Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Changes Protocol, Blocks Third Party Clients

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the purely-accidental dept.

The Internet 506

NaDrew writes "ZDNet reports that Yahoo is once again blocking connections from Trillian (the alternative multi-protocol client). Yahoo tried this a few times last year and it looks like they're trying again. Cerulean, maker of Trillian, employs some excellent protocol engineers, who I have no doubt will quickly figure out Yahoo's latest obfuscation and release a patch. A quick fix discovered late this evening: Change your Y!IM host from scs.msg.yahoo.com to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050, and it should work. This is on Trillian 0.74H, not Pro."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Centericq is also broken (5, Informative)

RickL (64901) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517190)

Centericq [centericq.de] is also broken. I'd be happy to use an official Yahoo! IM client...if they had one that was console-based.

Re:Centericq is also broken (2, Interesting)

stanmann (602645) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517230)

Ok, you answered the question I was going to ask.

Which is of course, why not use an official client since you are in fact using their network and resources to send messages.

SO I ask the question to others

How many would use an official ad-encumbered client if one was available for your prefered environment?

Re:Centericq is also broken (5, Insightful)

micromoog (206608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517292)

I don't want to run the AIM client AND the MSN client AND the Yahoo! client. So I use Trillian.

Re:Centericq is also broken (4, Interesting)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517436)

Some of the clients are just too big. My family uses Yahoo on their PCs. I have a 12" PowerBook and the Yahoo Messenger client for OS X takes up a good 10+% of the screen. Adium, on the other hand, takes up about 10% of the space that Yahoo Messenger does so I can leave it always visible in the corner of the screen. For me it has nothing to do with ads and everything to do with customization for my needs.

Re:Centericq is also broken (-1, Troll)

monica22 (791132) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517255)

same here i am using that too :)

Re:Centericq is also broken (1)

grandmofftarkin (49366) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517406)

I also use centericq. I had to set it to not even attempt to connect to yahoo, otherwise it crashes.

Annoying but not the end of the world as most of my friends are on AIM, MSN and Jabber.

So (-1, Flamebait)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517196)

When will other client's editor write their own server then ?
What if we asked Google to just open one ?

Re:So (0, Offtopic)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517289)

Why is this a Flamebait ?
Has somebody shit in the moderator's cereals ?

We are supposed to be a community, we have knowledge of P2P and IRC, we have huge allies such as Google, so I am just stating the obvious : if we could write Messenger clients that could work upon existing protocols, why not develop them a little further to use ours improved ones ?

Re:So (4, Informative)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517437)

Wouldn't this be Jabber?

It's already there, open source, many servers, and intercommunication possible between multiple servers.

And some people have made proxies for jabber-commerical messenger systems communication.

And it works with many, many clients, console-based as well as graphical...

Re:So (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517504)

I don't know, I thought this was one more of these clients.
Actually I have been using ICQ services for years, first with Everybuddy [everybuddy.com] , then with Fire [sourceforge.net] .

pfft (4, Insightful)

ncurses (764489) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517204)

Yeah, blocking people from chatting with their protocol will help anything.

I think it blocks gaim also.

Re:pfft (4, Insightful)

Jubii (315611) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517260)

It all comes down to money. They want you to use their client so they can shoot their ads out to you and make more money. Use a third party client and they don't have that ability. It always comes down to money.

Re:pfft (5, Informative)

ambrosine10 (747895) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517527)

I think the latest Yahoo Messenger client for Windows has no ads at all.

Re:pfft (1)

Quattro Vezina (714892) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517351)

I think it blocks gaim also.

Yup. At least 0.77 is blocked (it tells me my password is incorrect)--I've not emerged 0.78 yet, so I don't know if it's blocked too.

Yahoo! Have Not Blocked Connections (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517422)

Yahoo! have a protocol, they can change it. They do not have to freeze it because third parties piggy back on their servers and protocols.

Yahoo! have been rolling out changes, and to be honest, out of all the free email providers, Yahoo! is the best right now (not having tried the closed beta gmail)

I use trillian, I am not actually running it now, but I expect a patch from trillian soon.

That is like saying, Microsoft release longcock, and my windows 3.11 app doesn't work on it, make them fix it, daddy please, waaa waaa.

ffs, give them a break.

