Gaim Speaks Out on MSN Ban 713
joejg writes "As FootNotes is reporting, the developers at Gaim have responded to the ban Microsoft is placing upon users of third-party clients accessing the MSN protocol. It appears that starting October 15th I will not be able to talk to my MSN friend in South Korea." Gaim's site is more optimistic, saying they may still be able to connect, only without a license to do so.
Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
MS, obviously, incurs a cost for maintaining this network/service. They have also been at the forefront of any legal liability for activity on the service. The chat rooms may be virtual, but the computers and bandwidth they use are quite real. They are now seeking to fix these two problems by:
1. Limiting who can connect and how
2. Probably charging a fee for third party clients
If you think this is a bad thing for MS to be doing then let me ask you this:
Do you allow just anyone to walk in to your home unannounced, without permission and do whatever they want? Why should MS (or the cable or telephone company) be any different? Private property is private property.
If the government thinks the property would be better used in the public interest, they can condemn the property and pay a fair and reasonable price for it as compensation.
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Private property (Score:4, Interesting)
So, if advertising is the reason for blocking access for clients that filter out spam, IMHO Microsoft can scream about being anti-spam themselves as much as they want, they are still pro-spam and spammers.
Re:Private property (Score:5, Interesting)
My preference is to simply stop using the software when they cut me off.
Re:Private property (Score:5, Informative)
'It just works' springs to mind
Re:Private property (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise you change maybe a couple of lines of source, which any 1st year college student, or anyone who actually likes coding can do. --> Not that well built crypto is hard to find mind you, it's that it's hard to integrate into this kind of thing by anyone who cares about the technical specifications
Re:Private property (Score:3, Interesting)
More than likely the day will come when MS adds some custom feature that will require some ActiveX on the PC and some custom version browser on the Mac. Then you can use only their MSN browser (basically their next generation browser for the Mac - but it only runs if you subscribe to MSN)
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why people are all pissy about this. Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
People are pissy, because MS bitched and bitched for AOL to open thier IM service, and preached about an open IM standard. Now, MS is closing off their service (so it appears...).
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, as of version 4.7 of the client, MSN Messenger supports SIP [sipforum.org], which is an open standard for point-to-point communication that has widespread support in the telco industry, for example it's used in IP phones. Jabber is a nice idea, but let's be honest, it doesn't have the industry support that SIP does.
This is nothing to do with protocols and standards, it's to do with who uses a service that Microsoft pays for. Would you allow anyone to walk in off the street and make calls on your phone?
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean who really cares... MS IM in my opinion isnt even that great of a service, let them go
Well as far as being a user of the MSN IM service, I'm not. And in that respect, I *DON'T* care. The only part that ticks me off is that it's MS at their old practices again. Like I said in the previous post: MS wanted AOL to open their service and "standardize". Now, MS is closing their end. Hypocrisy at it's finest!
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds stupid when you phrase it that way, but thats one of the things at the heart of the FCCs decision to force AOL to allow third party clients on it's network.
Now, I don't know if you're naive or a an MS shill - but, in the past, whenever MS has talked about things like encouraging third party clients or open connectivity, they're talking about licensed partners, not OSS projects. Even when the docs are available for free, you often have to agree to an NDA that precludes an open source implementation. So it's possible that I'm making wrong assumptions, but based on past behavior I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in MS playing nice with open source developers.
Of course, this arguably has issues for the monopoly settlement, too - Messenger is (supposedly) integral to the OS now. You can't remove it unless you're willing to spend time fighting the OS.
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that MSN sucks, but not all of my friends are computer saavy linux users running GAIM. Most of my friends are just console gamers that only use computers to keep in contact with eachother. Because MSN comes with Windows, that's what they use. Is this how it should be? No. Is this how it is? Yes.
And before you go telling me about how I should try to convert everyone to the better way again, I tried that already for two bloody years and ended up just becoming anti social because I only converted 1 out of every 4 people. So go with the IM medium flow and have friends or be an elitist fuck and don't have friends. Your choice.
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
weird (Score:5, Interesting)
Really I was under the impression that nobody used MSN/Yahoo/Jabber/whatever. But I suppose this might vary regionally.
Re:weird (Score:5, Interesting)
The strange thing is that I've been an ICQ user since 1996 or so, and despite conversing with a large number of American users, I hadn't really heard of AIM until a few years ago, and had not met anyone who used it until earlier this year.
Re:weird (Score:3)
AOL actually owns ICQ. Maybe it wasn't so much a lack of marketing as it was just focusing on ICQ. And if I'm not mistaken, they've been working for a while on getting AIM and ICQ to interoperate.
Re:weird (Score:5, Funny)
Their first what? Their first born?
Re:weird (Score:3, Interesting)
By the end of the second or third day, every computer in that room had
Re:weird (Score:5, Interesting)
It's fairly easy to explain this phenomenon. IM networks are just that - networks, and as such they suffer from severe network effects. I hate MSN. It's a pile of dung. Its network is basic, sometimes unreliable, the official client blows chunks, and worst of all it seems to take about 5 minutes to realise you are no longer connected if your dialup drops so friends keep talking to you, then 10 minutes later get a "That message could not be delivered" warning.
Nonetheless, I use it (via Gaim) anyway, because it's either that or don't talk to my friends via IM. My friends are (mostly) local, as are their friends and so on, so it spreads out.
Instant messaging has been such a total mess, for such a long time, that I think this should serve as as a valuable lesson to those who would create new networks on the internet. Back in the days when it was just engineers, things like the web, email, USENET, IRC and so on were born. They became essentially public networks, controlled by nobody. Then the corporates got involved. IM was invented at the wrong time, and it's been a battleground ever since.
If we are not very careful, exactly the same thing will happen again in future. I'm thinking of digital identity here, but luckily so far both corporate attempts at this space have failed - BUT there are no indy hackers working on it! (i wish i still had time for it).
I write this here because statistically if somebody is going to invent a new network, they might well be reading Slashdot. Let's learn our lesson now, or see ourselves shut out of future networks - from our friends, services, business partners - simply because we use the "wrong" product.
Re:Private property (Score:3, Funny)
http://eric.halo43.com/ranting.php?id=25 [halo43.com]
Exactly how is this attitude any different?
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always doubted that.
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Private property (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Private property (Score:3, Insightful)
[for the record, i use GAIM and AIM exclusively]
Gotta love nyc metro area -- everyone uses aol.
Re:Private property (Score:5, Informative)
Straight Quote from the Article (Score:5, Informative)
They're moving MSN Messenger exclusively to a new protocol and requiring a license for everyone else . So no, it's not just a matter of being on the newer protocol, it's a matter of dealing with a license written by MS lawyers. *added by me to clarify the quote
Re:Straight Quote from the Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Straight Quote from the Article (Score:4, Insightful)
Can somebody point me to somewhere where a MS representative has said that a license will be required. The articles I read said that MS will assist 3rd parties to interoperate with the new protocol if there is a contractual arrangement (read NDA), but didn't mention anything about requiring a license just to use the network.
But then, I've been unable to find any MS press releases, only a couple of articles based on them.
Re:Private property (Score:5, Informative)
(notice there's no mention of money...they just want to make their IM system better and more reliable by talking to people who develop software for it...smart idea!)
Sean Sundwall of Microsoft:
"It is our expectation that those who use our service with unlicensed or unauthorized third-party clients will likely not be able to log on after October 15," Microsoft spokesperson Sean Sundwall told BetaNews. "We would encourage those third parties to contact us to work out agreements by which they can continue to have their customers access our network."
"We recognized over time that the interconnection between IM providers must be established formally," said Sundwall. "All we're asking is that those third parties work with us more closely."
Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait...
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that:
The company I work for has adopted MSN instant messanger as our "offical client". We have a heterogenous network.
Why you ask? Because its tighly integrated into Excahnge.
What I have a problem with is Microsoft using the bait and switch game they are so famous for. They tighly bundle their products into things you NEED, allow you to become acclimated and then pull the rug out when they know you can't back out.
We've been through this before... I just WISH the government would wake up!
bad examples (Score:5, Insightful)
The house analogy is flawed. The MSN clients that are being denied access to are NOT hosted at MS, nor is there a central server at MS managing them. This is pure P2P.
Telephone and cable companies, OTOH, are very relevant examples. Not very good ones for the point that you are trying to make. The telephone companies are specifically REQUIRED to allow people who are not thier customers to connect to people that are, as well as lease out thier spare capacity. The cable companies are specifically required to share thier capacity.
