Hi!
I haven't seen TOR Fone discussions on this list. Description (selection
by adrelanos, see TOR Fone homepage [1] for original text).
>
> TORFone was designed to communicate voice via Internet (make phone calls to
> the addressee) similarly to Skype but with the following differences:
>
> 1
On 2/3/13 2:49 PM, adrelanos wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I haven't seen TOR Fone discussions on this list. Description (selection
> by adrelanos, see TOR Fone homepage [1] for original text).
While i appreciate the effort, i think that the approach of TorFone
(http://torfone.org/) is not good and cannot scal
Fabio Pietrosanti (naif):
> f) The system is not cross-platform, not easy portable, not easily
> maintainable (it cannot goes over Linux or Tails for example)
[...]
> The most reasonable and maintainable approach is:
> - Use Jitsi (http://www.jitsi.org) [...]
Packing Jitsi for Debian (Tails) do
On 02/03/2013 11:14 PM, adrelanos wrote:
> Packing Jitsi for Debian (Tails) doesn't look very promising at the moment:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627362
I am actually a bigger fan of SFLPhone for simple, clean, secure VoIP on
Linux, and the good news is this:
http://sflphon
Nathan Freitas:
> On 02/03/2013 11:14 PM, adrelanos wrote:
>> Packing Jitsi for Debian (Tails) doesn't look very promising at the moment:
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=627362
>
> I am actually a bigger fan of SFLPhone for simple, clean, secure VoIP on
> Linux, and the good ne
What is your objection to C++?
On 2/3/2013 08:48, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> It looks good - though I'm a bit sad to see that it appears to be
> written in C++.
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/m
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 01:49:50PM +, adrelanos wrote:
> I haven't seen TOR Fone discussions on this list. Description (selection
> by adrelanos, see TOR Fone homepage [1] for original text).
Ugh! Another project using the Tor name in a confusing way (which
will make people think it is support
Jacob Appelbaum:
> It looks good - though I'm a bit sad to see that it appears to be
> written in C++.
Which languages would you prefer?
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-tal
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:47:51 -0500
Roger Dingledine wrote:
> I'll try to find some time to contact the person off-line and suggest
> changing the name to 'OnionFone' or something more generic. Please
> feel free to do so in parallel to me, since I know somebody here has
> much more free time than
Andrew Lewman:
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:47:51 -0500
> Roger Dingledine wrote:
>
>> I'll try to find some time to contact the person off-line and suggest
>> changing the name to 'OnionFone' or something more generic. Please
>> feel free to do so in parallel to me, since I know somebody here has
>>
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Softail wrote:
> What is your objection to C++?
Jacob is not great at C++, apparently.
(there is nothing wrong with C++ used properly and done well... except
the lack of an ABI; you win some you lose some ;)
on a more on-topic note i do not expect to see usable
coderman:
> on a more on-topic note i do not expect to see usable VoIP over Tor
> until datagram transport(s) are implemented. i'd love to be proved
> wrong...
Don't you think push to talk would be useful?
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torpro
"push-to-talk" with procedure words over zrtp would be applicable. use
FEC to accommodate reasonable loss over datagram Tor.
both Whisper Systems and Guardian Project are working on PTT
capabilities, iirc.
last but not least, the codec makes no difference until larger issues
are worked out, for t
On 2/3/13 9:23 PM, coderman wrote:
> "push-to-talk" with procedure words over zrtp would be applicable. use
> FEC to accommodate reasonable loss over datagram Tor.
>
> both Whisper Systems and Guardian Project are working on PTT
> capabilities, iirc.
>
> last but not least, the codec makes no diffe
Hi! Thank you for your comments and tips!
I did not think this project as a finished product for practical use.
This is only a platform to explore the possibility of transmission of
voice over TOR. Also I tried to spend as little effort to research and
choose the best for me platform for their e
On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:03:33 +, coderman wrote:
...
> (there is nothing wrong with C++ used properly and done well...
At some project size the 'used properly and done well' becomes
a big if. I do some C++, but I can easily understand people
not liking C++.
Andreas
--
"Totally trivial. Famou
coderman:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Softail wrote:
>> What is your objection to C++?
>
> Jacob is not great at C++, apparently.
>
> (there is nothing wrong with C++ used properly and done well... except
> the lack of an ABI; you win some you lose some ;)
>
>
> on a more on-topic note i
Agreed.
I was wondering if there was some specific problem with C++ that I
wasn't aware of.
Thanks
On 2/3/2013 14:14, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
> My objection is that *many* people aren't very good at C or C++
___
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@lists.torp
To be clearer, I was wondering if there was some specific security issue
with C++. I'm aware that it is a difficult language to use correctly and
often isn't.
On 2/3/2013 14:22, Softail wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> I was wondering if there was some specific problem with C++ that I
> wasn't aware of.
>
> T
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Fabio Pietrosanti (naif)
wrote:
> ...
> To work over high latency (and tipically also low-bandwidth) with
> reliable transport (like TCP/Tor) you need to use those multimedia strategy:
> - setup a large static jitter buffer (you define the added artificial
> latenc
20 matches
Mail list logo