[Yahoo! not M$, they can take it in their ass any day, bastards]

Gaim..?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517209)

Anyone know if gaim still works? (no, I didn't RTFA)

Re:Gaim..?? (2, Interesting)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517337)

Anyone know if gaim still works?

I was using GAIM on Yahoo just last night - not sure if it's still working today.

Re:Gaim..?? (3, Informative)

Xformer (595973) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517481)

Depends on what time you connected. I have a couple friends that use that as well, and they couldn't connect after 6pm PDT (that's when the change went into effect, IIRC).

Re:Gaim..?? (1)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517528)

Depends on what time you connected. I have a couple friends that use that as well, and they couldn't connect after 6pm PDT (that's when the change went into effect, IIRC)

Ah, I see. I'm expecting it not to be working when I get home.
Thanks for the info.

Re:Gaim..?? (3, Insightful)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517344)

First, I haven't disconnected from Yahoo in over a week, so I can't say if CONNECTING works. However, I can vouch that chat works in GAIM if you connected before the changeover. So the problem, if there is one, likely stems from session initiation.

I just pooped my pants (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517211)

Want some?

Quick fix does not work (4, Informative)

bruns (75399) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517215)

The quick fix to changing the server to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050 does not work for most people, and does not work with Miranda IM, GAIM, or other third party IM clients besides Trillian.

It appears to be a separate server, and you won't be able to communicate with other people on the 'fixed' yahoo servers.

Can you hear me now? (2, Funny)

MakoStorm (699968) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517216)

nope!

Funny.... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517218)

Because I happen to be on Yahoo! right now using Trillian 2.012 Pro.

A word of advice... (5, Funny)

baudilus (665036) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517341)

Don't log out.

Why do they bother? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517220)

Can someone please explain to me why Yahoo even bother?

Re:Why do they bother? (4, Interesting)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517326)

For the same reason the tech community comes out with patches for holes in programs, why we come out with virus protection, etc.... To try and stop people from doing what we do not want them to do. It may not be permenant, but it will work
Now my question, didn't the gov't come out with a law a while ago forcing AOL to share their IM standards so third party software could integrate with it? And if so, wouldn't this apply to all IM software, including Yahoo?

Re:Why do they bother? (5, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517353)

Because strangely enough Yahoo as a company would like to make a profit. They provide some excellent free services to users and are heavily reliant on advertising revenue from these to generate income to fund their operations. Yes the adds can be be a tad annoying but I get a very good email and IM service for free so I am not going to complain. 3rd party clients cut out a potential source of revenue for Yahoo so while there is money involved for them they will always bother.

Trillian (4, Interesting)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517223)

As a paying Trillian subscriber, I am disappointed in both Yahoo and Trillian. I figured that they had their differences settled last fall when similar stuff went on. I guess I assumed that Trillian was on a good working relationship with the people at Yahoo. I am up for renewal for my Trillian membership and am going to re-evaluate that purchase if this continues.

Re:Trillian (2, Informative)

wasabii (693236) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517300)

Haha that's stupid. It's widely known Trillian has reverse engineered the other protocols. They have been blocked before, but again reverse engineered. They have NEVER had a good working relationship.

Re:Trillian (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517360)

>As a paying Trillian subscriber

there lies the problem. how is yahoo benefitting from offering its network and resources and have trillian charge for their client?

money speaks. and since trillian is making money by piggybacking on yahoo resources while yahoo sees none of it, yahoo stops trillian.

Re:Trillian (1, Offtopic)

iacyclone (180583) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517418)

Kind of the same way RedHat and others make money off of the hard work of kernel developers. They don't seem to mind.

Re:Trillian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517500)

do kernel developers have shareholders they must report to? do they "give away" their effort on their own terms? if yahoo decides they don't want others to piggyback on their resources, then it's their progative. just because someone is wiling to "give away" their effort doesn't mean yahoo has to.

Re:Trillian (4, Insightful)

jarich (733129) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517488)

So Trillian charges you money... and then piggybacks on Yahoo's servers for free? And AOL's servers? And ....

hmmm.... (ponders the ethical dillema)....

Anyone know why Trillian isn't paying for use? Have Yahoo and company offered?

Why play their game? (0, Troll)

PhysicsGenius (565228) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517226)

Playing "protocol catchup" with a company that has a proven disdain for human rights is not the way to have Linux win. The MS-inspired monstrosity that is dotMONO is a another great example of this.

