Off Forum: Trillian

[Will]

I don't know how many here are familiar with the "Instant Messenger Wars", and I felt like griping somewhere, so I'm posting something here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Trillian is a freeware IM service developed by Cerulean Studios, allowing Users to connect to ICQ, MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, IRC networks, and until recently, AIM; all in one client window. Trillian is attractive to many Users not only for the ability to connect to all those networks, but also for its extreme customizablitiy. It uses XML-based skins to make the interface do whatever the user likes, with even the most amateur skin far surpassing the blandness of AIM's design. It is also free of ads and other annoyances.

However, when I connected to Trillian this evening, I got a message from user "AOL Instant Messanger" stating: "You have been disconnected from the AOL Instant Message Service (SM) for accessing the AOL network using unauthorized software. You can download a FREE, fully featured, and authorized client, here http://www.aol.com/aim/download2.html ."

After looking into this more, I've discovered that this isn't the first time it's happened. The same thing was done to Microsoft in 1999, and a startup called Odigo in 2000. AOL claims that other programs connecting to it's network compromises security. Odigo can still connect to the AIM network, just without file transfers.

http://www.trillian.cc

[Gimboid]

Will,

I've also read about this, and i get disconnected from AIM using trillian every now and then and cannot reconnect until i update my Version of trillian as it gets patched to work around any blocks that AIM uses.

See this ZDNet news story for more info

ZDNet trillian news story (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1105-826707.html)

[dumbluck]

Heh. I'd never even heard of Trillian until just now. Sounds kind of cool!

[Urendi Maleldil]

The Trillian people keep making updates for AIM connectivity.

[Will]

Until now, they've been able to release patches to get around AOL blocks. This time, they periodically check every connection, and make sure that it's the AOL-sponsored client. If it isn't, then it's booted from the network. So Cerulean basically has to clone AIM, and figure out how to mesh it with Trillian. Once that happens, I have no doubt that AOL/Time Warner will tell all their drones to get a new Version of AIM, as part of a "network upgrade". Then begins a cycle of Cerulean creating AIM-clones, and AOL/Time Warner changing the network, until: A. Trillian gets squashed; B. AOL/Time Warner voluntarilly gives in to an integrated IM network not controlled by them; or C. the FCC steps in and forces either A or B.

Any way that it happens, it ain't gonna be pretty.

[mac5732]

sounds similiar to the Browser wars against Microsoft..

just some ideas mac

[tesco samoa]

AOL has every right to block Trillian. It is their network and to use the aol network you must agree to their EULA policy which states that you can only access their networks with their own software.

I see no wrong in that.

[Will]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tesco samoa:
AOL has every right to block Trillian. It is their network and to use the aol network you must agree to their EULA policy which states that you can only access their networks with their own software.<hr></blockquote>

That is the "legal" arguement. The "ethical" arguement is that IM networks should be opened, like the phone networks or the Internet. You don't see AT&T saying that their customers can only call AT&T customers, or MCI only MCI, or Sprint only Sprint, or whatever other phone companies. One arguement used extensively has been a Microsoft analogy. Microsoft could easily (and legally) have only allowed Internet Explorer Users to access any of its websites, and it could have easily "persuaded" several other companies to do the same. AOL could have done the same thing after it aquired Netscape. Opera, NeoPlanet, and other browsers would be left in the cold. The thing is, none of that is really ethical. The browser analogies, IMHO, fit best. Websites are stored on a company's servers, using the company's bandwidth, space, resources in general; yet any (decent) web browser can access it. The same should apply for IM networks.

Also, the government told AOL/Time Warner to open up its IM networks as a part of the merger. AOL/Time Warner, unethically, made a loophole. The wording of the agreement basically went as so: "AOL/Time Warner agrees to open up its IM networks to connection with any other IM client that wishes to connect, after we implement a new protocol which we have told the government we will implement in a year." As soon as the merger was finalized, AOL/Time Warner announced that it will no longer be developing a new protocol, OSCAR is doing just fine. Certainly legal, and yet unethical for using the word of the law to get around the purpose of the law.

Yet another reason why AOL/Time Warner is being less than ethical is the fact that they are NOT preventing ALL IM clients not developed/licensed/supported by them from connecting. Those using the TOC protocol can still connect. However, the AIM networks have been tweaked to the point where TOC support is butchered, allowing only sending and recieving of Messages; no file transfer, no away message, no chat. I have no doubt that at some point, TOC will not be supported at all. Yet for now, some clients are allowed to connect, and some aren't.

So, legally, AOL/Time Warner does have every right to boot Trillian Users from its network. And in the pre-Civil War era, Southern farmers had every right to own slaves. And in the pre-Magna Carta era, British rulers had every right to refuse the public their voice. Just because something is legal, it doesn't mean that it is right.

