AIM Has Been Resurrected. Kind Of. (vice.com) 54
AOL discontinued AIM, its 20-year-old iconic instant messaging service, last December, months after cutting third-party access to it. Now Motherboard reports a a small team of developers has resurrected it with a private server. From the report: The new chat service is called AIM Phoenix, and it works by running the messages through a private Dynamic DNS run by Wildman Productions, a non-profit group of hobbyist programers. This isn't a new AIM client, it literally uses the old software running on a new server, so it looks and feels exactly like AIM. It's simple to set up. First, you download an old version of AIM from the AIM Phoenix website, register for a new username, tweak the settings to reroute through Wildman Productions' server, and then open yourself up the nostalgic glory of Web 2.0. The old versions of AIM are touchy on new machines and I had to play with a few different versions before I got 5.0 working on my Windows 10 machine.
Why use the AIM client? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are the messages encrypted?
Re:Why use the AIM client? (Score:4, Informative)
http://pidgin-encrypt.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Web 2.0? Huh? (Score:1)
AIM was not Web 2.0. AIM, ICQ and the likes existed as part of the web long before Web 2.0 was a term.
Captcha: change
Was part of the Internet, yes (Score:2)
Independent of the Web altogether.
You're thinking of AOL, not AIM (Score:2)
AIM was just another ICQ rip-off. Not to dissimilar to todays Telegram, WeChat, Whatsapp and the likes.
Unanswered question (Score:3)
Why would anyone want to do this?
Re: (Score:1)
I think there is a lot of people that would have a lot of found memories using AOL. maybe them would like to revive their experience in this platform.
but i agree, it does not make a lot of sense.
Re: (Score:1)
asl?
Re:Unanswered question (Score:5, Funny)
Where the men were men, the women were men and the children were FBI agents.
Re: (Score:3)
I blame Microsoft. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Had they not totally Bjorked up Skype (and yes I use her name as a pejorative) there would be no need for any competitors, new or old.
That is ridiculous. There is always a need for competitors. A product/company/thingy without competition becomes stagnant, regardless of how dope it is. That aside - there is no practical reason to resurrect AIM. Somebody did it because they could - not because MS did something stupid with Skype.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the use case for AIM, Skype, and Discord be equally served with an extension to the IRC protocol that lets a user choose to store chat history on the server?
Jabber and IRC are 1000X more advanced (Score:2)
And at least Jabber offers the possibility of TLS and a decent password hashing system that allows strong passwords without them getting truncated for validation and encoded using a weak crackable hash. So what's the draw of the AIM client today?
Re: (Score:2)
And at least Jabber offers the possibility of TLS and a decent password hashing system that allows strong passwords without them getting truncated for validation and encoded using a weak crackable hash. So what's the draw of the AIM client today?
Nostalgia.
Same reason anyone would want to play (original Atari) Pitfall ...
Retro Clients (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AIM-54 Phoenix (Score:3)
Reinventing the Wheel (Score:3)
What I find hilarious is how Slack came about. It's the best example of recreating the wheel I can imagine. There is no reason AOL couldn't have made AIM into what Slack is today.
And yet corporations pony up tons of cash for the privilege of using it when there are a ton of chat programs around that use the same thing.
I need to start thinking like a fashion designer. What's old is new and what is new is old.
Maybe I should resurrect PDAs again, oh wait they already did that with Tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
"register for a new username" (Score:2)
Wha? Why can't I reclaim my old username by requesting a confirmation link be sent to my AOL email account?
I miss when everyone used IM clients (Score:1)
Please no.