Unified Instant Messaging Clients? 272
Hynman writes "It's getting silly - I have 4 different types of messaging accounts: ICQ, AOL IM, MS Messenger, Hotmail and regular email clients all run on my computer at the same time, and they all have overlapping capabilities. Is there any effort out there to produce a unified messaging client, that supports all types of accounts, and will respond through the correct medium (i.e. the medium that the message is delivered in). Just plug in the account information for each medium, and it performs messaging functions of all services frome one program and one interface." This is why standards for instant messengers should be created. Something like this would be extremely useful. Comments?
Everybuddy! (Score:2)
Everybuddy... (Score:5)
The Silliest Part About It... (Score:3)
I undesrstand if AOL wants to block out MS clients from its service (although i think it's a pretty stupid move...), but why shouldn't they allow their _own_ costumers to use all of their features? This is just plain odd to me, if the purpose is to have a large DB of users as possible, why seperate it into two??
I strongly urge all companies and public interest groups to act in order to enforce a single, safe(!!) and working protocol...
Re:email and biff (Score:1)
2. It's nice to see which of your friends are online at a glance (i.e. without having to finger them all, which wouldn't work so well anyway)
3. It's fantastic for file transfers - about the fastest way, in terms of user work
4. Email is a pain for having a realtime conversation on, and the talk command is clunky - you have to open up a new terminal for each person you're talking to, and keep it open during the breaks in conversation, and keep looking to see if they've responded yet
Re:email and biff (Score:2)
If you really need details, check out a good physiology textbook.
Instant messaging mail (Score:3)
The beauty of this is that you don't have to write yet another messaging client, even a grand unified one. You just need one wrapper for each protocol, to convert it to and from mail. There wouldn't be any noticeable speed loss, since the mail is being sent locally and outgoing messages are converted into ICQ (or whatever).
(Although I've never seen the point of instant messaging anyway, email seems easily instant enough to me.)
Microsoft backs down from AOL (Score:1)
"Microsoft has pulled out of the fight claiming that to continue to squabble over standards would constitute an unacceptable security risk"..."[about Microsoft's MSN Messenger] AOL quickly cried foul claiming that Microsoft was hacking into its servers without authority and blocked access"..."[MSN messenger] now makes not attempt to access AOL Instant Messenging accounts"..."Microsoft claims to have 4.5 million using MSN Messenger while AOL has a more substantial 80 million users"
They go on to say that there are moves to establish a universal standard by the IETF, and the standard should be released by the summer of 2000.
IETF et al. (Score:1)
Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.
Re:Instant messaging mail (Score:2)
Bah. Who cares? (Score:1)
Re:Instant messaging mail (Score:2)
Re:The Silliest Part About It... (Score:3)
It's AOL's servers, and they may choose to block out whoever they want. You wouldn't blame someone for restricting access to their HTTP or FTP server, right?
--
Re:The Silliest Part About It... (Score:2)
1)
2)
Re:Microsoft backs down from AOL (Score:3)
Although Microsoft is said to have "lost" the IM "war", and AOL is said to have "won" the IM "war", open-source is a definite loser here?
Ever since the "war" started, AOL has pulled all of the open-source clients from its page, including TiK, Laim, and TNT. The gaim developers have also been not-so-politely asked to pull the AIM logo from their client.
The "war" is long over, but the open-source clients are still missing, and AOL has removed every trace of them that was remaining.
On another topic, has anyone noticed that both AOL and Microsoft are terrible hypocrites when it comes to open standards? Microsoft, the closed-source company is whining about open standards when it isn't at an advantage, and AOL, who has recently taken steps to seem pro-OSS is... well, the facts speak for themselves.
I guess this is to be expected from large corporations...
--
Re:There is a standard (Score:1)
Some of my friends hang out on Efnet, others on DalNet.. To see if they are online I have to log on to both servers. With an IM, it is right there, in a nice colourful list.
Re:IT'S CALLED IRC (Score:1)
Mozilla-IM (Score:2)
Tricky issue (Score:4)
The natural solution, for a grand public good such as this, is to let the government set the protocol, and run the server. For the US, this wouldn't even be a wild stretch of the constitution; for it's just a natural extension of the Post Office. Except for the inevitable DOS attacks, and the manpower and hardware needed to overcome them, I don't see it as being too expensive, compared to the trillions the government spends every year anyway.