Re:bad examples (Score:5, Insightful)
Slight nitpick: it isn't completely P2P. It is similar to the original Napster to find out who is online.
MS incurs no cost to "maintain this network/service". The only costs they incur are in the maintenance and improvement of thier client. Just like MS Office.
Mostly agreed. The bandwidth/CPU utilization for managing who is online and who has access to what isn't that intense, but it is there. If it were 100% P2P, than I would agree 100%.
I think it's Microsofts decision, really. It is their protocol, and if they want to only allow a proprietary protocol it's their decision. It doesn't mean I agree with it, nor do I think it is "right". Right in the sense that I would do it, if I were involved, that is.
Re:bad examples (Score:3, Informative)
File Transfers, however, are (AFAIK) a
Re:bad examples (Score:5, Insightful)
This is NOT P2P...see that list of Buddies in your little messenger window? Where do you think the state of those things are located? Where do you think your logon info goes? Why do you think they have a server status page? http://messenger.msn.com/Status.aspx?product=wm
Let me provide an answer - to a server (or servers) provided by Microsoft. Who wrote the software to run that? Microsoft (or perhaps they bought it from someone else - or more likely bought that someone else).
A piece of software can not be compared to the massive infrastructure that the phone companies are regulated to share. You are talking about something that the average Slashdotter could whip up in an afternoon (perhaps a week including beta testing) vs the millions of dollars and man years of work required to lay copper/fibre across the entire country. Quite Relevant.
Re:bad examples (Score:3, Insightful)
The house analogy is flawed.
Like pretty much every other analogy I have ever heard.
The telephone companies are specifically REQUIRED to allow people who are not thier customers to connect to people that are, as well as lease out thier spare capacity.
Why? Because telephone wires are mostly located on public land. Telephone companies are typically government-sponsored monopolies, and they are not allowed to leverage this status to their advantage.
-a
MS co-opted an idea added nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
MS stole an idea from ICQ (bought by AOL later) and tried to muscle in on something that would have functioned perfectly without them.
What did they add that we didn't have from ICQ/ AOL?
Now they think ther are big enough to go it alone using it's Windows monopoly to "Reduce choice"
It's like the phone companies after the break-up of Bell suddenly decided not to allow other carries on their turf. Back to the good old day where you had multiple phones in the house depending on carrier. It did
Re:MS co-opted an idea added nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
You should ask "What did they remove from ICQ" instead; ICQ as an IM service is pretty nice actually. ICQ as a program is beyond horrible as more then half it's features have got absolutely NOTHING to do with messeging people. Even ICQ "lite". The interface was cluttered and a bitch to use, compared to the MSN interface which is more or less clean, easy to use and doesn't contain allot of needless crap, even though MSN stability was horrid at first;
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a case of someone "walking into your home unannounced". This is like someone leaving the door to their house wide-open with a sign saying "Come on in, but only if you're wearing a purple hat".
Regardless, its Microsoft's right to try to limit people to use its own client (its their legal right anyways, that doesn't make it right). It's also my right to create my own client that emulates the MSN client and tricks their servers into thinking it is one. As far as I know, there is no law anywhere that gives them the right to restrict my access to their system based on what client I'm using. If Microsoft wants to do that (and apparently they do) they'll have to try to do it via technical measures -- which are likely to be circumvented eventually anyways.
You can make a case for Microsoft's actions to be legal -- I doubt they could be considered "anti-competetive" (despite the fact that it does completely exclude linux users). But you really cannot make a good case for them to be "reasonable" which seems to me what you're trying to do. .
Re:Private property (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite easily, actually. If I open a PHP message board on my website, I can open it to the public. Anyone can come in, register a nickname and post. However, if I decide that I don't want someone using my message board, I can delete their account, ban their IP, etc. That person has no legal recourse because they have no inherent right to use my service, regardless of whether or not I open it up to everyone else on the planet. Thus, my message board is both public in the sense that it's free and usable by anyone with a compatible web browser, and it's private because I retain the right to keep out those I don't want to have access.
It's exactly the same for B&M business establishments which can be both public in that they don't automatically bar access to people but private because they can "86" individuals as they see fit.
Re:Private property (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private property (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft built a private system for communication, they allowed/tolerated anyone connecting to the network with any compatible client up to this point.
