The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Does anyone know if such a protocol exists? I've looked around but not been able to find one. It strikes me that with all the developments in P2P computing of late, there must be a way to decentralise the instant messaging system. The only problem I foresee is authorisation, but I'm sure this can be overcome.
The reason I ask is that I reckon it will only be a matter of time before Microsoft start charging for MSN Messenger...they've already started charging for some aspects of it (e.g. high-res video). To be honest, I think it's only fair that MS charge - all conversations are going through their servers after all! It's only video/audio/file transfer that is done directly between two computers.
Anyways, that was my question....any ideas?
The reason I ask is that I reckon it will only be a matter of time before Microsoft start charging for MSN Messenger...they've already started charging for some aspects of it (e.g. high-res video). To be honest, I think it's only fair that MS charge - all conversations are going through their servers after all! It's only video/audio/file transfer that is done directly between two computers.
Anyways, that was my question....any ideas?
Page:
lcarus wrote:
> Garin wrote:
> P2P for instant messaging doesn't really make sense and would in
> fact
> be less efficient than the systems that most IM protocols tend to
> already use I think.
>
>
> Why and how?
The point of P2P networks is that they are good for distributing large amounts of data. They are even more efficient when the data you're interested in isn't unique. For example, you're downloading a file, you can receive it from multiple sources on the network, it doesn't matter who has it as long as its the information you want.
Their nature also means that data can be slow to propogate across them, not every node on the network is aware of what other nodes have available or even what other nodes exist. You have supernodes that make this easier of course, but still its not perfect. But it generally works as theres many sources for the same data. That kind of performance isn't acceptable when the information is the online status of somebody or maybe a message, or contact details or anything else IM related.
P2P networks have already solved that problem of course. You don't magically connect to a P2P network, there has to be a server running to connect you with the rest of the network and to try to keep the network together. Now you're in nearly the same position as current IM networks, central server keeping track of your connection or "online status". So all you're left with now is transfering messages. I know MSN doesn't support direct connection for transfering messages, but others do (with a fallback to server transfer if it fails). And transfering messages across the P2P network is pointless (generating lots of traffic for the sake of a few hundred byte message) and ultimately open to exploitation. Whatever you think about central servers like MSN receiving your IMs at least their a level of trust about what will happen with that information.
> Garin wrote:
> P2P for instant messaging doesn't really make sense and would in
> fact
> be less efficient than the systems that most IM protocols tend to
> already use I think.
>
>
> Why and how?
The point of P2P networks is that they are good for distributing large amounts of data. They are even more efficient when the data you're interested in isn't unique. For example, you're downloading a file, you can receive it from multiple sources on the network, it doesn't matter who has it as long as its the information you want.
Their nature also means that data can be slow to propogate across them, not every node on the network is aware of what other nodes have available or even what other nodes exist. You have supernodes that make this easier of course, but still its not perfect. But it generally works as theres many sources for the same data. That kind of performance isn't acceptable when the information is the online status of somebody or maybe a message, or contact details or anything else IM related.
P2P networks have already solved that problem of course. You don't magically connect to a P2P network, there has to be a server running to connect you with the rest of the network and to try to keep the network together. Now you're in nearly the same position as current IM networks, central server keeping track of your connection or "online status". So all you're left with now is transfering messages. I know MSN doesn't support direct connection for transfering messages, but others do (with a fallback to server transfer if it fails). And transfering messages across the P2P network is pointless (generating lots of traffic for the sake of a few hundred byte message) and ultimately open to exploitation. Whatever you think about central servers like MSN receiving your IMs at least their a level of trust about what will happen with that information.
Microsoft already get money from MSN Messenger- they don't display those ads at the bottom out of the kindness of their heart's, you know!
Garin wrote:
> P2P for instant messaging doesn't really make sense and would in fact
> be less efficient than the systems that most IM protocols tend to
> already use I think.
>
Why and how?
> P2P for instant messaging doesn't really make sense and would in fact
> be less efficient than the systems that most IM protocols tend to
> already use I think.
>
Why and how?
P2P for instant messaging doesn't really make sense and would in fact be less efficient than the systems that most IM protocols tend to already use I think.
In any case, I doubt MSN will be charging for messaging anytime soon. There was some pressure for them to start making money, but it seems entirely focused on value added services.
In any case, I doubt MSN will be charging for messaging anytime soon. There was some pressure for them to start making money, but it seems entirely focused on value added services.
Microsoft would never start charging for using MSN messenger. It's just too big a thing to do.
OK, I can see them charging for using file transfers and stuff but they'll always keep the basic messenging system free, it would be stupid to kick people off as theres so many free services.
OK, I can see them charging for using file transfers and stuff but they'll always keep the basic messenging system free, it would be stupid to kick people off as theres so many free services.
Maybe, lol! Nah, just cos I reckon it's the kinda thing which would be a great, and legal, implementation of P2P technologies.
Also, this way, it'll stay free, and there can be loads more functionality...
Also, this way, it'll stay free, and there can be loads more functionality...
p2p messaging seems like common sense... I remember there's a messenging program in the DirectX diagnostics app; that could be p2p, but of course, limited and hardly a substitute.
Why do you need p2p IM for anyway? Want to plan some anti Government march?
Why do you need p2p IM for anyway? Want to plan some anti Government march?
IRC still has centralised servers though...
I don't think I titled this topic particularly well - I shoulda called it "Decentralised IM Protocol" or something.
Also, am jabber still has servers, it just has lots of them. To be truely decentralised, it would be ideal if every client was a server as well - like with BitTorrent...
I don't think I titled this topic particularly well - I shoulda called it "Decentralised IM Protocol" or something.
Also, am jabber still has servers, it just has lots of them. To be truely decentralised, it would be ideal if every client was a server as well - like with BitTorrent...
Ah ha!
Found one....
http://www.jabber.org/
Jabber is best known as "the Linux of instant messaging" -- an open, secure, ad-free alternative to consumer IM services like AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo (see the IM quickstart). Under the hood, Jabber is a set of streaming XML protocols and technologies that enable any two entities on the Internet to exchange messages, presence, and other structured information in close to real time.
If you're a Windows user, it works with that Trillian thing I think
For Linuxers - Gaim is the way to go.
Found one....
http://www.jabber.org/
Jabber is best known as "the Linux of instant messaging" -- an open, secure, ad-free alternative to consumer IM services like AIM, ICQ, MSN, and Yahoo (see the IM quickstart). Under the hood, Jabber is a set of streaming XML protocols and technologies that enable any two entities on the Internet to exchange messages, presence, and other structured information in close to real time.
If you're a Windows user, it works with that Trillian thing I think
For Linuxers - Gaim is the way to go.
IRC?
(not open source I know)
(not open source I know)
Page: