The U of M discovers Jabber


Mike A. just brought to my attention the fact that the U of M has set up an all-U IM server using the Jabber protocol. Their reason for this move?

Jabber is an open, XML-based instant messaging (IM) technology. By hosting our own Jabber servers, the University can provide safer and more flexible instant messaging for its users.

The ability to host IM traffic on University servers allows us to protect our users against sophisticated virus and worm attacks, such as the ones that spread over AIM in Spring 2005.

All this seems quite sensible, and I really like Jabber (my Spring, 2004, Software Design class wrote Jabber based chat clients), but I’m not real convinced that this is going to fly. So far they’ve done pretty much nothing to inform the university community that they’ve done this, and I’m totally not sure that they’ll be able to convince the students, who have IM contacts all over the universe (most of which use either AIM or MSN), to switch over and use this. I wish them luck, but I’m not putting money down.

And what is up with the U’s continued schizo attitude towards Open Source tools? Last year they adopted Oracle’s on-line calendar system (internally called UMCal) without even considering an open source alternative. And they continue to promote the use of WebCT despite the existence of several plausible open source alternatives (some of which the U is even helping support, at least on paper).

Yet, when they wanted to set up an IM server, they go with the open source Jabber option. Hmmm… Why is that? Maybe because there were no good proprietary options?!? Arghhhh…

And while I’m ranting, I’ll express my concern about what I perceive to be a growing trend both within the larger U and here at UMM to build this type of closed, inwarding looking solution (“We support IM, but you can only talk to U of M people.”) in response to real and perceived security issues. A vibrant, successful university is almost certainly an outward looking institution, aware of and part of conversations and activities that span the entire globe. This move to closed, internal communications networks is inherently inconsistent with the mission and goals of the institution.

PeeZed manages to handle the many security issues surrounding his highly successful (and wonderfully “controversial”) blog all on his lonesome while still inviting and encouraging the participation of a large and active community. You’d think that the massive resources of the U could do better than running around locking all the doors.

Maybe I should ask them to disallow phone calls to my office from off campus. Then I wouldn’t have to talk to those pesky colleagues, alums, employers seeking a reference for a student, and that woman who wanted to interview me two weeks ago about a security clearance for a recent graduate.

Think of all the blogging I could do … uh … work I could get done without all those tedious interruptions…

Related posts

It’s a shame more people can’t write so well about tech

John Naugton
WeatherGirl just handed me a recent copy of The Observer, an excellent British weekly that she subscribes to as part of her campaign (along with listening to BBC radio on-line) to both keep track of what’s happening “back home” and to get her news from organizations that regularly provide intelligent, thoughtful reporting.

An excellent example of this is John Naughton, the author of a regularly technology column in the Observer, and the author of the piece WeatherGirl was handing my way. The column in question is an analysis of the recent (and much discussed) Supreme Court decision regarding Grokster and StreamCast Networks which has been seen by many as a huge defeat for the peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, and victory for the big players in corporate media that are trying to desparately to maintain at least the illusion of their control over their content.

Most writing on this and similar issues tends to suffer from serious myopia as the writers typically understand either the technological side of the issue or the socio-political-economic side of the issue. It is sadly all too common that writers understand neither of these sides, and very rarely do they understand both. Naughton is the happy exception, who really understands the world of the nerds that drive the technical changes that constantly ripple through our lives, and can write with wonderful perception about the larger context that these issues live in.

In the column in question, for example, Naughton understands (and clearly explains) important differences between Grokster and StreamCast Networks and the classic Sony decision that is often quoted as precedent. As he nicely points out, a better analogy to the Sony decision is BitTorrent, yet sadly most writers on the issue (not to mention many of the policy makers involved) probably know little about BitTorrent and less about its place in this complex set of issues.

In short, John rocks, and you could do much worse.

Oh, and I should mention that he also helps support the interesting Living without Microsoft site.

Related posts