There is a difference between what the KKK and the Boy Scouts of America can do behind closed doors and who Denny's is allowed to deny service too. Both operate on private property, but Denny's is a place of "public accommodation" while the others are members only hate groups. Their "christian values" define them, and anyone they believe is an anathema to those values obviously can't join.
In general the more open you are the less power you have to descriminate unfairly. I don't know if MS crosses the line here? But it still sucks even if it doesn't compare to say the US telephone system back when you had to rent your phone from General Electric. Imagine if that were the case today and they interrupted your telephone call every 15 seconds with a 5 second advertisement for the shows on their TV network.
Illegal? Probably not.
But would it suck? Hell yea!
On the internet this is worse because the whole basis of the inter-net was that by speaking common protocols the whole network would be richer than the parts, remember MCIMail, ATTMail, Bitnet, CompuServe, Delphi, Fidonet (woo hoo!
PS Just saying Private Property is not some magical phrase that makes all things all-right. If some miscreant shoots you in the head, you ain't gonna be saying, "Oh, it's ok, don't worry! That bullet is bought and paid for!" As a society we're allowed to say, "well it sucks anyway, we're gonna do something about that guy wasting perfectly good bullets!" PP does make some things all right; if you either shoot yourself in the foot or take reckless doses of cocaine and your IQ is above 60, I think you have every right too do it. You can even burn down your house when the morgage is paid for if it's done with due regard for the safety of others. In general, I also think the government way underpays when condemning property, just the fact they don't compensate renters whose leases are broken has ended many a business and even some families, but worse makes economically idiotic projects look good on paper. But, I'm not even sure it's right to think of MS-IM as "property", it's a protocol, and while they can charge the users for using their servers to connect I don't think they should be allowed to dictate your client. That's akin to saying, "'Lolita' must be read by 25 Watt GE lightbulbs." Always bad, and something we worry about when such a large player in the market says it.)
Not worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not worried (Score:3, Insightful)
But I think the questions is more will they? not can they? Because if Microsoft really wants to stop them from connecting, they have a lot more weapons than just encrypted protocols.
Re:Not worried (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not worried (Score:3, Insightful)
Bait and switch? (Score:4, Insightful)
Login tricks (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, another method is to just use PKI, but then extracting the key out of the MSN client for use in login may not be seen as a breach of copyright/other rights/DMCA crap etc.
Re:Login tricks (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, yes it does. The, DMCA as idiotic as it may be, is the existing copyright law in the USA. You can't even appeal it on TRIPS grounds since the treaty specifically allows the fair-use rights granted by the United States of America. Still this would only allow you to make unlimited copies of an executable t
If the spammers took to spamming MSN... (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words.. (Score:5, Funny)
Yet another reason... (Score:5, Insightful)
The realm of those who "can" (ie: people that are able to leave their current instant messenger for something like Jabber) has gone from very slim to very wide, thanks to Gaim - Gaim is a hell of an IM client, and it provides a great bridge from the current proprietary world of IM, to the way it ought to be - decentralized, and based on open standards, just like email is now. Imagine if email wasn't a universal, open standard, like it is now [insert stupid spam joke here] - imagine what an open IM standard could do for IM's usefulness...
Can't communicate? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about:
Lots of people run multiple message systems. Setting up an extra account to bypass those petty limitations really isn't THAT hard. I know it would be nice if more people opted for an open standard like Jabber, but unless South Korea has some kind of weird nationwide ban on using anything besides MSN, I don't see what the big deal is.
Re:Can't communicate? (Score:5, Informative)
1) It handles unicode perfectly, required to write Korean text.
2) you can login anywhere any get your contact list, with nothing stored locally. Perfect for the amazingly popular "PC Room" phenomenon.
Re:Can't communicate? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, GAIM is intended as a one-stop program for instant messaging networks. You can set it up with all your IM accounts and check in just that one place for any attempts to contact you. EveryBuddy [everybuddy.com] is another such program.
I use BitlBee [lintux.cx], which also does multiple instant messaging protocols, but it presents itself as an IRC server, so I can connect to it with my IRC client and have instant messaging sitting right next to the IRC channels I normally follow. (It also lets me live in text mode. I couldn't find any multiprotocol character-mode IM clients that I really liked, but I do like my IRC client.)
--Phil (Some people call me ASCII Phil...)