Don't make "Linux versions" of popular software. Create original popular software that runs on Linux.

WHY TROLL????? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517490)

FUCK YOU, MODERATOR, FUCK YOOUUUUUUU!!

Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like

Damn... (5, Funny)

N3koFever (777608) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517227)

...and I wanted to speak with all the people I know who use Yahoo Messenger.

Oh, wait...

Kopete also (5, Informative)

onree (680951) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517229)

Haven't been able to connect to Yahoo via Kopete since the block.

The business case sadly makes sense (5, Insightful)

spoonani (786547) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517240)

While the Open-source people here usually have a hard time comprehending why someone like yahoo would do this, consider the following. Ad revenue from y! Instant Messenger: $$$ As revenue from user connected to trillian: 0 Of course yahoo understands that their client may not be the best out there, yet without any additional ad revenues it makes it tough to explain to upper management that it is worth allowing any old client to connect.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517321)

revenue from user connected to trillian: 0

revenue from 0 users left behind using the official Yahoo client when everyone else has changed to miranda [sourceforge.net] : $0

Oh, well. They're just creating a new challange for the rev-eng'ers. I say: Just forget about it. Let yahoo have their own little net. They can create their own little usenet too if they want to.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (3, Insightful)

ooPo (29908) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517367)

While the closed-source people usually have a hard time understanding why people won't use the 'official' software, consider the following:

What makes people prefer trillian?

If yahoo can figure that out instead of trying to lock people out maybe they won't have to lock people out.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517459)

I tried Trillian but you can't use it to talk in the rooms, only on a one to one basis. I can already do that with Yahoo Messenger, thanks. What I can't do with YM is avoid being kicked out of the room by people with so called `booter` software. Also, sometimes it takes ages to get into a room. If you press escape you quit, without so much as an `are you sure`. You can't apply filtering to auto-ignore people using arabic (etc) or large fonts. Ignore is patchy and doesn't work from session to session (always). You can't force all fonts to be the same size and colour.

It seems there are a few things Trillian or Yahoo could improve on. I don't care if its proprietary or not - i just want it to work.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (1)

Merlin_80000 (529027) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517376)

that's all well and good, but at the same time its really not my problem, they need to find a way to make up for that on their own. and until they figure out a way that their users can communicate on all IM networks without having 6 (count em, 6) processes running at a time, I'm not going to let it be my problem. Also, developers who make compatible clients aren't going to either, and eventually yahoo and friends will be spending more money changing their protocol than they receive in ad revenue.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (2, Interesting)

ThisIsFred (705426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517443)

I have no idea why anyone wants to use only one of these IM services. My game clan used ICQ, so I had GnomeICU for a while. I just stopped using it (not as easy as IRC), and went back to IRC again. Pretty soon, a lot of people are going to realize that it doesn't take a genius to write a messaging program. Hell, any one of us at Slashdot could whip out a beta in less than a week. I know I could, I already am writing something similar in Tcl.

Anyway, website 'X' will have their own chat protocol, and account registration, and then so will websites 'Y' and 'Z'. Pretty soon it'll be a a service expected of a domain owner, like e-mail. And when that happens, there's going to be the need to interconnect these chat networks. After that, the above will no longer be an issue.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517491)

Their Linux client doesn't have any ads. So this makes no sense for gaim. (The number of Windows gaim users is minimal.)

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517492)

Excuse me being thick here, but how does anyone lose money -- or even make less money -- just because someone is not looking at adverts? What difference does it make whether people see the adverts and do not buy the products, or do not see the adverts?

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (3, Insightful)

GeorgeH (5469) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517505)

Yeah, but network effects [wikipedia.org] cause the whole Yahoo! network to be more valuable if more people are using it. Because Yahoo! users are able to talk to Trillian users, they stay on Yahoo!. If the Trillian users suddenly are unavailable, the Yahoo! users will start exploring other networks.

Re:The business case sadly makes sense (1)

clutch110 (528473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517508)

I agree with this sentiment completely. These major corporations are running many servers to facilitate idle chat between friends. The only profit they make from their free service is via ad revenue.

What irks me is that people expect to use these on another IM program for free. What would be nice is if the MSNs, Yahoos, and AIMs of the world published their specs and made them available if you implemented the ad segments.