Wow, that was a bit of a rant...

[Puke]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Will:
Wow, that was a bit of a rant...<hr></blockquote>

one of the better educated rants i have read in a while, though.

[tesco samoa]

A Quote from Gregory Wright as posted on FC:Replies to AOL again blocks Trillian instant messaging Users 15/02/02 2:52 pm. As a side note I use Trillian Version 0.70

The only part I would exclude from the quote is the whine line I would stop at the words terms of service. And good rant Will, some good info there.

'I think the point that most people seem to miss here is that AOL's AIM and
ICQ services are owned and operated by AOL, and as such they have the right
to set the terms of use - and this includes not allowing non-AIM or non-ICQ
clients to access their service. There are numerous reasons for such policies,
including protecting their own network and servers (for which most AIM Users
pay NOTHING to use, I might add) from potential issues introduced by software
outside of their control, and also whatever revenue they get from
displaying the
advertisements in the contact list or message window. This is not a question of
anti-trust: consumers still have choices in IM services, as mentioned by B.K.,
such as Yahoo!, MSN and others... and they are just as viable as AIM or ICQ.
The solution here is simple - if you don't like the terms of service, don't
use the
service - nobody is putting a gun to your head to make you use AIM or ICQ. If
you feel that strongly about it, convince your friends or associates to use a
different service, don't just whine about a company doing what they are
perfectly
within their rights to do.'

--
Gregory Wright (&lt;gwright@ravyn.com&gt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
Ravyn Multimedia
Frederick, MD

[Puke]

sorry kids, we live in a socialist empire. capitalism is all well and good, but as with all idealist societies, it has its limits. it just isnt practical to let capitalism to play out to all of its amoral ends, and this is one of the places where its going to stop.

maybe IM services will stay private for a while, but inside 5 years they will all be wide open. sure, everyone has the right to run their own service. but the only reason that anyone wants to run an IM service is (1) for the advertisement money and (2) to collect demographic information from which to send you better advertisements.

the public, however, has proven far too stupid to simply pick the best service and run with it. this is where capitalism is breaking down. the presence of numerous closed networks is creating an impedance to public communications, and is generally a pain in the *** for anyone trying to use it. is that the network owners fault? maybe, but thats insignificant by now. whither they caused it or not, they have demonstrated that they dont want to fix it, so its going to leave their hands.

The PSTN was socialized (or nationalized, if you like the stronger rhetoric) because it was vital to communications. before that, railroads were co-opted by the government because the railroad barons were assing-up the transporation system and it had to be brought back under control.

now, while it may be going out on a limb to say that its vital for the nations (sorry if this message is excluding all you other blokes in the other parts of the world) communications for a bunch of closet homosexuals to get on the instant messanger service and pretend to be 13 year old girls in order to seduce 16 year old boys, its one of those issues that is currently popular for the media and pop culture to represent as significant. so you can bet that the corporations are going to loose control of who gets to use instant messenger services.

knowing the internet though, someone somewhere will create their own IM servers to host a free network that everyone will eventually use, or someone will develop some kind of peer-to-peer distributed alternative. of course, the pay off for developing or hosting it will be to silently log everyones sex-talk and collect demographic info to sell you better porn and low-interest-home-loans, but most people will probably be happily oblivious to that.

i guess the bottom line is that SURE, AOL has their legal rights. but common sense dictates that the nature of the service will be changeing, because the only common consensus is that its unuseable as it stands. if AOL does not make it change, they will lose out when someone else changes it for them. and if it does not happen in the private sector, the government will eventually get around to doing it themselves.

[Fyron]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>if it does not happen in the private sector, the government will eventually get around to doing it themselves.<hr></blockquote>

That action in and of itself is inherently evil. A free-market economy will always balance itself out. Government interference is bad, period. Sure, the IM networks will eventually have to become open, but this should not be done by the government. Once people realize that they don't like having 5 IM services installed so that they can talk to everyone, they will abandon the closed networks and flock to services like Trillian, forcing the closed network IM's to open up for the fear of losing all business.

[Phoenix-D]

"Trillian, forcing the closed network IM's to open up for the fear of losing all business."

Unless they ALL close off the open clients, of course. Or buy each other out.

Phoenix-D

[tesco samoa]

You know I am starting to think that Government interference is not a bad idea. (Don't tell my punk friends).

We currently have two choices. Business or Government.

You tell me which is the lesser of the two evils?

( And were talking stable governments here)

[geoschmo]

I would definetly have to say the lesser of two evils in buisness. At least with buisness you know their motivation.

[Fyron]

I cannot think of any entity that embodies more facets of evil than government (leaving any relgious concepts out of the equation, of course).

