Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality, reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I do know that there are such VoIP apps, but I am not familiar with the quality of service, availability and accessibility of each of those. I am willing to migrate and start persuading my existing skype contacts (which are scattered all over the globe) to migrate to a FOSS solution as well. But I cannot do that if this alternative does not provide functionality that at least matches that of skype. It has to be up to the task.
So which one is on the top of the list, in your opinion?
TIA, :-) Marko
Marko Vojinovic writes:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality, reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
Ekiga is in Fedora. Haven't used in a while, but last time I checked it worked fine as a plain, garden-variety SIP VOIP client, with video.
Ekiga worked great when I tried it, but I really didn't care about the video, and it was easier for me to just get a separate VOIP adapter, and plug it into my network.
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:18 AM, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/10/11 14:54, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality, reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I do know that there are such VoIP apps, but I am not familiar with the quality of service, availability and accessibility of each of those. I am willing to migrate and start persuading my existing skype contacts (which are scattered all over the globe) to migrate to a FOSS solution as well. But I cannot do that if this alternative does not provide functionality that at least matches that of skype. It has to be up to the task.
So which one is on the top of the list, in your opinion?
TIA, :-) Marko
I am sorry to hear the MS is taking over skype. I am afraid that MS will soon alter the proprietary protocol so that existing Linux and other non MS ports will cease to function.
I have tried to run VoipBuster windows app on wine. It always fails for connect to the main server.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 05/10/11 15:32, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
All personal linux installatons in the world account for a tiny blip on the radar when compared to personal Windows installatons. So, no... Personal Linux installations are too few. Also, you forget that MS complained that OSS is bad for their business. For example, google this "Microsoft bans open source on windows phone 7" and "Microsoft: Open Source Code is Too Expensive, Harms Students' Grades"
Any posturing by MS that "it loves open source" will be nothing more than news spin in order to dampen criticism of MS' attitude towards open source.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:18 AM, JDjd1008@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/10/11 14:54, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality, reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I do know that there are such VoIP apps, but I am not familiar with the quality of service, availability and accessibility of each of those. I am willing to migrate and start persuading my existing skype contacts (which are scattered all over the globe) to migrate to a FOSS solution as well. But I cannot do that if this alternative does not provide functionality that at least matches that of skype. It has to be up to the task.
So which one is on the top of the list, in your opinion?
TIA, :-) Marko
I am sorry to hear the MS is taking over skype. I am afraid that MS will soon alter the proprietary protocol so that existing Linux and other non MS ports will cease to function.
I have tried to run VoipBuster windows app on wine. It always fails for connect to the main server.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 05/10/11 15:32, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
I forgot to mention this huge factoid:
http://fixunix.com/linux/557001-microsoft-losing-revenue-linux%3B-only-begin...
So, if anyone believe the MS is friendly to Linux'ers: wake up and smell the news.
On Wed, 11 May 2011 01:32:57 +0300 Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
What MS should worry about (but won't) is the Windows users they are going to drive away with their inevitable "improvements". It cost Microsoft 8.5 gigabucks today, and in 10 years they will probably have lost ever skype user in the world :-).
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 04:54:33 PM Marko Vojinovic wrote: ...
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I would like to know the answer to this question also.
I've been reading about Google and xmpp and jingle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_%28protocol%29
I found a firefox plugin I could download. From URL: http://www.google.com/chat/video I clicked "Install voice and video chat" and got to URL: http://www.google.com/chat/video/download.html I installed the rpm. I haven't tested it much...I did call my google voice number to see if I could answer and I could. I assume I can call out too, but haven't tried.
Always keeping firefox running is not satisfactory for me. I have an older machine, with not enough ram or cpu power.
I was hoping to use an open source voip client program. empathy seems to use libjingle and will let me know when there is an incoming google voice call, but it doesn't work. Google voice wants me to "press 1" to accept the call. I have no way to "press 1" in empathy.
I haven't had any success with any other client program. I tried kopete, gajim, without success.
It used to be google voice worked with sip if one had a gizmo5 account. Google discontinued gizmo5 recently. I heard rumors there are still ways to call google voice from sip, but that doesn't help me. I want to use an open source client, and can no longer use a sip client.
If anyone knows how to get one of these xmpp client programs working with google voice, please share that information.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
Although not voip, audio/video calls over XMPP (Google Talk) with Pidgin and Empathy works without fail for me. Even Google's browser plugin works nicely for me. It adds voip functionality to Google Talk.