Granted I hate ads myself, but if you want a truly open and free instant messenger, I believe Jabber was created for just that purpose.

PLEASE NOTE (5, Informative)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517244)

Yahoo tried this a few times last year and it looks like they're trying again.

I could dig up the older comments/articles which thoroughly contradict this troll-ish article summary but I don't think it deserves my time.

Yahoo did not, I repeat did *not* try to "block" third party IM clients "several times last year". *All* they did was upgrade their protocol for better reliability/etc (I have personally noticed the increase in reliability/refresh rate etc). It is up to the 3rd party developers to upgrade their protocols if Yahoo decides to do so.

And Yahoo did offer to help them fix their stack to help it work with their servers. I am not affiliated to Yahoo, btw - I just think it receives a lot more undeserved flak then it should.

Re:PLEASE NOTE (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517283)

Yahoo also recently released a new version with quite a few additional features (read: fluff). It would be no suprise to me if the additional features ended up breaking the old protocol format. How dare Yahoo make a change to their own product.

Re:PLEASE NOTE (3, Informative)

savagedome (742194) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517340)

Found those links.
Story here [slashdot.org]

Story here [slashdot.org]

Story here [slashdot.org]

Re:PLEASE NOTE (5, Insightful)

wfberg (24378) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517375)

Yahoo did not, I repeat did *not* try to "block" third party IM clients "several times last year". *All* they did was upgrade their protocol for better reliability/etc (I have personally noticed the increase in reliability/refresh rate etc). It is up to the 3rd party developers to upgrade their protocols if Yahoo decides to do so.

Right. It's an unfortunate side-effect.
They're also forcing all their users that DO use the Yahoo! approved clients to upgrade to their new client. A client with more bloat, more featuritis. No choice for the lowly user in all this. Yet the entire value of their messenger service is the number of people on it. That's the only reason 3rd party apps are made; people want to talk to other people who are on the Yahoo network. Instead of recognizing their users, even if they don't pay for the privilege of using the network, as a valuable asset, they treat them like, well, sheeple. Especially if you happen to be on a third party client.

Even AOL treats third party clients better, by "supporting" an oudated version of their protocol. It might not have all the whizz-bang features, but it keeps even those damn geek hippies on the network, which is a good thing for all those involved, really.

How would you feel if Microsoft suddenly changed the "hotmail" protocol, so you could send e-mail to any one on hotmail, or receive any from them? Even if it's your girlfriend, or your mother?

How about if your telephone company suddenly won't let you connect to the bad side of town? All those free phonecalls cost em, you know?

Re:PLEASE NOTE (1)

Xentax (201517) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517378)

Source?

Either way, Yahoo should make a declarative statement about their attitude towards 3rd party clients of their protocol - so their current/potential users know where they stand, so these 3rd party clients know where they stand, etc.

The way I see it, they are hurting themselves more this way than if they took either side of the fence:

1) Just say no - State that they don't intend to support 3rd party clients and discourage their users from using them (for security, features, whatever other reason they want to claim in addition to the unstated-but-primary reason - ad revenue, why else would they bother to have the service?).

2) Walk the path - Go for the customer 'warm fuzzy' goodwill factor by officially allowing 3rd party clients to interoperate (though without technical support). All they'd really have to do is publish protocol change information with some lead time so the other clients out there can have the changes ready to go. Obviously, responding to that notice in a timely and intelligent fashion (e.g. Trillian's devs making their client auto-update) are not Yahoo's problem.

As it stands, even if Yahoo *isn't* out to break these other clients, they may as well be, because that's the public perception to a situation like this. So take a stand either way.

Xentax

But if Microsoft had done this... (1)

gillbates (106458) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517471)

It would be just another case of embrace and extend, right?

Those who rant about Microsoft often condemn them of shutting out competitors by adopting an open protocol or standard, and then extending that "standard" with additional MS-specific features. Witness kerberos, Java, C++, HTML, etc...

Which makes sense from a competitive standpoint - why would anyone buy Microsoft's version if the free version does exactly the same?

So, do we applaud them for adding extra features, or condemn them for breaking compatibility. And if we condemn them for breaking compatibility, what's our solution - do we expect Yahoo to sit by idly as other other clients add features? Wouldn't we then complain that Yahoo's client is outdated?