But, the major powers fighting over this (AT&T, AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc) are never going to propose that. They stand to make too much money off of advertising, to settle for something like that. And your average Republican member of Congress isn't going to know enough about computers to see how easy it would be; they're more likely to do nothing than to approve $25 million or whatever to set up the system. And, in turn, this will lead to a push by your average Democratic members of Congress, who on average know just as little about the internet, to force somebody to open up their servers. And, unlike the Cable TV connectivity, it'd be impossible to set up a way for Company A to reimburse Company B; so the Company running the servers would have to either A) incur a loss or B) shut down the system.
If it can be made to work, Jabber would make an excellent compromise. If ISPs ran Jabber servers, interconnecting in the same way an IRC network or SMTP servers work, everyone would benefit, but nobody could get a free ride (as MS, AOL, AT&T are all trying to get on each other).
I got a bunch of immature, hostile replys (fortunately no emails) for taking a strong, but unpopular, position yesterday. Should this posting be just as unpopular, I hope the discussion is a bit more mature, than just calling me a w4r3z d00d or something.
Oh yeah, and this is a US-centric post. International issues make it even trickier...
Standards...so many to choose from! (Score:1)
I like the idea of "instant messaging", but all the implementations are so clunky...
I want unification, but it is a bigger problem. (Score:2)
As I see it this problem can be solved in one of two ways. Some authoritative force can require companies to allow open access to their systems. This will force companies to either shut down their IM's or come up with an alternative way to justify their expense.
The other way is some independent group coming up with a standard and creating good IM clients to support it. The problem with this will be that it faces an uphill battle with existing services, which is precisely the annoyance that brought this question.
It is late, but I'll happily follow any elegant solution to this problem. I'd just rather see a permanent fix than having a client that gets its access blocked every couple of months.
Re:Bah. Who cares? (Score:1)
I've actually benefitted a great deal from instant messaging. I telecommute (I live in Wash. State, my coworkers mostly live in California), and this is how I collaborate with my counterparts. There are tons of ICQ clients out there you can choose from, for whatever OS or features you want.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Standard on the way, but that won't cut it (Score:2)
The IETF is currently organizaing a standard, and I believe MS and AOL are in on it, amazingly.
But who cares if they do have a standard? It doesn't mean anyone's going to use it. If none of the big guys implement it, or implement it strictly to the standard, we'll be stuck with clients that don't intercommunicate.
Now, if someone started an open source project, following the IETF developments, and there was a public effort to convince everyone to use these open clients rather than AIM, MSNMessenger, etc.
I for one, would certainly use it, and promote it to my friends and co-workers. I'd keep AIM on until enough of my "buddies" were phased over.
Gimmick (Score:3)
IETF is developing IMPP (Score:5)
My impression is that the design of this protocol (in opposite to e.g. ICQ) is good, and I think this will be _the_ IM protocol to use, when IETF's work is finished. AFAIK, at least Microsoft is going to use IMPP (this is the "open standard" referred to during the IM war with AOL).
IM, while popular, is not The Right Thing (tm) (Score:3)
The current Instant Messaging model suffers from several glaring problems stemming mostly from the reliance on centrally controlled messaging servers (that double as ad servers). Major issues with the current IM model include:
In order to achieve IM nirvana the best route is always to take the least broken existing solution and try to fix it. In this case the least broken solution is not AIM or ICQ. I nominate Unix talk and IRC as candidates for the least broken existing solution.
Either of the old Unix standbys offers decentralized communication independent of any master company. A decentralized protocol right away eliminates the reliability issue, and at least gives you a fighting chance to address security, privacy, and authentication. While security is never easy on the plaintext internet, many of the same techniques that are used to secure telnet (e.g. ssh, IPsec) apply equally well to messaging as long as the protocol is decentralized.
As for graphical interfaces, WinTalk and mIRC already deliver the required windowing interface to these protocols. Buddy lists can be implemented by
Re:Instant messaging mail (Score:1)
Re:Instant messaging mail (Score:1)
Instant messaging on top of IRC (Score:2)
existing IRC protocol?