Could this be related to Federal Snoops? (Score:5, Interesting)
I read on bugtraq that one of the anonymous sites had to change the client after federal pressure to provide a back door.
Could this be related? Could M$FT be making some changes for "Patriot Act" related requests that makes 3rd party clients incompatable?
Or am I just getting really paranoid =)
Re:Could this be related to Federal Snoops? (Score:4, Informative)
story at the Register here [theregister.co.uk]
Was to stop pedos looking at kiddie porn. Unless your paranoia stems from MSNing dirty pics then no worries.Court order in German (Score:4, Informative)
The Issue at Hand... (Score:5, Interesting)
What we really need is some sort of Jabber based universal chat system for example. (Or, without trying to start a holy war, maybe we can avoid excessive markup and not use XML).
I use Fire on OS X, and I can interface with both Jabber and AIM. Often I'll set my away message on AIM to: "Download Trillion or Fire to talk to me on the superior Jabber network."
Or... I know! How about a nix `talk` revival!
Give it a go.
Misquote - From gaim's MSN author (Score:5, Informative)
As stated on the site, it may be possible for people to find a way to connect without a license in the future, but if this is something that will cause us legal problems, we will NOT do it. We will, however, look into other options, such as acquiring a license from Microsoft, depending on the requirements for a license.
If we cannot use it legally, we will likely drop support.
Thank you.
Re:Misquote - From gaim's MSN author (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Misquote - From gaim's MSN author (Score:5, Insightful)
MSN owns the network you have to connect to in order to talk to MSN users. Every user on MSN has to connect to a notification server, all conversations take place over one of MSN's switchboards. A third party client then is using MSN network resources without license to do so. Reverse engineering a protocol is not the same as using a network without permission.
And then... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know, most everyone here has to see that as a realistic possibility.
Hypocrisy? (Score:4, Informative)
If I remember properly, AOL tryed compulsively to block Microsoft users from chatting with AIM users, and Microsoft would release an "fix" so to work around AOL's barrier. That is until Microsoft gave up their bid for compatibiliy for "technical reasons".
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-228983.html?legac
http://news.com.com/2100-1040-232886.html?legac
I wonder if Microsoft was guilty of the DMCA for all their "fixes"?
Motivations are obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Somebody pinch me, I must be dreaming!
Don't they have something better to do? (Score:4, Informative)
Here, let's look through a quick timeline:
1994: People laugh at the GoodTimes virus [wikipedia.org], because everyone knows viruses can't spread through email!
1995: Word macro viruses first created, and now viruses are easier to write than ever before. Meanwhile, Microsoft has plenty of time to figure out how to prevent them, especially since their users hardly ever use macros in the first place, and especially not to, say, destroy the Windows registry or something.
1996: Macro viruses spread to the extent that Microsoft distributes them [niu.edu] as well--unwittingly, we hope.
1997: Word '97 released; the dawn of VBA viruses.
1998: With over 1,000 word macro viruses [llnl.gov] out there, it's worth making virus scanners for them!
1999: Melissa [microsoft.com] word macro virus spreads over email and infects Word thanks to Microsoft; as they mention, if you don't use Outlook, you're safe. If you do use Outlook, you might get infected without ever looking at the attachment yourself; previewing it may be enough.
2000: The love bug virus spreads over email thanks to Microsoft Outlook, and causes an estimated $8.7 billion in damage.
2001: Code Red spreads, attacking Windows NT and 2K. Sircam emails itself absolutely everywhere, again thanks to Microsoft.
2002: Klez and Nimda spread.
2003: You guessed it, even still yet more viruses spreading faster than ever, thanks to Windows, Outlook, Word, blah, blah, blah.
So what has Microsoft done? Well maybe by securing their MSN network that'll stop e-mail viruses from... ahh, nevermind, they don't give a fuck about their customers. Otherwise, they could have stopped most of this back in 1996 at the latest. And remember, security is top priority over there now. Ha.
I'm just glad that I don't pay to get infected, like so many of their other customers. Instead, I just have to deal with the spam and network traffic that they're responsible for. But at least the files on my Linux desktop are safe!
2 odd sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly i have to say that MSN messenger is a great tool. The new additions it has added make total sense,
video conferencing, audio conversation, games.... to me these are totally great things to implement and make a whole lot of sense.