So, why does Yahoo get an exception from the "embrace and extend" argument? Or do we hate Microsoft "Just Because"?

Re:PLEASE NOTE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517523)

Yes. And it's pretty obvious that's what they did this time, too. The lazy black hat slashdot spin strikes again...

Re:PLEASE NOTE (1)

Mike deVice (769602) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517526)

I would honestly hope that this is because Yahoo is trying to improve IM service. I've been using Yahoo! Messenger since it was Yahoo! Pager, and I'm plain tired myself and others in my list appearing to drop off and then back onto the service every half an hour.

Yahoo has some nice features, but I'm also left wondering when the shoe will drop and I'll end up with spyware or giant ads [slashdot.org] with it. I haven't looked at Jabber [jabber.org] in quite a while, and I know that it tries to be compatible with other IM services. But only for chat... I actually use my webcam with Yahoo. Yeah, I know there are alternatives, but it's just convenient to have it in one package.

I really shouldn't hit "Submit" without first having morning coffee.

Are they responsible for trillian? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517249)

Isn't it possible that they simply made a protocol change? Clearly they have every right to do that. They simply don't care about trillian customers, probably feeling they should do whatever they think is necessary to support their own service and their own customers.

While it might be nice of them to support trillian as well, that just makes it more difficult to maintain their own service. Don't assume that their change was made maliciously just to irritate trillian users.

Tempertantrum (1)

dark404 (714846) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517254)

Why is it yahoo feels the need to throw a tempertantrum about 3rd party clients in such a way as to disrupt their users. If they truely don't want trillian to use their network, there are better channels to address this. Making their own standalone client would be a start...

FYI Miranda forum thread (4, Informative)

Stavr0 (35032) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517258)

YAHOO Login Problems [miranda-im.org]

In short, scs.yahoo.com:5050 is no good.

Not necessarily a bad thing (4, Insightful)

hafree (307412) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517261)

I've been using Trillian for about 2 years now and think it's a great application. However, there's a reason Yahoo never gave users the ability to send out a mass-message to everyone on your contact list. When programs such as Trillian start including this feature, the potential for abuse is fairly obvious.

AIM (2, Interesting)

L3on (610722) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517278)

AIM has tried this in the past too, they even went back and forth with Cerulean for about two weeks constantly changing they way the AIM service connects. Finally they gave up and Trillian has worked perfectly even since. You think Yahoo would learn... However, I'm sure Yahoo is not changing thier protocal just to make Trillian not work, probably some underlying security issue we arn't seeing.

Yahoo's Loss... (1)

LordBodak (561365) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517281)

Their OS X client sucks, so I just won't use them anymore. Do these people not understand that people use things like Trillian because they're BETTER?

And another thing... (1, Redundant)

LordBodak (561365) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517316)

Maybe if Yahoo spent some time developing a better client instead of wasting it trying to keep the third parties off, they wouldn't have this problem to begin with.

Re:Yahoo's Loss... (1)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517392)

If Yahoo came out with an IM client that would work on MSN, AIM, ICQ, etc then I would use it. I actually like the yahoo client better, but it is too limited. 95% of my contacts are on AIM, 4% on yahoo, and 1% on MSN. This does not justify for me to have three separate programs running (I am a minimalist). So I use Trillian (awesome product) because it is one program that works on multiple platforms. When Yahoo decides to do this, then I will use their client.
Trillian in my experience is not perfect - I ALWAYS have a hard time sending/receiving files/pictures from people. Most of the time it doesn't work, sometimes it does.

yahoo + trillian?? (0)

cunnilingus (706302) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517287)

who needs yahoo messaging without yahoo im themes?

Re:yahoo + trillian?? (1)

Aczlan (636310) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517386)

perhaps those of us who need to talk to people on AIM, Y! and MSN but dont want to have 3 diffrient clients open????

What's the point in that?? (1)

the_rajah (749499) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517290)

I guess they don't want Linux/BSD, Etc users to be able to talk to their IM folks. What's the point in that other than to piss us off so we'll hack it again? That's a bit rude, IMO. Another black mark for Yahoo. Who do they think they are? Microsoft?

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Re:What's the point in that?? (1)

GlynDavies (692080) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517404)

Actually, Yahoo do produce clients for both Linux and BSD, so I guess they do want such users to be able to chat.
Of course, there client isn't very good (compared to their Windows client), but that's another story.