[Phoenix-D]

"You tell me which is the lesser of the two evils?"

Try this one. I've heard of buisnesses dumping toxic waste near people. Scamming them out of savings. etc.

but I don't think I've seen a business do anything comparable to, say, the Holocaust. 'couse, maybe they just haven't had the chance yet..

Phoenix-D

[Phoenix-D]

Hmm, that gives me an idea for a SE4 race.

Phoenix-D

[dumbluck]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
but I don't think I've seen a business do anything comparable to, say, the Holocaust. 'couse, maybe they just haven't had the chance yet..<hr></blockquote>

Only because the government won't let them. Why? Because the government (ideally) is answerable to the people it represents, where as big business is answerable only to the almighty dollar and cares nothing for the individual citizen (except slightly for those that fit their target market and have some disposable income).

edit = typos

[ 23 February 2002: Message edited by: dumbluck ]</p>

[geoschmo]

Every time some buisness has commited some horrible act in a misguided persuit of the bottom line, there has been some government agency or indvidual who was responsible for oversight which was either corrupt, inept or misguided and allowed it to happen.

In my mind the hypocricy is what makes government worse.

Geoschmo

[dumbluck]

I did say "ideally". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And the individual citizen does have power over both government and business. You control those who control government with your vote (or the threat of withholding said vote in the coming election); you control businesses by choosing where you spend your money.

edit = typos

[ 23 February 2002: Message edited by: dumbluck ]</p>

[Puke]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by geoschmo:
Every time some buisness has commited some horrible act in a misguided persuit of the bottom line, there has been some government agency or indvidual who was responsible for oversight which was either corrupt, inept or misguided and allowed it to happen. <hr></blockquote>

great, so the government is bad if they interfear with pure capitalism, and they are bad if they dont provide 'moral' guidance and oversite for corporations.

whatever.

[geoschmo]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puke:


great, so the government is bad if they interfear with pure capitalism, and they are bad if they dont provide 'moral' guidance and oversite for corporations.

whatever.<hr></blockquote>Exactly! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Fyron]

Government just can't win: it is evil no matter what it does. It's just a matter of what degree of evilness that people are willing to tolerate.

[ 26 February 2002: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]</p>

[tesco samoa]

Start a topic and take off.

Sorry people.

I have been reading A scanner Darkly by Philip Dick. I think it is affecting my thought process http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

I do not think Government is evil. Just look at the civil service that supports your communities.

Governments are designed to be self sufficent no matter who is incharge.

The problem lies with the fact that their are too many focus Groups backed by businesses who pressure the government to change laws so they can increase their profit and give more money to focus Groups backed by businesses who pressure the government to change...

I think that the key to sucessful government is to limit the ability that business has to control the government. And a good start is the corperate wealfare programs. IBM received 1.4 billion dollars Last year from American tax payers. They have to stop the slush from moving about.....

Sorry about the lack of train of thought in this post.... I am at work and have some PM problems. Must go.

Hope you all have a good day

[geoschmo]

Government is a neccesary evil

I won't dispute your 1.4B figure, cause I just don't know. But is it "slush", or is it investment? How many billions of dollars does IBM pump into the economy each year?

Contrast this with myriad of social prorams that contribute nothing to the economy. 100,000 dollars to buy advertisung for a program to provide free tatoo removal for low income people? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Geo

[Will]

And on a brighter note, Cerulean Studios realeased v.0.725 a while ago, and Trillian can connect to the AIM networks again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
http://www.trillian.cc

[dumbluck]

So, how many of you donated before trillian went pro? I didn't. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[geoschmo]

What does that mean went pro? Don't they still take donations?

[ September 16, 2002, 15:14: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Captain Kwok]

Trillian is now at v0.74, as I just downloaded that Version yesterday. One change that I noticed was that they removed the little logos they used for the messenger programs. Perhaps to avoid copyright/trademark issues?

[Will]

Yeah, there was some copyright issue with having the default Trillian skin using the other companies' logos. I didn't really find the message on the Boards, only a few references to the reason, and that's pretty much what I got from it. Probably, since Trillian Pro is a pay program now, they'd have to send royalty checks to each owner.

But, I just grabbed a skin (Microscopic suits me well), and I have the logos back.

Geo, I'm sure they'll still gladly accept donations. And they'd be just as happy if you forked over the 25$/year to get Pro (I'm considering it just to check it out, but I'm poor).

[Skulky]

I loved trillian just because it wasn't AIM, howver NOBODY else had it and i don't have any other friends on other networks just AIM (im a teenager what can i say) but im thinking of heading back, i love the little smilies/icons even tho nobody else sees them.

[Captain Kwok]

Crap! My trillian causes an "illegal access violation error" if I open it without MSN Messenger being opened...strange stuff eh?