Hey wait a second... video, audio, games,, all through MSN? Is there some sort of trend here? Do MS have plans to continue pushing content onto MSN exclusive setup? If they do to me this is really really dangerous, think about the critical mass they will be able to pull in no time at all. MSN will continue to ship with windblows, no doubt about that.
Perhaps I am subscribing to a conspiracy theory here, but to me it makes sense. MS has pulled stuff like this in the past and will continue to pull stuff like this in the future. Unless they keep dominating, shareholders get angry.
To me the only way this will go away would be to make a better, open alternative, at the moment there isn't.
MSN messenger sucks! (Score:3, Insightful)
Reason to switch (Score:5, Insightful)
The friends I use IMs to communicate with mostly use AIM or Yahoo. I think I only have 2 friends that use Microsoft's messenger, so I really don't care that much since it will impact me little. However, I still think Microsoft doing this is like Panasonic creating a phone that only accepts calls from other Panasonic phones. It's completely stupid.
Re:Reason to switch (Score:3, Insightful)
Except Panasonic don't own the network they operate on. They had to (gasp) get a license to make their handsets (and the code therein) compatable with the network service they wished to use.
Goblin
Re:Reason to switch (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it would be like installing a CDMA network when everyone else uses GSM.
Just a continued pattern of abuse... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Whereas previously, Microsoft has let third party clients connect, they now require a license for doing so."
Do you really think that they care about the small revenue that they might bring in from such licenses? Of course not! But they know that such license will lock out any products made that support operating systems that compete with Windows. In particular it locks out open source products that support Linux; their greatest fear. It's just a small measure to help protect their OS monopoly. A lot of small measures could add up to big frustrations to Linux users.
They're just pulling out all the stops knowing full well that the current legal system under our current administration is too spineless to bitch slap them like they deserve.
The instant messanger that works! (Score:4, Funny)
Been having a blast with this one..
Friends (Score:3, Insightful)
Serverless IM? (Score:4, Interesting)
MSN Messenger under Wine? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) If using MS' service without using the official client is 'freeloading', I still think that it's in MS' interest that we freeload off them, and not one of their competitors. I use GAIM pretty much exclusively, but most if not all of the people on my buddy list use Messenger under Windows. I add a small amount of value to their experience of the service :-), and this makes them marginally more likely to use it (and hence see the ads etc.) whenever they want to talk to me.
2) I suppose an alternative for those who just want to connect would be to try to run Messenger under Wine. I gave it a cursory try, it didn't work straight away and I moved on to something more pressing, but has anyone else tried this with more success?
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever... there are alternatives. (Score:4, Interesting)
Too Much Control (Score:3, Insightful)
MSN seems to have far too much control over your friend. I would have thought that your friend could have used AIM, Yahoo Messenger, IRC, email, amateur radio or any number of other things to communicate with you.
Let this serve as a warning to us then. If MSN has that much control of people in Korea then you know that they would like to have the same kind of control of us here.
Shouldn't be a problem... (Score:3, Funny)
I can totally relate to this situation. I know many people with Windows and Office, but without licenses to have them.
Centralized Messaging Sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with MSN, AIM, Y!IM and so forth is that they are centralised. One entity both controls and pays for the hub of the service without which the service will not function. Obviously they must somehow recoup costs, which they usually do via advertising in the official client.
What we need is a decentralised IM system. We techically already have one in the form of Jabber, but noone uses it for reasons I can't be sure of. I suspect the major problem is the high barrier of entry: you must either use the jabber.com/jabber.org servers (centralisation, again) or install your own Jabber server, which is where things get tricky.
In order to run your own Jabber server, you must have a box somewhere preferably with an always-on connection and static IP. This box must be Internet-accessible, at least on the ports Jabber uses.
Had Jabber been invented around the same time as email and news, ISPs would no doubt run Jabber servers on behalf of their customers as they do with USENET news servers and SMTP servers. Unfortunately, it's now far too late in the game for this to happen. Convincing one ISP to do this would be nearly impossible, so convincing the majority to do it will never happen.
As with most new things on the Internet today, it seems like peer-to-peer is the only answer. The clients must also be the servers, and it should be no harder than simply running the program. Designing an efficient peer-to-peer system for instant messaging which works behind NAT gateways sounds tricky, but not impossible. Is anyone working on this already?