Re:What's the point in that?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517497)

Tell me about it - the "official" client crashes anytime someone tries to send me a file.

Re:What's the point in that?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517413)

What?

I mean what?!?!?

Yahoo is intent on pissing off potential users?

What?

You are a fucking idiot.

Has it occured to you that Yahoo are simply upgrading their protocol for better reliability/stability etc. I mean, it's their own fucking product.

Not everything is a stab/attack against your precious Open Source, Anti Microsoft clique. You need to grow up, and realise that you are blinding yourself to other options that do not involve the goodness, the glory, the joy of OS, or are simply an attack against it.

You need to grow up fast.

Re:What's the point in that?? (1)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517451)

There is an official GTK-based client for Linux and FreeBSD.

Re:What's the point in that?? (2, Interesting)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517453)

I guess they don't want Linux/BSD, Etc users to be able to talk to their IM folks.

A fine theory, except there is an official Linux/BSD Yahoo Messenger client [yahoo.com] available.
I have no idea how good it is as I use GAIM [sourceforge.net] .

Re:What's the point in that?? (1)

bored_SuSE_user (701483) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517521)

You know there IS a client for Linux users for yahoo messenger. If you got to messenger.yahoo.com you will see it ;)

What about the law? (5, Interesting)

cculianu (183926) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517293)

Well, does anyone know if this is just a protocol upgrade or if yahoo! is really trying to get rid of the third party clients?

If they want to get rid of 3rd party clients, then this is just another arms race, meaning we will eventually have open clients that work, after some finite delay.

In all honesty I can't blame yahoo! for trying. After all, for each person that doesn't see the ads associated with their official client, they lose revenue.

Yahoo! is a great site and they provide a LOT of stuff for free, so I don't blame them for trying to get some money back for all the free stuff they have given us over the years. I guess since IMing is so popular and so much time is spent in the IM client, to them that's a LOT of missing eyeballs over a long period of time that don't get to see the ads. That's a lot of money lost by the minute. And let's face it.. we are using their computers for free, and not giving anything back each time we use a third party client.

My question though, is that if they hate third party IM clients for cutting into their rev. stream, why don't they take the law out of their own hands and use the law to their advantage? Is there nothing that could be done, by drafting some clever EULA or something, that would make it illegal or something like that to use 3rd party clients? That might actually dampen the efforts with libyahoo and other projects that try to develop an open protocol lib. Sourceforge might even cease to host such projects, being that they are in the realm of piracy or accorting to the DMCA.

While it would suck for me (as I love to use centericq over their stupid client), why don't they just make it illegal to use third party clients?

Re:What about the law? (1)

Cheerio Boy (82178) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517381)

My question though, is that if they hate third party IM clients for cutting into their rev. stream, why don't they take the law out of their own hands and use the law to their advantage? Is there nothing that could be done, by drafting some clever EULA or something, that would make it illegal or something like that to use 3rd party clients? That might actually dampen the efforts with libyahoo and other projects that try to develop an open protocol lib. Sourceforge might even cease to host such projects, being that they are in the realm of piracy or accorting to the DMCA.

I'm going to ask you to forget you ever thought about this. You have a point - even if it is a bit trollish - but the more you put these ideas out there the more suits will use them. Think a suit doesn't have somebody watching the "new" or "the web" for him to spot technology and legal changes?

Don't give them an inch - even in jest. They'll take that inch, your house, your car, your family if possible, and your self respect if they can.
Don't trust them!

Re:What about the law? (3, Insightful)

cculianu (183926) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517441)

I'm going to ask you to forget you ever thought about this. You have a point - even if it is a bit trollish - but the more you put these ideas out there the more suits will use them. Think a suit doesn't have somebody watching the "new" or "the web" for him to spot technology and legal changes?

Well I disagree. First off, I don't think that the 'suits' that are paid to think about how to ruin our lives haven't already thought of this. I don't think that by censoring my thinking I am doing anyone any good. By asking the question that I did, I think that will eventually reveal that in fact Yahoo! doesn't really want to kill the 3rd party clients -- at least not yet. I think that if they really wanted to, they would have been more aggressive about it already. And believe me, by my posting that question here on /. I don't think I'm doing anyone any harm, as I guarantee you this was though of already as soon as libyahoo 0.0001 came out.

