't have a choice. It's the Microsoft specs that are public. AOL pulled theirs, remember?) Once the Microsoft(compatible) Instant Messenger is on every computer on the Planet, AOL is forced to do 1 of 2 things.
1) Give up on Instant Messenger completely, eliminating them from the market. This gives Microsoft a good foothold in the IM market, with little competition. (Now we go after ICQ HAHAH!)
NOTE: ICQ is owned by AOL, so they're not totally out.
2) AOL can pull it's Instant Messenger software behind the America Online wall, and make it a "Member Exclusive" service you can't get with any other Provider, (Just like Web access and Chat!)
Either way, guess who won? Guess who Cheated? If you're smart, you'll get the same answer.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
They both did/are doing screwy things here
and AOL is making horrible mistakes. I am
afraid for the sake of Netscape.. most
Mozilla developers work for netscape, even
with the Open Source movement.
Things could become very bad in the future.
After reading the posting about MS and AOL and how MS is constantly changing it's IM to work on AOL's systems.. doesn't this seem like a low attempt for MS to provide everyone who wants to be able to make AIM clients to do so? (Not that others haven't and don't.. But the way MS is going about this.. they must think then the public will like them for what they are going to provide)
They are only doing this to kill off AOL. But all you will be left with is Microsoft in the number one slot.
:)
And giving out the protocol? Big deal, AOL did that and then went and changed it. Who's promising MS won't do the same?
I think they should make the standard similar to HTML... no wait they subverted that too.
We could look at all the existing products and create a new non-Microsoft non-AOL product.
Check out this at http://osm.freehosting.net
It's the Open Source Messenger home page!
why not ask the linux distro makers to include Caliban on their CD sets?
It now reads: Microsoft's next messaging move: publishing protocol
Interesting, I guess it's easy to get it right when there are thousands of netizens doing your homework for you.
slashdot broke my sig
I can't know your circumstances but you sound exactly like any number of the know-enough-to-be-dangerous types. Not only is your request probably a waste of time - the fact your asking it probably is too. Most IT sorts are policy makers they just impliment it. You want someting out of scope you need to talk to their manager. To you its "just one little thing" - to the techs it's "-another- bloody thing".
... with eskimo chains i tatto my brain all the way...
- What do you do if you are making a product for the mass market and you find yourself in the unfortunate position of being the number two vendor? You make it free.
- What do you do if the number one vendor has made theirs free (gratis)? You publish the source, protocols
It is amusing to see people taking positions on these events based on their preconceived notions as to the relative "goodness" or "evilness" of the corporate sponsor. Yesterday, AOL was evil. Today they are good. Bah!Message to all: chill. Enjoy. It doesn't matter who is doing this, in the long run we are the winners.
- Sam Ruby
I think this is a good thing, now other clients can be written.
This incident demonstrates that Microsoft has figured out to a T how the open source process works, and are entirely prepared to use it to their own advantage.
This guy had it exactly right:
Microsoft knows exactly what's important here: not source code, but file formats and protocols. If Microsoft publishes their IM protocol, it guarantees that hackers will write free clients for Linux (to say nothing of other maligned or forgotten platforms such as MacOS or Amiga). Free clients for Linux means that every customer of a certain $5.6 billion operating system company will be a MS Instant Messaging user.
Very shrewd.
The free software community can respond to this in one of several ways:
IMHO, given how rapidly things are moving, persuading AOL to loosen up is the only realistic response. There just isn't time to write a free IM protocol from scratch that would mount a serious challenge to Microsoft. But I would be very glad to see any progress on either front.
>But it's ironic, eh? I see a bunch of people decidedly anti-MS, pro-AOL on this issue. 3 years aho, who woulda thought AOL'd be recieving /. support? ;)
Three years ago, more like 6 months ago. I still fry every AOL CD in the microwave but the idea that I am rooting for them scares me when I realize what I am doing.
Funny what happens when one giant takes on another. Sadly, I believe that unless AOL releases their source I don't think they will win this one. MS will just remove AOL from the desktop, place their messenger on, and make it so you have to registry hack in order to remove the thing. By doing that, and keeping greater than 80% of the desktop market they will most likely win.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Oh, for sure, most wars like this end up with MS in the victory circle. Frankly, I'm kind of susprised this is such a big issue. I had assumed (wrongly) that ICQ was the most common IM type software anyhow?
"Old man yells at systemd"
I don't really know what Microsoft's intentions are by publishing the protocols are, I could take a good guess though. But they have made it quite clear what there intentions are regarding the internet and access thereto and they are not in the interest of anyone not using Windows. So I'm afraid I cannot applaud or support anything they do in this area.
You know the wolf is a very beautiful creature, I'm sure it's a doting parent, helps maintain a certain balance to it's environment and works very well in groups. I would suggest though that it would be unwise of you to use one to look over your sheep or protect your family. It would most likely eat the sheep and carry off your children. I'm not saying this make the wolf evil, it's just his nature and is to be expected.