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 15:49 -0700, JD wrote:
On 05/10/11 15:32, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
Funny how no one is mentioning the massive database of names, addresses, call records and user preferences, etc, etc,etc MS are purchasing. Wouldn't this be worth more than user likes or dislikes. Remember nothing in life is free it all has some strings attached and I believe user tracking is usually attached to most "free" internet things.
The only problem with Ekiga and similar solutions is that everyone you know also has to install it and most skype users won't change. Roger
On 05/10/11 08:42, Roger wrote:
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 15:49 -0700, JD wrote:
On 05/10/11 15:32, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
Funny how no one is mentioning the massive database of names, addresses, call records and user preferences, etc, etc,etc MS are purchasing. Wouldn't this be worth more than user likes or dislikes. Remember nothing in life is free it all has some strings attached and I believe user tracking is usually attached to most "free" internet things.
The only problem with Ekiga and similar solutions is that everyone you know also has to install it and most skype users won't change. Roger
You responded to my post, but you did not include in your replay a quote of what I said :)
While it is true that "most" skype users will not change, since so called "most" users are windows users, not Linux users, even dual Windows and Linux Users, like myself. I was merely prognosticating that MS will not continue to support Linux because, as I showed by what I was able to glean from the web, MS is hostile to Open Source in general, and to Linux in particular; blaming it for their loss of some market share in the server market.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/2011 05:32 PM, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
I think they are exactly that bad. Do you not remember Ballmer making claims about Linux being a cancer? The BS claims about Linux infringing on 235 patents? The attempt after attempt after attempt to crush Free software?
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
They've already lost this one. I will NOT do business with Microsoft.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:18 AM, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/10/11 14:54, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality, reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I do know that there are such VoIP apps, but I am not familiar with the quality of service, availability and accessibility of each of those. I am willing to migrate and start persuading my existing skype contacts (which are scattered all over the globe) to migrate to a FOSS solution as well. But I cannot do that if this alternative does not provide functionality that at least matches that of skype. It has to be up to the task.
So which one is on the top of the list, in your opinion?
TIA, :-) Marko
I am sorry to hear the MS is taking over skype. I am afraid that MS will soon alter the proprietary protocol so that existing Linux and other non MS ports will cease to function.
I have tried to run VoipBuster windows app on wine. It always fails for connect to the main server.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On May 10, 2011 10:28 PM, "Thomas Cameron" thomas.cameron@camerontech.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/10/2011 05:32 PM, Konstantinos Karantias wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
I think they are exactly that bad. Do you not remember Ballmer making claims about Linux being a cancer? The BS claims about Linux infringing on 235 patents? The attempt after attempt after attempt to crush Free software?
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
They've already lost this one. I will NOT do business with Microsoft.
+1
<snip> They've already lost this one. I will NOT do business with Microsoft.
Just before the 6:30 commercial news tonight there was a report, I think SBS or ABC, on the Microsoft/Skype purchase and it was said among other things that Microsoft would be charging each user $2-$3 for using Skype And that Microsoft has lost so many devices because no one wants windows 7 but Microsoft will be providing skype with windows 7 in an effort to entice users back. I did not catch all the interview but decided to look into Ekiga or alternatives asap. Roger
I think there are serious blocking going on from microsoft parties - they have created Attachmate (consists from Apple, Oracle, MS, and few others such sized companies), and grabbed Novell with Suse, they have working with Nokia, and also eaten for breakfast Sun too. If anybody tries to make linux or free software business, they will be killed by low budget, or with patents.... and the court. Also, I think the new message at linux conferences, where they paying out the whole conferece will not use for open source.... We have to do something quickly....
2011/5/11 Roger arelem@bigpond.com:
<snip> They've already lost this one. I will NOT do business with Microsoft.
Just before the 6:30 commercial news tonight there was a report, I think SBS or ABC, on the Microsoft/Skype purchase and it was said among other things that Microsoft would be charging each user $2-$3 for using Skype And that Microsoft has lost so many devices because no one wants windows 7 but Microsoft will be providing skype with windows 7 in an effort to entice users back. I did not catch all the interview but decided to look into Ekiga or alternatives asap. Roger
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 22:54 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype. Being closed source was bad enough already, but I tolerated it due to its good-enough quality,
What constitutes "good enough," though? I've yet to find any VOIP that I'm happy with. Like mobile (cell) phones, I have to guess at every second word, because of continual sound drop outs, delays and stutters. It's like listening to a chewed compact audio cassette from 1976.
reliability and free-of-charge use for skype-to-skype calls. But now that Microsoft is taking it over, I suddenly lost faith that these good features will still be there from now on (not to mention Linux support).