I'm sorry if I'm all wrong about IM's, I haven't really had much
experience other than "Hrrm, someone's been touching
*my* work computer, in *my* cubicle, hrrm, what's
this funny thing in the task bar, AAAAAAAAAAARGH!! AOL!! KILL IT, KILL IT!!! DIEDIEDIEDIEDIEDIE!!!!"
(yes we run win9x, it's company policy, I have no choice)
but enough digressing.
Could not a slightly modified network of IRC servers essentially
duplicate all the features of an IM? For instance
seeing if they are online, file transfer, video conferencing could
easily be added via DCC or something like that. Why
must we reinvent the wheel when we already have
a protocol which can be modified to suit?
of course I could be completely wrong, so flame away.
----------------------
There are several.... (Score:2)
Re:Everybuddy... (Score:1)
IMHO, this only makes matters worse. It should use file transfer from another protocol like ICQ to do this, not its own protocol so that other all-in-one programs don't have to incorporate the 'everybuddy' protocol as well.
Obviously, this is not an issue when this 'everybuddy filetransfer' is actually an ICQ/AIM/whatever filetransfer with its own interface..
www.everybuddy.com (Score:1)
It works pretty darn well already.
Nuff Said.
Re:Instant messaging mail (Score:1)
Re:Instant messaging on top of IRC (Score:1)
would require a modified GUI client with lots
of pretty buttons and so forth, oops
Gimmick (Score:2)
Re:Instant messaging on top of IRC (Score:1)
But doesn't IRC have the problem of a slew of isolated networks. i.e. if you're on one, and your friend is on the other, you can't chat until one of you switches to a server in the other's network?
Forgive me if I am off here -- when I used IRC, I never got heavily into it.
Re:IM, while popular, is not The Right Thing (tm) (Score:2)
> that bosses in some companies use ICQ to
> talk to their employees on the job. ICQ
> may be a fun toy but do you really want
> to bet your company's next product (or
> for that matter your company) on it?
Of course, Mirabilis's whole point was to sell servers to companies that want to have instant messaging in the office. The original idea was to have your *own* ICQ server at work.
> 1. Packaging a finger daemon with the ...
> chat client, so that people can use
> finger to see who's logged on,
if security is a concern, finger is probably not the best way to do this, as it is one of the first things a lot of administrators turn off...
But you're right, it would be good to see a nice, open, and *secure* instant message protocol. I think the Jabber [jabber.org] project seems to be on the right track.
If a standard was created... (Score:2)
Therefore I'm against a standard, although I think it'd be great to see one implemented.
Re:Instant messaging on top of IRC (Score:1)
having a seperate IRC network for the IM, or
having the client connect to whichever IRC networks
you wish and do a WHOIS on the person you are
looking for, or just always be on one IRC network.
there should be tons of people to talk to on a
decent IRC net anyhow. Anyway, those are the only
ideas I can think of right now, I'm rather tired and
my brain is giving out, so pleaase forgive me.
Re:Tricky issue (Score:1)
Re:email and biff (Score:1)
Should have co-opted fingerd (Score:1)
more like www.every*nixbuddy.com (Score:2)
everybuddy doesn't support us.
AOL hasn't folded ICQ into their messaging system for two reasons: 1) their internal instant message client has been around since AOL 1.0 or before and those that haven't upgraded to more recent versions could be out of luck 2) they sell virtual real estate at the top of their standalone app.
While theoretically, AOL could translate ICQ messages on their way through, even the naming conventions are radically different.
Sure, standards would be great, but don't look to AOL to implement them anytime soon.
It's not about standards, but servers. (Score:1)
What is needed is a serverless IM. Tragic looks to be a good starting place, but needs a little help making it more robust and figuring out a better naming convetion. Once it really is peer to peer then privacy is only a matter of encryption, and the single point of failure in the server is gone.
Re:It's not about standards, but servers. (Score:1)
Unified IM for BeOS, Gimmick (Score:2)
They support ICQ, Jabber and AOL IM, so far they've released the ICQ part for testing and the rest is upcoming, although how upcoming is another matter - the last update on the site was August 2nd.
