On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 07:10:45 -0700 Daniel Campbell wrote: > On 08/03/2016 05:13 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016 08:58:24 -0300 Guilherme Amadio wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:15:30AM +0800, Jason Zaman wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 04:08:34PM -0700, Jigme Datse Rasku wrote: > >>>> I'd have to say, there is likely a reason we are looking for a new > >>>> maintainer. I don't know what is involved, but I might be interested. > >>>> Might be wanting to start that direction... > >>> > >>> There is a new alpha skype for linux too now that should be looked into. > >>> I have no idea how stable it is but it's probably not much worse than > >>> what we currently have :P. > >>> > >>> https://community.skype.com/t5/Linux/Skype-for-Linux-Alpha-and-calling-on-Chrome-amp-Chromebooks/td-p/4434299 > >> > >> There is also a web version at https://web.skype.com for those that feel > >> that installing the desktop client is too much of a hassle. I've moved > >> to Google Hangouts long ago, though, and never looked back. > > > > Lucky you... I also moved to sip and tox ages ago, but... there are > > some people that use nothing but skype. That is the problem. > > > > Best regards, > > Andrew Savchenko > > > Indeed. The network effect is unfortunately powerful. I think if Tox can > get past a few key hurdles, adoption will be less of a hassle. All it > needs is feature parity with video, voice, and file sharing. Of course, > doing that with end-to-end encryption *and* with as little latency and > bandwidth use as realistic is difficult.
There are more feature required: NAT traversal and restricted firewall traversal. These may be irrelevant for most people in EU or US, because they have white IPv4 or IPv6 addresses, but is crucial for countries with limited numbers of IP's available and no wide ipv6 support: most people here are behind the provider's NAT and have no IPv6 (including myself). And skype is damn good at this, it work even when both clients are behind their NATs, udp is blocked and tcp is restricted to few ports. SIP lacks here badly, clients need use either STUN (and it doesn't always work) or VPN to SIP server, which is not always provided and may be blocked as well. Tox is much better here: it can workaround multiple NATs and some blocked ports, but video becomes laggy :/ One more problem with tox: it is hard to sync accounts between multiple hosts (e.g. desktop, laptop, phone): users have to sync data themselves. Though skype is not perfect here either and have a lot of bugs with syncing. > But I try it out every now and then to see if I could convince my family > to switch to it. In my experience people don't fully understand or value > digital privacy until you explain to them what could be done with the > structure of applications like Skype (going through a central server). > > If they ever reach the point of understanding that, it's easier to get > them to simply try Tox or another alternative. In my experience showing Mr. Snowden's docs makes a huge impression. YMMW of course. Best regards, Andrew Savchenko
pgpt2JRjmU_IZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