I never have faith in any proprietary software. It works in unknown ways, often devious ways, and changes between releases. You have to play the (expensive) update cycle, which all-too-often becomes a downgrade. You get locked into something because the other half of your conversation requires something specific of you (i.e. both of you need the same software). And then the company goes belly-up, or gets bought out.
But how far do you want to go?
Do you just want a client, that'll connect to an external server? There's various things that can do that, and you'll just have the fun of configuration and choosing appropriate codecs to sort out. In this case, look for what server providers you can readily access. Some of them even handle giving you a regular phone number, and being able to make calls to ordinary phone lines, and vice versa.
Do you want to install your own VOIP server (like Asterisk)? You can pretty much do what you want (have a real number, link handsets around your house to it and the ordinary phone line, put annoying telemarketers on hold with a series of press 1 for this, and press 2 for that, goose chases).
What about using some VOIP hardware? Get yourself a VOIP handset that plugs into an ethernet port, or a VOIP box to go between the network and an ordinary telephone, and you don't even need the computer turned on. A $200 (guestimate) handset sounds more practical than using a $1000 computer as a telephone.
Microsoft is an advertising company so it'll be able to make very good use of that data to manage and target adverts better.
It's not really down to "FOSS alternatives". There are *standards* for voice over IP. I guess Skype fits MS well in that its a proprietary non-standard 8)
Alan
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 12:49 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
Microsoft is an advertising company so it'll be able to make very good use of that data to manage and target adverts better.
It's not really down to "FOSS alternatives". There are *standards* for voice over IP. I guess Skype fits MS well in that its a proprietary non-standard 8)
Actually there are, notably SIP. However one is reminded of Andy Tanenbaum's well-known remark: "The good thing about standards is that if you don't like one of them, you can just use a different one".
poc
On 05/11/2011 07:49 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Microsoft is an advertising company so it'll be able to make very good use of that data to manage and target adverts better.
It's not really down to "FOSS alternatives". There are *standards* for voice over IP. I guess Skype fits MS well in that its a proprietary non-standard 8)
Alan
$8.5 BB is a pretty serious premium for a company with zero revenue (ever) which sold 2 times previously - first to ebay for $2.5 BB and after that something < 1 BB ... still no revenue but a decent enough brand.
Anything skype has/had that google voice/talk doesn't ?
g/
On 05/11/2011 08:58 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
$8.5 BB is a pretty serious premium for a company with zero revenue (ever) which sold 2 times previously - first to ebay for $2.5 BB and after that something < 1 BB ... still no revenue but a decent enough brand.
s/revenue/earnings/g < previous_mesage
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 07:49:12 AM Alan Cox wrote:
It's not really down to "FOSS alternatives". There are *standards* for voice over IP.
And thanks to NAT-hatred in the standards process, most of those require finagling firewall forwarding fritters..er... rules; H.323 for instance seems to be designed from the ground up specifically to break NAT, and requires some major work at the NAT box to make work properly. SIP and others as well.
So supporting VoIP from behind a typical residential NAT box isn't as straightforward as it could be; behind a Cisco or a well-configured Linux NAT box it's not hard.
Skype's big selling point is that it works just fine through NAT, even if the NAT is on both ends (NAT444), or on both ends and in the middle (NAT4444, CGN, etc)....and no special port-forwards or other applications-level gatewaying or any of those other tricks the *standard* VoIP protocols seem to require for no good reason....other than to break NAT.... :-)
Sorry, pet peeve there.
On 05/11/11 01:36, Zoltan Hoppar wrote:
I think there are serious blocking going on from microsoft parties - they have created Attachmate (consists from Apple, Oracle, MS, and few others such sized companies), and grabbed Novell with Suse, they have working with Nokia, and also eaten for breakfast Sun too. If anybody tries to make linux or free software business, they will be killed by low budget, or with patents.... and the court. Also, I think the new message at linux conferences, where they paying out the whole conferece will not use for open source.... We have to do something quickly....
