1 |
This discussion has now become rather OT and does not belong |
2 |
to this list. Anyway, since there appear to be some misunderstandings |
3 |
concerning my previous remarks, I contribute one more post. |
4 |
|
5 |
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
6 |
>>> > > > Please don't. Not all communication partners are linux users. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> The (in)?famous network effect. A network grows in value based on the |
9 |
> number of users it has... |
10 |
|
11 |
Not only: You might convince your communication partners to switch. |
12 |
However, they must be able to switch on *their* systems easily |
13 |
(and not have to install linux or solve other technical obstacles). |
14 |
|
15 |
>>> > So it doesn't work [...] |
16 |
>>> |
17 |
>>> Can't agree with you here. I just tried tox (utox client) from |
18 |
>>> tox-overlay. Works like charm from the box [...] |
19 |
|
20 |
Maybe from utox to utox. From utox to antox (the android client) - |
21 |
which is the only case that I can reasonably test - I was only once |
22 |
able to send a friends request from antox to utox, but no message, |
23 |
and nothing in the opposite direction. After an antox upgrade, |
24 |
I cannot even use my login anymore, probably since the ID has |
25 |
changed due to upgrade... |
26 |
|
27 |
Also, you cannot be behind a restrictive NAT. For instance, one of |
28 |
my NAT routers cannot easily be configured to forward the exotic port, |
29 |
and then there is also the problem of UDP hole punching - not sure, |
30 |
whether this is solved in tox at all. |
31 |
|
32 |
I never tried to examine how skype does it, but opening ports in |
33 |
NAT routers was never necessary for skype, probably because it |
34 |
switches ports automatically as required. Moreover, since it uses |
35 |
a central server, there is no UDP punching problem. |
36 |
|
37 |
Such "magic" (like automatic port switching) is required if you |
38 |
really want to suggest it to users who are not computer-affine: |
39 |
It must really be "configuration free" - also in difficult situations - |
40 |
and work out of the box. Currently, it apparently works only on some |
41 |
only-linux clients, and only if the network is configured fine |
42 |
for them. |
43 |
|
44 |
>> As long as the vast majority of my contacts use Skype and Yahoo |
45 |
> |
46 |
> That was the point above about not everyone being a Linux user |
47 |
|
48 |
No, I think these are different points: My point was about whether |
49 |
people are *technically* able to switch (if all agree). The other |
50 |
is whether people are *socially* able to switch. |
51 |
Of course, both must be solved, but the former is the requirement |
52 |
for the latter, and tox still seems to have a long way to reach |
53 |
the former. |
54 |
|
55 |
>>> It should be noted that at least in Linux skype is much harder to |
56 |
>>> install and use since it requires pulseaudio |
57 |
|
58 |
But this concerns only Linux users who probably are computer-affine |
59 |
and can solve such problems (or know somebody who is). |
60 |
|
61 |
>>> So skype reqires its own LXC container set up |
62 |
|
63 |
Not really. There is a forum post how to use skype (*only* skype) |
64 |
with pulseaudio (once bug 519530 gets fixed, you can even do this |
65 |
without patching any ebuild or configuration.) |
66 |
|
67 |
To avoid a misunderstanding: I really oppose the non-privacy |
68 |
policy of skype, and hardly can await until tox is ready. |
69 |
However, the current state is that skype is without alteratives |
70 |
for many people. |
71 |
Moreover, suggesting tox to casual computer users too early - |
72 |
like now when many technical problems are not yet solved - |
73 |
would be rather contraproductive and actually kill tox: |
74 |
People who once had a bad experience will likely refuse to switch |
75 |
when tox *is* ready. |