Yahoo blocks third party IM clients from its network

craaven, can you explain this in kindergarten computer? who are 3rd party clients? i use yahoo im, and i'vee never gotten any 3rd party solcitations.

In theory, I agree with you. In practice, however, I wonder if general adoption of an Open Source IM protocol would exacerbate already thorny security and privacy issues. I dunno, mebbe I'm off-base there, but I damned near buy the security concerns raised by the providers who wish to exclude third-party actors. Still, I do think its really a monetization thing more than anything else when the real motivators are examined; that's usually the case.

I'm with Gala. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

He's refering to applications like Trillian, which are supposed to be all-in-one messaging clients, sorta tying together MSN Messenger, Yahoo! Messenger, and AOL Messenger, among others, making them, within its own shell, more-or-less interopperable so it doesn't matter which IM client someone else is using, all intercommunicate. The Bigname providers are not real fond of the concept, and there has been a long history of attempts to defeat the apps which try to accomplish this, followed, of course, by moves on the part of the developers of such apps to defeat the defeats.

@#!$#@, you computer people are so effing clueless, don't you realize that your language is from the land of "your own kind" and we less capable saps don't understand it? although, timberland, i appreciate your effort, i still have no idea what the hell you just said.

Trillian is a program which allows different instant messaging programs to talk to one another, such as AIM (AOL Instant Messaging), Yahoo! Messenger and MSN Messenger. Yahoo! Messenger is now blocking it.

Oh. the irony.

Gala, this thread was posted for techies, quite frankly anyone who helps you despite your rudeness deserves a nicer house in heaven. You deserve the same vulgar insults that you are dishing out.

craven, i don't believe in heaven, so their houses will be a lot nicer than mine. please note, that i acknowledged timberland and believe you are being a bit prickly over this matter.

Well I disagree, I posted a news item that was only directed to techies. You decided it was important to you and decided to bitch and complain that others were at fault for your inability to understand it.

You call the techies "effin clueless" just because your own cluelessness is such that you could not comprehend it.

You demonstrated the typical blame-others-for-my-ignorance of many technically incompetent people.

This is just common sense, not technology. With less than 10 days of computer use in my life I was able to understand that type of text. If there are any terms I do not know it takes less than 10 seconds to look them up.

Now it's perfectly understandable that some have difficulty, but don't blame those who do not for your difficulties.

And don't call them clueless and curse when they trt to help you. It's rude and is a transparent attempt to blame others for your own inadequacies or unwillingness to investigate and learn.

But on one thing I agree, this "matter" is not worth pursuing further.

Ok, I get it now. Thanks for explaining Timber & Jes.

I'd like to be able to say I'm amazed this topic could have swung the way it did. Unfortunately, I can't say I'm even surprised, let alone amazed. Gala, if you bring a pillow to a gunfight, don't be dismayed if you find it hard to keep up.

Well I think I was a bit unfair to Gala, so I apologize.

Ironically, unfair in a way (curt) that I was criticizing.

Let me expound (really).

Just about every techie had to learn through curiosity and exploration.

Some people do not do so and there is a mighty battle between them (Geeks and the n00bs).

"Why doesn't it work?" vs. "Read the Feekin' Manual"

It is as clearly a delienated bunch as the Democrats and the Republicans.

Some crossover exists between these camps and the exchanges are sometimes abrasive.

A wise n00b will make it easy, "the Geeks are helping them for free so I'll help them help me".

Many do not, and transfer the frustrations they have with the technology onto the only human manifestation they know; the Geeks.

"It's the damn Geeks' fault anyway, they are the bastards responsible for all this" is a common ejaculation heard at a n00bcon (the conventions n00b's go to to share stories about the worst Tech Support experiences).

Anywho, most Geeks learned through trial and error and by going through what every n00b faced and occasionally asking for people to explain something very complicated to them.

Some of the Geeks respond with distain and tell you to go search (which is always a good idea) and sometimes punctuate it with a "read the f-ing manual!"

Anywho, this long rant is an explanation of the backstory. For too many reasons to describe technology and the fight between it's pure (and like humans, buggy) logic and the problems and challenges it poses.

On the battlegroud Geeks and n00bs fight along side each other but there's a lot of friction.

So I got irritated, Timber has spent countless hours walking people through things and his posts on this forum have helped thousands (literally) of people and are linked to and copied all around the net.

He never RTFMs someone and gives patient free help.

Sometimes it's hard to gauge the level at which someome understands and if asked I have only seen him explain it further.

So I got peeved when you called him "effin clueless" just because you didn't understand it, all you had to do was ask and he would have explained it. And the fact that you didn't understand is not his fault, it was something he was trying to help you with.

Mebbe I was a little snippy too. Not an excuse, but a n explanation; I had just got home from bein' called out to do about 3 hours of cleaning up at an idiot-caused car wreck. That sorta thing tends to affect my mood some. Anyhow, before jumpin' in the shower and windin' down some, I checked the website, and clicked in to see what you'd responded. I should know better. I apologize for barkin' at ya, Gala. I feel much better now, after the shower and a coupla beers.

craven, i apologize too, it was not my intent to upset anyone, or blame-- but i can see how you would see it that way.

i think that knowing about computers starts as a natural ability, much like someone has a talent to paint or write, and then the talent is built upon by practice, experimentation, and study.

because life is now centered around computers, we are dependent on them, it puts an enormous burden on those in the field. my background is in art, painting, and as far as i can tell, there is no such thing as an art emergency. no one calls me in the wee hours of the morning, unlike with a computer problem, to fix their art life.

but what i do get, which i believe there is a parallel to your profession, is that people think your services are for free. they don't appreciate the sweat involved in what it takes to be good at what you do. and, i think that it is similar with therapists, for example, who go to a party and they meet someone who wants to tell them their problems then and there...

timberland, i didn't think you were snippy.

and, i've asked some computer questions from time to time and always appreciate getting the amswers.

thanks jespah, for your explanation.

i'm glad that things are well again, i felt bad. now i can resume my wedding plans with gus.

Cool ... glad you feel that way. Now, to get back to business, 2 items:

1) CdK ... what's your take on the Open Source/Security angle re cross-provider IM apps? I know Open Source Forum code can be relatively secure, but I think, IM/Chat being what it is, a helluva temptation would be there for some folks to romp through exploits like kids in rainpuddle.

2)Gala, if you want to follow along, and anything is unclear, just shout out, and somebody'll try to get you up to speed. That's how stuff gets learned.

Well, as it stands it's not secure anyway. I think an open source standard for a protocol wouldn't make any difference in terms of security.

The central issue I see that would be hard to resolve would be the registration database.

How would the many different account databases be reconciled?

A standard protocol for interoperability would, IMO, be a piece of cake and the only problem I see is user authentication.

IMO, it should work a bit like email. Protocols for interoperability of platforms and authentication at each network's discretion.

Yeah, authentication across protocols could take some inventive thinking. Agreed IM isn't very secure to begin with, though; it already provides all sorts of exploit opportunities, even if just plain common sense on the part of the user is somehow miraculously brought into the picture, and of course that will never happen " ... I clicked on a link in a message, and then my 'puter started doin' all this wierd stuff ... "