Gimmick [gimmick.org]
Re:standards are great . . . (Score:1)
Sure, standards would be great, everyone should have one. :)
dumbass! icq sends messages DIRECTLY! (Score:1)
Standards ARE great, theres so many to choose from (Score:1)
Re:Mozilla-IM (Score:2)
We should be able to put it together relatively quickly, we have just been waiting for the Mozilla code to stabilize.
It will be used in the sidebar of the browser, but we also hope to have the option of having a window.open() to let it float in a separate window.
Also, there is an API for the "throbber", thus allowing it to be an indicator for an incoming message, we have not looked into it yet.
We should have something useable by mid-January at the latest.
Eric Murphy
P.S. See the first post on the main thread for more info on Jabber.
New millenium post office (Score:1)
Mac OS X/ Openstep has a unified client too (Score:2)
Re:There is a standard (Score:1)
I agree with this completely, I think there must be a way of creating a "tallbar" interface for IRC which would simulate an ICQ/AIM/whatever environment. The "tallbar" can represent a series of different channels. You would have your work channel on your work IRC server where all your coworkers hang out... then on undernet you have that hidden channel where your friends hang out. Almost all the "IM" aspects of it could be done with DCC chat and file transfers... while you would also have the advantage of not having to build a contact list... you just create a hidden, password protected channel, and invite people to it.
The only problem I can see with this interface are the problems with IRC in general.. But the protocol, infrastructure and servers are already there. It sounds like all we need is a IM GUI.
(Off-topic though because it neglects the cross-protcol client question...)
Re:standards.... (Score:2)
Re:Bah. Who cares? (Score:1)
Re:moderators have no sense of humor (Score:1)
Re:Instant messaging on top of IRC (Score:1)
I've given this a bit of thought over the past month, and I've been thinking of a tallbar interface with multiple collapsing groups of people. In other words, you can have multiple channels on multiple servers in your tallbar at the same time. All your friends/coworkers can exist in password protected hidden channels. I think it is a great idea.
Anybody out there an IRC client author who is willing to rip up their UI? It shouldn't be hard to do this sort of thing.
Hmmm... I really have to learn X programming... maybe ripping up another Opensource IRC client GUI is the way to do it. hmm...
Re:It's not about standards, but servers. (Score:1)
You're right it is about servers. But c'mon people, computers are where they are based on corporate greed. They would be back in the punchcard area still without the corporate influence. And, thinking of that, why would a company invest huge amounts of money to provide a messaging server that you can access without paying them any homage. Yahoo, AIM and the rest provide instant messaging capabilities because they can lure people to their services. If they let you write your own client that can subscribe and work without ever visiting their site they are essentially spending real money for no real benefit. As much as people may wish that computers were part of a socialist state, you might as well face the fact that you wouldn't HAVE any computer at all to use if that's the way things got done.
I'd like to see the companies get together and form a standard. They could each get 25% of the advert time on the client they distribute or something to make their investments pay off. But, if the client is open, then people will pull out the ads. If people pull out the ads, then the instant messenger people will stop investing in their servers.
I've heard people argue about this as if there weren't many thousands of dollars in servers running out there to serve their chatting needs. Like somehow AOL has found these servers growing in a field and simply put them in a cage.
I like the idea of peer-to-peer, but that only limits the need for servers, it doesn't eliminate it. You still need a central server for name resolution. Sure, I have a fixed IP I could give to my friends, but most people don't. So, even if the communication is peer to peer (which is still very tough to do if both people are behind proxies) the naming requires a server. Maybe an open source group like VA or RedHat would sponsor it, but I doubt ANY company with enough money to do it would want to do it if they couldn't control having their adds on the client.
Re:Tricky issue (Score:2)
The natural solution, for a grand public good such as this, is to let the government set the protocol, and run the server. For the US, this wouldn't even be a wild stretch of the constitution; for it's just a natural extension of the Post Office.
Email works without a central point of control, aside from DNS. Why should instant messaging and presence be any different?