If you intend on writing software that supports the MS Messenger, be careful. Because when the wolf gets hungry he's going to eat.
----
You can always find free cheese in a mousetrap.
man... look who decides to embrase open source chars.heheh can u belive this people? jesus... telling u if gatex didin't have so much market AOL would be moving on, rather with a smile
I looked over the site and it looks like it will be promising. However it doesn't have the penetration that ICQ has, and I'm afraid it isn't going to get it unless it has some method of talking to ICQ networks, perhaps through a big flashy window that screams "INSECURE!!" every type you send a message. :-)
not that serious. It's IM for chrissakes
As it exists now, there is no authentication. Therefore, impersonation is trivial. If for no other reasons than social engineering potential, that's a serious security problem in my book. Yes, you mention adding authentication to ICQ, but the fact remains that that hasn't happened, and based on past experience that's not likely to happen.
I still think, however that the base ICQ protocol is far better than anything brought forward by anyone else.
Are you familiar with Caliban?
---
DNA just wants to be free...
Yes, you are right, having a well documented protocol is just as good as source. An Open Source client can be written from the documentated protocol. Source code just makes it a little easier to reverse engineer the protocol
MS has been calling for AOL to allow just anyone to access AOL's proprietory data. Up to this time, MS refused to take the first step in doing what they were bullying AOL to do. Now that they've opened their protocol, it will be very interesting to see how they take to other services using their data.
The situation with MS and AOL would be akin to me needing a mailing list and just going to a company that sells mailing lists and "helping" myself, calling for all mailing lists to be free and open, while denying access to the mailing lists that I owned.
Congrats to Microsoft for supporting open IM standards. AOL are the jerks here by trying to make internet messaging a proprietary marketAnd where did you get that fine bit of information?
First of all, this is the first time Microsoft so far has shown *any* interest in Open IM Standards. When you want Open Standards, you should be the first to embrace your own words, not a sobbing "You go first, and maybe I'll follow".
Second, from the article mentioned in this very story
That doesn't should like AOL is trying to make internet messaging a proprietary market, now does it?It was also quoted
Again, that has nothing to do with whether AOL will support a standard Instant Messaging protocol, only that they won't allow the theft of not only their resources, but also the information/data that belongs to themIf I have a research company, the fact that there is a standard protocol for publishing findings, does not mean that I *must* publish all my findings. IOW, it is not right for a competitor to demand that I make public all my findings just because they can then use it in their research, instead of "duplicating" work.
The interesting thing will be to watch and see if Microsoft allows AOL IM users to communicate with its messaging service. With all the fuss they've made so far over the whole thing I certainly hope they will do what they've been bullying AOL into doing. But I think we may see some blocking going on with Microsoft too.
-Brenthttp://users.twistedpair.net/bmetzler/aim - Keep up with the Instant Messaging fiasco
I can see it now Msg: "Help! I'm out of toilet paper!!!" That might actually be useful... :)
AOL released their protocol under the assumntion that the more clients the better. AIM is just a marketing tool. They want people to use AIM, talk with others on AOL, and maybe the people they talk ot on AOL will convince them to get an AOL account. Not to mention the money they get frm the ads on their own client. So others making clients would be like free advertising for AOL.
Microsoft comes along and wants to get into the IM game. Why build your own network when you can steal one with a published protocol, 13+ million members, and dont' have to worry about a server? And while we're at it, lets use it to push hotmail, msn, and a slew of other things. AOL not wanting Mircosoft to use their servers to be used to push anything Microsft, changed the server.
To stop the above from happening again, they pulled the docs form the protocol. Maybe AOL should have put a clause in the license to stop companies from using the protocol to make clients to advertise other services other then AOL.
Now, AOL is in a position of "anti-opensource" becasue they pulled their docs. AOL screwed up there. You give Microsoft anything, they will pick it up and beat you with it. Microsoft, knowing from the start that their own sevice would never really catch on, releases their protocol. It's the same thing AOL did. Have others make clients and have free advertising. Someone makes a *nix client(and they will), that's more people that hotmail can be pushed on.
Execpt now, no one can do to them what they did to AOL. From the Terms of Service of MSN:
"The Service is provided to individuals only and for personal use only. You agree to use the Service only to send and receive personal messages. Any unauthorized commercial use of the Service, or the resale of its services, is expressly prohibited."
So, if and when AOL tired to intergrate MSN into AIM, Microsoft will go "tha'ts a comercial use, you can't do it" and then say that AOL did the exact same thing AOL complianed Microsoft did.
