1 |
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:10:45 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/03/2016 05:13 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:58:24 -0300 Guilherme Amadio wrote: |
4 |
> >> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:15:30AM +0800, Jason Zaman wrote: |
5 |
> >>> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:08:34PM -0700, Jigme Datse Rasku wrote: |
6 |
> >>>> I'd have to say, there is likely a reason we are looking for a new |
7 |
> >>>> maintainer. I don't know what is involved, but I might be interested. |
8 |
> >>>> Might be wanting to start that direction... |
9 |
> >>> |
10 |
> >>> There is a new alpha skype for linux too now that should be looked into. |
11 |
> >>> I have no idea how stable it is but it's probably not much worse than |
12 |
> >>> what we currently have :P. |
13 |
> >>> |
14 |
> >>> https://community.skype.com/t5/Linux/Skype-for-Linux-Alpha-and-calling-on-Chrome-amp-Chromebooks/td-p/4434299 |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> There is also a web version at https://web.skype.com for those that feel |
17 |
> >> that installing the desktop client is too much of a hassle. I've moved |
18 |
> >> to Google Hangouts long ago, though, and never looked back. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > Lucky you... I also moved to sip and tox ages ago, but... there are |
21 |
> > some people that use nothing but skype. That is the problem. |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > Best regards, |
24 |
> > Andrew Savchenko |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> Indeed. The network effect is unfortunately powerful. I think if Tox can |
27 |
> get past a few key hurdles, adoption will be less of a hassle. All it |
28 |
> needs is feature parity with video, voice, and file sharing. Of course, |
29 |
> doing that with end-to-end encryption *and* with as little latency and |
30 |
> bandwidth use as realistic is difficult. |
31 |
|
32 |
There are more feature required: NAT traversal and restricted |
33 |
firewall traversal. These may be irrelevant for most people in EU |
34 |
or US, because they have white IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, but is |
35 |
crucial for countries with limited numbers of IP's available and no |
36 |
wide ipv6 support: most people here are behind the provider's NAT |
37 |
and have no IPv6 (including myself). |
38 |
|
39 |
And skype is damn good at this, it work even when both clients are |
40 |
behind their NATs, udp is blocked and tcp is restricted to few |
41 |
ports. SIP lacks here badly, clients need use either STUN (and it |
42 |
doesn't always work) or VPN to SIP server, which is not always |
43 |
provided and may be blocked as well. Tox is much better here: it |
44 |
can workaround multiple NATs and some blocked ports, but video |
45 |
becomes laggy :/ |
46 |
|
47 |
One more problem with tox: it is hard to sync accounts between |
48 |
multiple hosts (e.g. desktop, laptop, phone): users have to sync |
49 |
data themselves. Though skype is not perfect here either and have a |
50 |
lot of bugs with syncing. |
51 |
|
52 |
> But I try it out every now and then to see if I could convince my family |
53 |
> to switch to it. In my experience people don't fully understand or value |
54 |
> digital privacy until you explain to them what could be done with the |
55 |
> structure of applications like Skype (going through a central server). |
56 |
> |
57 |
> If they ever reach the point of understanding that, it's easier to get |
58 |
> them to simply try Tox or another alternative. |
59 |
|
60 |
In my experience showing Mr. Snowden's docs makes a huge impression. |
61 |
YMMW of course. |
62 |
|
63 |
Best regards, |
64 |
Andrew Savchenko |