History repeats itself.... (Score:1)
Client-Server is dead as feudalism (Score:1)
Re:The Silliest Part About It... (Score:1)
Re:If a standard was created... (Score:1)
"If a standard was created then MS would just come in and load an IM client on every WindowsXX box" - this is a reason to be AGAINST a standard? What? So what you're basically saying is that you'd like for everyone to be able to talk to everyone else, but if Microsoft helped make that possible it would somehow be a BAD thing? Geez, not everything Microsoft does is bad! If my mom and girlfriend that don't have the ability to go out and find an open source tool were still able to chat with me that would be a "good" thing. If it were by a standard, you could always go get your open sourced version, what difference does it make?
I've heard this crap before for why people don't want to use some of the XML standards. Who cares if MS uses the standard too!? Its published, can't be closed back up, and interportable. If you don't want to use MS products, that's fine. That's great actually - I'm moving away from it too. But why is it bad if MS wants to support the standard too? It just makes it more quickly adopted so the rest of us can get more use of our standards implementations too. Might as well face it, standards are good and once they are set, MS has the same right as everyone else to use them.
Re:IETF et al. (Score:1)
Re:The Silliest Part About It... (Score:3)
Why does AOL continue to maintain the TOC server? TOC is an ASCII-based protocol for interfacing to OSCAR, the "native" AIM server. TOC was created to interface to TiK, AOL's former TCL/TK based client meant to run on Linux as an alternative to the Java client. AOL no longer has TiK available for download and FWIU no longer maintains the client. Clients on TOC (such as gAIM [freshmeat.net] and TiK) don't display ads because they don't talk to OSCAR, which feeds them.
AOL bought Mirabillis, and thus ICQ. I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to add advertising to ICQ clients.
Why was AOL interested in developing Linux-based AIM clients in the first place, considering that AOL's main interest is in gaining users to their online service? Note that there is no AOL client for Linux. Yes, TCL/TK and Java are platform-independent but the obvious uses are for Linux since Windoze users will use the native clients which are MUCH faster and require no external software (JDK or TCL/TK).
Multiple IM's (Score:2)
"It's getting silly - I have 4 different types of messaging accounts: ICQ, AOL IM, MS Messenger, Hotmail and regular email clients all run on my computer at the same time, and they all have overlapping capabilities."
I just don't understand this. Myself and several friends all got ICQ very early on, it has served us well. I cannot grok why one would load 4 clients? Is it necessary to make yourself accessible to every possible IM user on the planet? I realize it may be different for others, but basically the only people we want to IM are each other. I have zero desire to be accessible to 20 million AOL users, or the hordes who think those ridiculous "portals" with thier own branded IM's are cool.
As it is, my ignore list is easily twenty times larger than my contact list and all of us tend to view unsolicited IM's from lonely teen chatmongers and useless sales pitches demanding we "!!!!Go HERE NOW!!!!" as rude - I just don't get it.
All that said, a unified, standardized protocol only makes sense - I just don't understand the need that drives people to load multiple clients. Would someone clue me in?
======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16
Interface... (Score:1)
Re:Whither Zephyr? (Score:2)
Other than the server-to-server communication it is pretty good (esp. considering it is late 80s technology). Of course, if you designed it today it would use MIME and content-type text/html instead of its own simple formatting language @b(this in bold) @i(this in italics) @large(etc).
Anyway, the IETF IMPP mailing lists are hosted here:
impp@iastate.edu . . . (technical stuff)
meta-impp@iastate.edu . . . (other stuff)
(It's majordomo, you know how to use it)
Re:IM, while popular, is not The Right Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Re:History repeats itself.... (Score:1)
Its a little irony but... (Score:1)
Re:Tricky issue: not at all (Score:1)
No person can make value judgements for another. Congressmen can and should be able to pass laws to protect individual rights, but to pass laws specifying what IM is "best" and creating a government monopoly on IMs is as ridiculous as the government mandating a person's favorite color.
Re:Bah. Who cares? (Score:1)
Yeah, IMs are abused by lots of people ("Hey are you there?" "hey, did you get my email?" "hey, did you get my phone call", etc. etc.) but when used properly, they are a lot faster and more convenient than anything else! Yeah, there's room to improve (security, which is nonexistent in practically any IM today, and standards (althoug I only use ICQ, and everyone else I know only use ICQ)) but it's new, and they'll eventually get it going. Face it, IM is here, it's going to be around until it gets replaced with some sort of psychic mind melding, so get used to it!