I think that in actuality they prefer for the time being that as many people as possible use their Y!IM network. Maybe sometime later in the future when they are a monopoly (if that ever happens) they will then proceed to kick the ass of every 3rd party client.. but until then, they secretly believe 'the more the merrier'.

That's the cool thing about having so many competing systems. And that's the problem with something like Microsoft where they managed to kill off all their competition. They become dicks and stop doing a good job as soon as that happens.

Re:What about the law? (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517446)

You don't think that they had that idea by themselves if they though it made sense for them ? "Ohhhhhhhh ! User JohnDoe on Slashdot suggests we sue just all producers of third-party clients ! Why didn't we think of this ourselves ?"

I think you overestimate the relevancy of Slashdot to the world outside of Slashdot.

works... (0)

AviLazar (741826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517294)

A quick fix discovered late this evening: Change your Y!IM host from scs.msg.yahoo.com to scs.yahoo.com, port 5050, and it should work. This is on Trillian 0.74H

Works for me now!!! Thanks /.

"Grumble grumble, stoopid Yahoo."

They're begging for it (2, Informative)

inkedmn (462994) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517296)

So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether? *cough*jabber [jabber.org] *cough*
If they're going to be such babies about letting *more* people use their system, let 'em. They're pretty much second fiddle to AIM, it seems...

Re:They're begging for it (1)

CaptainBaz (621098) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517442)

Because we won't be able to convince our non-techie friends and family to switch from the application that all their friends use!

It's a chain-of-chains problem - I need to use Y!IM because some of my friends use it. They won't switch because all their friends use it. And their friends won't switch because all *their* friends use it.

And as an aside, neither Trillian nor GAIM support any of the advanced features of AIM, MSN or Y!IM (webcam, voice chat etc), so I have to use all three clients instead of an all-in-one.

Oh, wouldn't it be nice if everything just worked...

Re:They're begging for it (2, Insightful)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517479)

So why not switch to an alternate IM system altogether?

The problem is that it's not as simple as one person changing messenger clients. If I change, I can't talk to anyone I currently do unless 5 other people change (I am apparently in the minority with such a small list :). But those 5 people won't change unless the 20 people on each of their lists changes. And *those* 20 (times 5) people won't change unless....you get the picture.

And that's why multi-service chat programs are needed.

I have a better idea... (1, Redundant)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517301)

Why not simply boycott Yahoo's IM product?? If they keep changing the protocol to thwart easy adoption of alternate clients, especially clients that are designed to run on alternative operating systems, why continue to use them??

Re:I have a better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517427)

Because you want to talk to specific people who are only on Yahoo's network?

That's not a boycott. (1)

dangermouse (2242) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517486)

That's "taking a hint".

Gaim (1)

ntb (694877) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517305)

Gaim isn't working either... Nothing on their homepage. Hope they will fix this soon.

adium for Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517307)

for Mac users out there... Adium is having problems logging in as well.

Other Blocked Clients (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517330)

Many other clients have been blocked. These include Adium, Fire, Kopete, Proteus and Gaim.

Re: Yahoo Changes Protocol, Blocks Third Party Cli (5, Interesting)

manavendra (688020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517356)

In an era where instant messaging is touting as the "next big thing", most service providers are always faced with the dilemma of whether to allow third party clients to connect, or prevent.

Messaging clients with advertisement-based model will surely object to allowing third party clients to connect, since it doesnt make any business sense.

Furthermore, they may have allowed such third party clients in the past, to gain that critical mass that ensures market peneration and continued usage, but once they are past the bell curve, they would then clam down on it.

Think of it as an equivalent to Microsoft clamping down on piracy - they never prevented that in the past knowing that so long as its their products being used, they will be able to generate revenues one way or the other. Now that the market penetration is coming to a saturation (or if not, there are far more alternative solutions available than ever before), they have started to really put on the squeeze.

Finally, companies like trillian may well have the best protocol engineers in the world, but such disruptions in service shall push away customers every time, however small the percentage might be. Unless connectivity to widely used messengers is provided by agreement, such connectivity outages will cause most users to move to move away from them.

Adopting a new protocol (4, Insightful)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517357)

Of course, the best solution is to create a superior protocol and set of clients, get it standardized, and somehow get them widely adopted (yeah, I know, this is the hard part), and make it so that Yahoo and MSN want their messengers to be compatible with IT.

