Microsoft has been working on this for over 2 years (it's been put off my conflicting re-orgs and political disputes, from what I've heard... ironic for such a simple program). The point: when they first started thinking about it, it was probably a somewhat new idea. Anyway, it should also be pointed out that Messenger has its own protocal, I believe, but happens to use AOLs for compatibility. What's wrong with that? This wasn't a cheap rip off trying to get out of writing original code. I think Microsoft is actually making an effort towards more open standards. Why? Not because they don't like the idea of proprietary code, but they realize that the consumer and developer market are demanding it. I find it funny that we bitch about Microsoft for the last 10 years, and when they start changing we close our eyes to it. It's typical of people, though. Sort of like the US justice system: it's not about rehibilitation, but revenge. We don't want Microsoft to change, we want them to suffer.
As a note, I installed Microsoft's IM toy and really liked it. It's relateively light, quick, has a nice simple interface. Coming from a company that is constantly criticized for creating bloatware (feature and size, and fairly so!), I think this is a pleasant response to ICQ. No, it's not original... PAL and AIM are fairly similar, but it does improve where AOL and Excite have been stuborn too. And, realistically, we whine that Microsoft is ripping off ideas, but it's no different than what our beloved Yahoo's been doing for the last year (including a very similar product to this, actually). Personally, my only beef with Microsoft's messenger client is the fact that it REQUIRES a hotmail account. When I saw that connected wtih the AIM servers, I was quite happy... I thought that was a big win for Microsoft (to be clear, I have my problems with MS, but I am certainly no friend of AOL.). From the consumer / user perspective, what I want is one nice light client that connects to ICQ, AOL, Microsoft, etc. I know this doesn't necessarilly make business sense for proprietary monopolies, but if they want to call for standards, personally I can put aside the motive so long as it meets my needs and desires as a consumer.
From my understanding, SMS only works on workstations of an NT/LM domain, and requires a domain login. When a user is a member of a domain, they are giving up certain "Rights" or "freedom" for the sake of central administration and access to shared resources. Typically, this is backed up by a corporate contract which states that anything on an employees machine is owned by the employer. That said, despite the fact that SMS is indeed a Big Brother tool, it is up front as such and it's security threshold limited to the scope of the domain and backed up by the user's decision to log into the domain.
SMS = Systems Management Server. It's Microsoft's "Big Brother" Software. Pretty cool - if you are a netadmin and don't mind running a 16 bit app in realmode across your workstations.
I don't think this is meant as C2 security; I wouldn't expect to see these systems popping up in the pentagon any time soon! Ultimately, if people REALLY want to know what's going on, they'll find a way... and if you don't want them to, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than a cheap monitor trick. The point of this, however, is not security but privacy. It's like having a door on a stall in a public bathroom;-) In a corporate work environment, this might be a nice plus for someone who doesn't like people constantly looking over their shoulders. Sure, someone could, but it would likely be more noticable (especially if they were wearing sunglasses inside of cubicle-land).
And ultimately, the market will decide. If the yuppies buy them, great, good idea. No, that's does't make it a neat science, but it makes it a viable business.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has been working on this for over 2 years (it's been put off my conflicting re-orgs and political disputes, from what I've heard... ironic for such a simple program). The point: when they first started thinking about it, it was probably a somewhat new idea. Anyway, it should also be pointed out that Messenger has its own protocal, I believe, but happens to use AOLs for compatibility. What's wrong with that? This wasn't a cheap rip off trying to get out of writing original code. I think Microsoft is actually making an effort towards more open standards. Why? Not because they don't like the idea of proprietary code, but they realize that the consumer and developer market are demanding it. I find it funny that we bitch about Microsoft for the last 10 years, and when they start changing we close our eyes to it. It's typical of people, though. Sort of like the US justice system: it's not about rehibilitation, but revenge. We don't want Microsoft to change, we want them to suffer.
BTW: just checked the size: 562k memory imprint. Not bad, for Microsoft, and certainly competitive with the alternatives.
As a note, I installed Microsoft's IM toy and really liked it. It's relateively light, quick, has a nice simple interface. Coming from a company that is constantly criticized for creating bloatware (feature and size, and fairly so!), I think this is a pleasant response to ICQ. No, it's not original... PAL and AIM are fairly similar, but it does improve where AOL and Excite have been stuborn too. And, realistically, we whine that Microsoft is ripping off ideas, but it's no different than what our beloved Yahoo's been doing for the last year (including a very similar product to this, actually). Personally, my only beef with Microsoft's messenger client is the fact that it REQUIRES a hotmail account. When I saw that connected wtih the AIM servers, I was quite happy... I thought that was a big win for Microsoft (to be clear, I have my problems with MS, but I am certainly no friend of AOL.). From the consumer / user perspective, what I want is one nice light client that connects to ICQ, AOL, Microsoft, etc. I know this doesn't necessarilly make business sense for proprietary monopolies, but if they want to call for standards, personally I can put aside the motive so long as it meets my needs and desires as a consumer.
Very good points
From my understanding, SMS only works on workstations of an NT/LM domain, and requires a domain login. When a user is a member of a domain, they are giving up certain "Rights" or "freedom" for the sake of central administration and access to shared resources. Typically, this is backed up by a corporate contract which states that anything on an employees machine is owned by the employer. That said, despite the fact that SMS is indeed a Big Brother tool, it is up front as such and it's security threshold limited to the scope of the domain and backed up by the user's decision to log into the domain.
SMS = Systems Management Server. It's Microsoft's "Big Brother" Software. Pretty cool - if you are a netadmin and don't mind running a 16 bit app in realmode across your workstations.
I don't think this is meant as C2 security; I wouldn't expect to see these systems popping up in the pentagon any time soon! Ultimately, if people REALLY want to know what's going on, they'll find a way... and if you don't want them to, you're going to have to do a hell of a lot more than a cheap monitor trick. The point of this, however, is not security but privacy. It's like having a door on a stall in a public bathroom ;-) In a corporate work environment, this might be a nice plus for someone who doesn't like people constantly looking over their shoulders. Sure, someone could, but it would likely be more noticable (especially if they were wearing sunglasses inside of cubicle-land).
And ultimately, the market will decide. If the yuppies buy them, great, good idea. No, that's does't make it a neat science, but it makes it a viable business.
"Don't feed the animals".