Re:History repeats itself.... (Score:1)
Feel free to contact me:
ICQ 434551
AIM 4132445
YAHOOWHATEVER 578543858
PHONE NUMBER 646-656-5353
EMAIL 35235426_2346566576573543.3542355@compuserve.com
RANDOMNUMBERS 535743845fd98fd54982399e
Re:IM, while popular, is not The Right Thing (tm) (Score:1)
What would the standard protocol encompass? (Score:2)
Re:Tricky issue (Score:4)
Somehow I suspect you're using the term "libertarian" in some sense that I am unfamiliar with. You espouse yourself as being "libertarian bent" out of one side of your mouth and out of the other you are asking the government to set a standard and run a server! Sounds like good ol' fashioned socialism to me...
This actually sounds more plausible. An independent, third-party solution is definitely needed. Unfortunately, instant messaging is all about creating proprietary advantage in a world where there originally were none. If Jabber had been defined before the commercialization of the Internet, then everyone would adopt it. I think eventually, a standard will have to be adopted because people are just getting sick of having to have 4 or more clients running all the time.
OTOH, look at streaming video and audio. We have a standard for that (MPEG) but it isn't being used. RealNetworks' and Microsoft's proprietary RealPlayer and NetShow clients currently rule the roost despite the fact that a viable standard exists. Again, the idea is to have a proprietary advantage in an environment where none should exist at all.
NP/IM as ISP service is the right thing (Score:4)
- Reliability: Does the whole world want to count on one company's servers to stay up 24/7?
- Security: What if someone breaks into the server that has your passwords? What if (hypothetically of course) an employee of AOL doesn't like you?
- Privacy: Isn't it a warm feeling knowing that all your text goes through some other company's messaging servers?
- Authentication: How the hell do you know who's on the other end of the line?
Would it suprise you if I said you aren't the first to notice these problems. It's pretty much accepted that Network Presence/Instant messaging has to be a service provided by ISP's, preferably *your* ISP. Obviously, authentification and privacy issues are solveable and they don't really have to involve the ISP much. Where the ISP comes is mainly in two places: (1) making your presence/absence known to selected others via the as-yet-to-be-built Internet Presence network. (2) Providing store and forward for messages that can't be delivered due to the (temporary) absense of the recipient.The real question is, once we manage to produce a good solid NP/IP server/client system, how are we going to get the ISP's to adopt it? Keep this in mind: Neither AOL nor Microsoft has the slightest interest in ISPs support our NP/IP system! (Because they both want us to use their proprietary servers.) So we are going to have a big fight on our hands, and we're going to have to use some very powerful weapons indeed to get what we want.
For starters, we're going to have to reward the ISPs in some way. One idea just off the top of my head is to provide, in the clients, a clickable link for the recipient (and sender for that matter) back to a web page of the ISP's choice. This could be disabled by the user of course, but if the user clicks it the ISP gets some sort of benefit: as ad revenue, or the ability to promote it's own services to the recipient of an IM, or whatever. Another idea is to just include the winning NP/IM protocl in all new versions of the software that ISPs use. I.E, making it part of sendmail or the other mail clients, etc. (the force-feeding method) Another way is to organize some sort of email campaign to get the ISP's on board. We're going to have to have a good plan in place. Don't make any mistake about it: it's going to be an uphill battle.
Everybuddy support for Win32? (Score:1)
Strike that last comment (Score:1)
"as much as i hate to ask. what about win32.. some of us are forced to use it at the the still
Re:NP/IM as ISP service is the right thing (Score:1)
How about doing it this way.... (Score:1)
- A main program, whose purpose is to draw the IM windows and control the core function of the program.
- Libraries consisting of protocol definitions and translations.
- Libraries for the various features (chat, IMs, etc...)
With this structure, The EU has to only create the account and download the needed libraries.
Sound Good?
Dijital
Re:I want unification, but it is a bigger problem. (Score:1)
Now, ICQ already has many clones, just look at the horde available in Linux. It seems to me that if such clones are possible, it would be possible for MS to allow their messenger to integrate with the ICQ network. Of course, AOL is more likely to be able to stop MS that the upstart no-name people who write ICQ clones for Linux.