Mircosoft played this perectly. They are in a position to really want and need an open standard, at the same time, put AOL in a position where their only real choice is to keep their protocol under lock and key. Microsoft will get a standard, then embrace and extend it. By the time they ge to the embrace and extend part of their master plan, this Microsoft vs. AOL thing will be a distant memory
Microsoft will cheat to win, but they win.
First, build a server base on the protocol, then a whole bunch of clients ... then base on the protocol, we add more features ... then MS has to follow ... do MS have a choice not to follow at that point? No, the most they could do is block the public IM from contacting MSN users, but the user will soon realize that the public domain IMs have more features, much more stable, can communicate everyone else. I think I will start building a server base on that protocol soon ... but first I have to learn how to program ... hehehe
"...it's NOT the source code, just the protocol."
Which, once they gain the needed market share, they will no doubt
"enhance."
Personally file transfer is one reason I don't use ICQ. Albeit I haven't used this in forever but as a network admin, I would hate for people to start recieving files from people across a chat client. I just finished getting it engrained in thier heads not to open email attachments directly from outlook.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Maybe Caliban is better.
Nonetheless...
There are two big players in the IM market, M$ and AOL. They are the de facto standards. Sooner or later you will use an IM client that is "compatible" with theirs (if you use IM at all). Given the reality of the situation, you should applaud the release of any information that allows you to emulate these clients and/or create your own.
There is no competitive open source alternative...and with messaging, like phones or faxes, your protocol is only as good as the number of people using it.
"I thought you said she was dead"
"That's her sister, the wicked witch of the west. She's worse than the other one"
Microsoft never released the protocol for their shared filesystems, but we have samba, and now that I think of it, diamond was uptight about giving out info on the rio, but we got that and a doc on how it was done. bottom line, no one is going to write any software that helps microsoft, and even if they released the source for nt, no one in the community would do anything with it besides talk about how win32 sucks...and don't even try to deny it. If i'm wrong, say it.
"Open Source is the hype!"
ps. "my dick is open source to all"
The Fonze.
Java (push for more standards compliance, then extend when they didn't get their way) -- this is slightly different, I admit
XML (they helped come up with the damn spec for crying out loud, yet they don't fully support the standard in 5 but support extensions)
Those are just a few. I suggest you check out the BMS site for more examples of the open standard bait and switch.
Look, I don't like Microsoft, but I come by that dislike honestly. I was a support tech through college during the emergence of Netscape before Win95 was on the map. I started disliking them when I saw how often things blew up, and how often problems were caused by Windows 3.1 or the OS. Then seeing that even though they had marginal products, no alternative could survive because of their agreements with OEMs? I used to be a big Microsoft backer, pushing my department at school to adopt NT fileservers over Netware, and to use NT web servers. It wasn't some bias of mine that caused me to dislike them. It was my experience (and the experiences of others around me) that caused me to dislike them.
Then there is the issue of many of the investigations that have been done about them. Forged and doctored evidence at trial (oops, that was a mistake), not once but twice(!), various execs testifying to market division meetings (you want me to believe that they're all lying?), reports even today from other companies that they have tying agreements with MSFT. They're all false? or biased? One could argue that everything in The Microsoft File or any of the other books written about Gates and Microsoft are "biased" or "unfair." To me, though, the investigation of President Clinton was biased, politically motivated, and in the end, quite unfair.
Did it make a difference as to whether he actually did have an affair? Like Clinton, Microsoft doesn't claim that any of the reports of their business dealings are untrue... makes me wonder....
The point being that just as it's silly to criticize MSFT out of hand, it's silly to label all criticism, even on /., as Microsoft bashing. I have legitimate issues with the company, which has nurtured serious and considered skepticism of the company and it's pronouncements. This is not Anti-Microsoft myopia! Sujal
politics, food, music, life: FatMixx
If Microsoft were serious they would GPL both the protocol and submit the code as GPL as well. Until that happens, we can consider this just another underhanded, backstabbing attempt to get their own way. Remember: Embrace and extend. Thats the Microsoft way. I wish this company would just vanish off the face of the earth.
http://www.opengroup.org/publ ic/pubs/catalog/c209.htm
This is awesome! Now VB developers can quickly and easily work work instant messaging stuff. It can be used on the server-side of web servers, it can be used in stand alone apps, or in lots of places. Very useful for people who have lives (like myslef). I'm very excited.
I concurr. So long as the protocol is out there, and someone can release a double duty instant messenger, I'm all for it.
/. support? ;)
But it's ironic, eh? I see a bunch of people decidedly anti-MS, pro-AOL on this issue. 3 years aho, who woulda thought AOL'd be recieving
"Old man yells at systemd"
There's definately too much mud-slinging here based only on the fact that Microsoft "is not Linux".
Microsoft's move was good because _everyone_ knows that source code is just an implementation of a data stucture. Knowing the protocol is just as good.
Congrats to Microsoft for supporting open IM standards. AOL are the jerks here by trying to make internet messaging a proprietary market.