[JDEV] AOL Corporate Teamwork

Jim Phillips JPhillips at matrasystems.com
Mon Aug 30 10:20:44 CDT 1999

How about this idea.  If a user is utilizing the AIM transport, he/she's
going to have to tell the Jabber GUI somewhere what his/her AIM
screen-name/password is.  On whatever dialog the Jabber GUI uses to prompt
for that username/password, prominently display the AIM logo and provide a
link to AOL.  Then, if the AIM transport is in use, also insert an entry
into the help pulldown of the GUI saying something like About AOL Transport,
which also displays the logo and a link.. That way the GUI doesn't have to
ugly itself up with pointless logos and links but it's still in there in an
appropriate location..

Jim Phillips

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Beckham [mailto:beckham at pawz.paulvi.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 4:02 PM
To: jdev at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [JDEV] AOL Corporate Teamwork

Thanks for your input, and please keep adding to it.
I have definitely changed my mind on some counts, so here is the replanned
Only if the user is utilizing the AIM Transport will any link be placed on
any GUI window, and only in the window containing the AOL user.  This way,
if any other transport decides to use the same method of codevelopment,
they can be as unobtrusive as the AIM codevelopment plan.
And about the issue of mandatory coding in an open source product:
is there an "official" client of jabber?  Or even a more common client?
If so, that client, along with any other client in which the developers
agree to do so, can have the link coding.  
Any more flames, please, keep them coming.

 Jon Beckham
class of 2000

On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Anders Qvist wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Chris wrote:
> > On 08/29/1999 at 07:07 AM Jeremy Weatherford wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >On Sun, 29 Aug 1999, Kemal 'disq' Hadimli wrote:
> > >
> > >> > On Sat Aug 28, Eliot Landrum wrote:
> > >> > > Sorry Jon, I personally would rather wait for the updates than to
> > >> > > have to have an extra link in my client.
> > >> me too. aol sucks.
> > >
> > >
> > >Guys, think about what you're saying.  You're saying "_I_ don't want
> > >logos on my client.  _I_ don't mind waiting."  It's the developers who
> > >make those decisions.  Think about whether you're going to be the same
> > >guys who complain because it's taking too long to implement a new
> > >I'm not saying you will be, but just think about it.
> > >
> > >I think it's a good idea to cooperate with AOL.  From what I've seen of
> > >existing open-source protocol libraries, the understanding of AIM's
> > >protocol is not perfect.  Keeping in step with their client would be
> > >to boot.
> > >
> > >I can't say that I agree with the logo idea right now, although I'm
sure a
> > >fairly unobtrusive place for it can be found, and at that point, it
> > >go before the 'Jabber community'.
> > >
> > 
> > I am strongly inclined to agree with Eliot and Kemal. I don't want
> > Jabber to be linked to corporate "interests". Why? Because what if I
> > have a problem with AOL? I can choose not to ever use AIM or talk to
> > people on AOL through that transport, but if Jabber is tied to AOL like
> > this (at the transport/server level) then all the clients would have to
> > have the banner. 
> In fact, we cannot place any demands on client implementations at all,
> because there is no limitation on who is allowed to implement
> Jabber-talking sofware (nor can there be, without serious violation of
> the spirit of Open Source).
> > Consider that Jabber would also then be paying for the ability to talk
to AIM
> > users. Granted its more like bartering than paying cash, but do we want
to be
> > paying for the ability to talk to other transports? What if some other
> > "provider" decides that it would like to go that route?
> If someone is not interested in being interoperable, that is their
> problem. If AOL is not willing to expend the tiny amount of
> resources needed to fork over protocol specs and some token support
> for getting access to the Jabber user base, I'm not interested.
> Remember: before getting a Jabber user base, they won't take an
> interest in us, and after we get a user base, we'll be competition.
> That means we'll have a bargaining position, which we can use to
> squeeze consessions out of them.
> Which brings up another interesting question: Does AOL/ICQ users sign
> some agreement when they create a new account? If they do,
> client-creating transport are going to have some difficulty with
> mimicing that behaviour, since there is really no provision in the Jabber
> protocol for creating question/answer stuff. Not impossible, but
> difficult and likely clumsy (and anybody can turn it off anyway). If
> we ignore it and create accounts anyway, we're gonna get a pack of
> lawyers yapping up our tree.
> Anders "Quest" Qvist
> NetGuide Scandinavia
> And we who listen to the sky, or walk the dusty grade,
> Or break the very atoms down, to see how they are made,
> Or study cells, or living things, seek truth with open hand;
> The profoundest act of worship is to try to understand.
> -- Catherine Faber, "The Word of God"
> _______________________________________________
> jdev mailing list
> jdev at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev

jdev mailing list
jdev at jabber.org

More information about the JDev mailing list