AshandareRe:standards.... (Score:1)
AOL probably won't merge AIM with ICQ, because AOL is still using IE even though they bought Netscape. Just because they own Netscape, doesn't mean they've merged it into AOL.
What shall we hack today? (Score:2)
But this all seems pretty obvious stuff. Surely there are ISPs using DNS or IP hacks for clever routing of static names and addresses to dynamic connections? Firewall people have done some kinds of this for a long time.
Re:Mac OS X/ Openstep has a unified client too (Score:1)
True Peer to Peer IM (Score:1)
Tragic could be extended to make this even more useful. Add an echo net like lookup feature. When it queries for a person, if it contacts a different tragic then they exchange some of their directory info. This way information passes around the net. You then search out via the new dir info and keep repeating the process until you find the person. A simple set of rules could maximize the search for a limited set of resources.
The only issue that tragic doesn't deal with well is the naming. I think this could be done with a unique serial number and then aliases on top of it. Use the aliases, and then add part of the serial number as needed until it becomes unique.
I've thought about extending it myself to get this functionality, but I don't have time to do it yet. If someone else does I'll definitly lend a hand.
Re:If a standard was created... (Score:1)
This is the way Microsoft corners a niche. They give it away, and screw the competition. Its the same tactic they used to get Office on every PC (which I like Office, but its still the tactic), as well as IE. Hence the reason why Corel and Netscape are doing so poorly.
I'm all for standards, but I know for a fact that if MS becomes a dominant player in the IM game, they'll use it to "break" other clients. They're attempting to do it with SMB filesharing right now, and they've tried doing it to SMB in tha past (remember the Win95 "feature" where it'd listen on some weird-ass port for certain responses instead of port 139??).
Therefore, I'm against a standard in this case.
jabber (or something like it) will win (Score:2)
Jabber (or something similar) will skyrocket to success once it is implemented for many of the same reasons that ICQ did the same.
It will only take a handful of people who are using AIM/ICQ/etc to realize that jabber is the answer to their problems. They will start using it. They will tell their friends about it. Their friends will want it. That's all it took for the other IMs.
For people who have ISPs who won't provide a server, there will be a solution. The same solution for people who want an additional email address - third parties will provide it for free.
Re:Everybuddy... (Score:2)
Everybuddy will support all native file transfer stuff if it exists. The published protocol for AIM does not have file transfer.
Everything we can support we will, we are not implementing our own chat protocol. I think the reason we did file transfer, is to give the ability to do so for those using aim and any other protocol which doesnt support file transfer, at least with other EB clients.
If you want to discuss it further, please sign up for our mailing list, there is info on www.everybuddy.com [everybuddy.com]
More on TiK and TOC (Score:2)
The TCL/TK client for AIM isn't dead, you can still get information/downloads from places like http://www.oaks.yoyodyne.com/tik [yoyodyne.com]. The current version is 0.75 and runs fine under TCL/TK 8.0.5 on UNIX, Windows and the Mac. We even have one implementation of SSL encrypted AIM [yoyodyne.com] based on TiK at this point.
Fixing dynamic IPs (Score:3)
Re:Fuck the Spamvertising (Score:2)
(This post may include:
--
Re: No more protocols! (Score:2)
What we need are good clients using well-written libraries for each of these types of IM systems. This is more complicated than people realise, but still appropriate and possible.
Note: I'm biased as the maintainer of libicq [linuxsupportline.com].
Re:What I Want (Score:2)
ICQ... (Score:2)
Must die (Score:2)
Re:ICQ... (Score:2)
To make a suggestion, GnomeICU [gdev.net] is the best client I've seen - it spends most of its time being about 1cm square in the Gnome panel, with a light to show your status. If someone messages you, you get a flashing yellow post-it symbol. Does chat, does file xfer, does everything else you require in a proper chat client. Doesn't do birthdays. Doesn't sing (unless you enable sounds), doesn't dance. The contact list itself has an optional 'auto hide' feature, which is cool, too.
Re:ICQ... (Score:2)
Re:MPEG vs. Real/WMP (Score:2)
Re:More on TiK and TOC (Score:2)
The TiK announcement is gone from AOLs servers probably for the same reason the software isn't present on AOL's servers anymore: they killed it.