?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Too many instant messangers.

« previous entry | next entry »
Mar. 20th, 2002 | 11:06 pm
mood: lost

There's too many instant messanger clients and none of the talk with each other. Currently I mostly use ICQ, but I know a number of people that use AIM. Then there's the instant messangers invented by the unix/open software world. Ranging from the ancient "talk" to more modern things like jabber or gale.

Jabber is an XML based client-server open instant messanger system. They've got a good selection of clients and they try to integrate with the big ones like ICQ, AIM, MSN, and Yahoo. Of course AOL is blocking all of their main servers, whcih takes out ICQ & AIM, and Yahoo changed their protocol to block other IM systems. Of course since they're different they don't have that many users.

Gale is an interesting hybrid between irc and and instant messanger, that has a hierarchical topic system and a strong public key encryption scheme. Also it was written at caltech.

Is it too much to want something that interoperates as well as say email (SMTP)?

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {5}

T e s s

(no subject)

from: soulsong
date: Mar. 21st, 2002 12:31 am (UTC)
Link

It is frustrating that there are so many IM clients. I used to use ICQ but gradually the number of people I knew on there dropped. Most people seemed to use AIM so I started using that, but didnt like it as much as ICQ so I dropped that too. I've tried others like Jabber and Odigo that try to connect to other IM systems, but I've found the result very unsatisfactory. In the end I've found myself using MSN, which is a really awful client, but half the people at work and all the people I IM on a daily basis use it. This is one of those areas where I wish one of the clients would 'win' over the others, or at least have all the networks compatible with each other.

Reply | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Mar. 21st, 2002 01:07 am (UTC)
Link

I've tried one of the everything clients, and having to work with the lowest common denomonator was pretty pathetic.

And since the whole point is to communicate, whatever system has the people you want to talk to you're pretty much stuck with.

Hmm... cooperation betwen large corporations trying to win over market share? That seems pretty unlikely.

Reply | Parent | Thread

T e s s

Re:

from: soulsong
date: Mar. 21st, 2002 01:13 am (UTC)
Link

I'm just waiting for Microsoft's OS domination to win through. Especially since they bundled MSN Messenger with XP.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: marnanel
date: Mar. 21st, 2002 12:39 am (UTC)
Link

Proprietary systems: there's the whole problem. Remember back in the eighties, when email worked like this? :(

Reply | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Mar. 21st, 2002 01:12 am (UTC)
Link

So how did we escape from propriatary email standards? I'm worried that SMTP might've predated those standards, and so as people needed to connect multiple systems, there was already a functiong standard.

Unfortunatly for instant messanging we started off with propritary clients, and I'm not sure the free alternatives are scalable enough to actually replace what we're currently stuck with.

Maybe if someone can extend the IRC protocol, there can be some reasonable alternative that does have a decent user base.

Reply | Parent | Thread