Someone needs to build a distributed IM that works (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing about the crackdown on distributed systems (napster for example), is its exposure of how these large companies are evolving to gain/maintain control over what we have access to, and how we access it. The more their grasp slips, the more harsh thier attempts to force people to stay.
Microsoft, for one, has made no bones about wanting to manufacture the entertainment and information equipment, control access to entertainment, information and games, and become ubiquitous in every household.
They will succeed if they can force people to buy their systems by breaking interoperability with the free systems out there. This is just a variation on what they have been doing with their software for years.
Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Free - NO, Insightful - NO NO NO (Score:5, Informative)
Modding that one up shows a major failure of the moderation system.
FREE??? Hardly! Microsoft is forcing people to upgrade, (the old version will stop working), and those fools who do will really get screwed by the new EULA - From this article [theinquirer.net] "By clicking on the new agreement, users promise to pay for future upgrades and to acquire future chargeable upgrades whether they're wanted or unwanted." You agree to pay for upgrades, and the upgrade price isn't even stated (or limited!)
Free now, but by clicking you agree to pay whatever they demand later!
Re:Free - NO, Insightful - NO NO NO (Score:4, Funny)
-2 points, combining bold and italics.
-2 points, high strung
Total: -5 points, LUG member living in Mom's basement.
Re:Free (Score:3, Insightful)
true, it is given away for free. on the other hand, internet explorer was "given away for free" (bundled with windows) a while ago, too. and the department of justice definitely did not allow them to "do whatever they want with it." they have a monopoly on operating systems. including a proprietary instant messaging client that uses a closed standard can be seen as an abuse of their monopoly in
Re:I missed the part (Score:5, Informative)
We will be contacting them for a license. Did you actually read what we posted?
"They still encourage clients to connect to their network, so with any luck, we can work something out."
Don't comment on how we're doing things wrongly until you find out what we're doing.
Re:I missed the part (Score:5, Informative)
I have said all along that it's Microsoft's servers, and they can do what they wish. However, they are making a point to tell people that they are willing to work with all third party clients to connect. They just want to formalize an agreement between MSN and the clients. This may not be a bad thing at all, depending. It may also be a really bad thing. We just don't know yet, and we have th same information everybody else does.
As usual, the majority of the users on Slashdot decided to react before researching. Guys, if you don't have MSN support down the road, then it's gone. People can switch clients. It's really not a big deal, especially with clients like Gaim, Trillian, and Fire available. Leave the worrying and stuff to us. We will be doing all we can to keep MSN support in, but really, it's just a protocol. One I happen to really like, but it's just a protocol. Don't yell at Microsoft for this. They have every right to make this decision, and it may not even be a bad one.
Not at all.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck GAIM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck GAIM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fuck GAIM (Score:3, Insightful)
People who use the "typical" and "open source not beating the crap out of MS" excuse:
1) Have no social skills. Do you really think anybody will listen to you if you actively insult them? Sorry but you need to learn some social skills.
2) Are ignorant to reality. MacOS X isn't beating the crap out of MS ei
Re:Fuck GAIM (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fuck GAIM (Score:3, Interesting)
They send you a string.
You add it together - $email + $password+ $string
You MD5 that string.
You send that MD5 hash to Microsoft.
Microsoft hash the same way at their end and if they match, you're authenticated.
Simple, really. Just a little laborious. Newer MSN protocols use stuff like RSA keys. Never, EVER sends plaintext passwords, and ALWAYS challenges as far as I know.
ICQ and AOLIM do the same thing.
So as long as you don't go sendi
Re:Abuse of Power (Score:4, Informative)
They have the right to determine who logs into their network, regardless of what software they use.
They're exercising that right.
nutter.
Re:Abuse of Power (Score:5, Interesting)
It's possible they don't...
I haven't actually seen anyone mention this yet, so, why not :-)
MSN Messenger is one of the pieces of 'bundled middleware' that is continuing to cause Microsoft legal troubles under antitrust laws... the last I heard things were moving forward in Europe to do something about it.
If there is ever going to be an antitrust ruling about messenger, I'm pretty sure this will make the ruling harder on Microsoft... maybe they'll have to give $200 million worth of software to schools instead of $150 million :-/
(I personally dislike messenger. Virtually everyone I know uses it simply because it came with Windows. This is the sort of thing antitrust laws are supposed to protect against...)