I know this is pie in the sky, but this whole messenger war seems so stupid. Wasn't someone working on a standards for a messenger protocol? This whole messenger war thing seems so stupid and only serves to piss users off.

This is ind of like copy protection and DRM. They keep trying to stop people and people just keep getting around it. Nobody ever seems to learn. Are they just going to keep beating their heads against the wall until the end of time? Are all these guys that clueless and stubborn?

Re:Adopting a new protocol (2, Insightful)

scrm (185355) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517461)

Of course, the best solution is to create a superior protocol and set of clients, get it standardized, and somehow get them widely adopted

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this supposed to be the goal of Jabber [jabber.org] ?

It doesn't seem to have gained much momentum in any case.

Re:Adopting a new protocol (1)

jkabbe (631234) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517502)

Of course, the best solution is to create a superior protocol and set of clients, get it standardized, and somehow get them widely adopted (yeah, I know, this is the hard part), and make it so that Yahoo and MSN want their messengers to be compatible with IT.

And while you're at it you can find a cure for cancer and end all wars, everwhere. :)

Re:Adopting a new protocol (4, Interesting)

Pedersen (46721) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517507)

Protocol: Jabber [jabber.org] . Best client for it? hard to say, but my favorite is Psi [affinix.com] . And I'm working on spreading the word to everybody that I can.

Re:Adopting a new protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517520)

like jabber?

Backwards compatibility with unsupported products? (4, Insightful)

mackman (19286) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517383)

Who blames them? When they decide to upgrade their product and add new features to their protocol, do you really expect them to test for backwards compatibility with all the unsupported 3rd party IM clients!? They never provided an API/protocol spec. They never provided developer support to 3rd parties. They have *no obligation* to maintain compatiblity and they clearly won't and shouldn't let backwards compatibility interfere with new features in their own clients. Damn tin foil hats.

Question: Open IM protocol? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9517396)

Yahoo playing a bit dirty with Trillian makes me wonder if there is in existence an open IM protocol (if there is and everyone knows about it already, please forgive me). IM's a pretty useful communication tool and it's unfortunate that we have to depend on companies like yahoo who don't always have our best interests at heart.

It occurs to me that one barrier to having a truely open IM is the requirement of a central server for connecting to other users. Hmmm. P2P solution of some sort?

Re:Question: Open IM protocol? (1)

grandmofftarkin (49366) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517466)

You are probably a troll but I'll answer nonetheless. Yes, there is an open alternative it is called Jabber. Do a google search.

Awfully sorry. (4, Interesting)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517410)

Is this article supposed to make Yahoo look evil? If so, I don't see how. I know the popular notion on /. that "information wants to be free", but Yahoo provides a free service, and as with a free service, you are at the mercy of the provider. So Yahoo wants you to use their official client, it isn't the end of the world, nor do I think it is even newsworthy here on /. I am prepared for the inevitable karma loss on this comment, but I have been maxed out for years, it does not bother me anymore.

Yahoo (0, Redundant)

ZeroGuard (602061) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517483)

I love Trillian, very very disappointed in yahoo, thought they settled this last year.

malicious intent? piffle! (3, Interesting)

KingPrad (518495) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517495)

Come on, people. Yahoo is upgrading its protocol to prevent message spam. The changes temporarily prevent gaim, Trillian, and other clients from working until they make their own changes. This isn't a sinister act on Yahoo's part and the poster (and ZDnet) have nothing to stand on to say this is about blocking third-party clients.

And to those complaining about the yahoo client, I find it to be the best IM program overall. The new version has a clean interface, quick access to your address book and other features, but is customizable to not show any of that stuff if you don't want the clutter. Best of all, it doesn't deliver ads. NONE. Plus the offline messaging is a great feature.

Perhaps the people complaining haven't used it for a year or two and just think it's awful that a commercial company would break compatibility for an upgrade? It happens all the time in the open source world - cut Yahoo some slack.

Google (5, Funny)

TheLoneCabbage (323135) | more than 10 years ago | (#9517501)


Makes you just itch for a google client doesn't it?

'Cause if it's Google it must be good!

GMail - like turning on the lights and watching the cockaroaches scatter!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?