With the kind of money they have, they can buy all three branches of the government :)
On 05/11/11 05:58, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 05/11/2011 07:49 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Microsoft is an advertising company so it'll be able to make very good use of that data to manage and target adverts better.
It's not really down to "FOSS alternatives". There are *standards* for voice over IP. I guess Skype fits MS well in that its a proprietary non-standard 8)
Alan
$8.5 BB is a pretty serious premium for a company with zero revenue (ever) which sold 2 times previously - first to ebay for $2.5 BB and after that something< 1 BB ... still no revenue but a decent enough brand.
Anything skype has/had that google voice/talk doesn't ?
g/
I have used Google voice/talk. It is too clumsy, lacks the features of skype. We used to call MS the Borg - but Google has grown into another kind of Borg, albeit, not as nasty as the first :)
On 05/11/2011 10:58 AM, JD wrote:
I have used Google voice/talk. It is too clumsy, lacks the features of skype.
Curious what features skype has that are missing ?
I think the user search feature is missing ... (not sure that is good or bad .. depends on your privacy views I suppose?) Anything else ?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Genes MailLists lists@sapience.com wrote:
On 05/11/2011 10:58 AM, JD wrote:
I have used Google voice/talk. It is too clumsy, lacks the features of skype.
Curious what features skype has that are missing ?
I think the user search feature is missing ... (not sure that is good or bad .. depends on your privacy views I suppose?) Anything else ?
Here is some serious food for thought (and no this is not to induce a flame war, but for those who have a problem with companies 'making money')
There iS No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TSNTAAFL). In other words, Skype had to be making money somehow. There are and continue to be data hooks there or you were subject to ads, or other obnoxious stuff. I hope this ends with a pay-as-you-go service from Microsoft. Even your 'free' distributions of Linux have to make money. Fedora, primarily sponsored by RedHat does this by relying on technical support sales (Linux is FREE remember). OpenOffice.org relied on Sun and is being thrown to the hounds (we in America call it being thrown to the curb, in other words taken out in the trash) by Oracle. Yes, we do provide hours of 'free' support and in some cases hours of coding efforts. Most of us have 'day jobs' that put food on the table. There comes a time when we either give up the day job or we give up the project(s) we were working on. Microsoft/Apple make money, fists full of it. How? They sell the product as well as technical support. Would any of us go to a major computer manufacturing company and DEMAND the same thing that we DEMAND of software? That is: Give me your latest/greatest for free? The folks at most of those companies would laugh and then show us the door. Most of us would not think of doing so. So, when you grumble that some fabulous software you are using has gone 'commercial' and now charges for its service, remember TSNTAAFL and that someone is now relying on that product to put food on the table, a roof over their head and clothes on their backs. I don't begrudge Microsoft for buying Skype. What I do begrudge is those folks that want something for nothing (or next to it.) And no, I don't mind that they are going to take it 'propriatary' either. They have to do something above and beyond the standard to make us want to purchase it. Remember, there is a game data exchange standard. How many companies adhere to it? None as far as I can count. Again, do not take this as anything other than a personal opinion on why this discussion is a waste of time and effort. Skype has been bought and there is nothing out there like it. Not in the Linux world nor the Windows world. People will continue to use it in both worlds.
James McKenzie
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 08:32 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Here is some serious food for thought (and no this is not to induce a flame war, but for those who have a problem with companies 'making money')
There's a big difference between making money, and being an ass about it. Though /some/ companies just don't seem to get that...
Would any of us go to a major computer manufacturing company and DEMAND the same thing that we DEMAND of software? That is: Give me your latest/greatest for free?
Well, I wish more people would do with computer industries as we expect of other companies. When you sell me a product, it had better bloody work properly and safely. If you sell me a dodgy product, you (the company) have to fix it at your cost.
Or would you (the customer) like to shoulder the additional burden of fixing up your *new* car's lousy design having crappy brakes, fuel injection, seat belts, or anything else? Simply because the manufacturer doesn't give a damn about the product actually being any good.
Microsoft, et al, probably even the entire computer industry, have justly earned the contempt that they receive. Decades of experience, billions of dollars, and still a continual cock-up.
And no, I don't mind that they are going to take it 'propriatary' either. They have to do something above and beyond the standard to make us want to purchase it.
I do, I mind that a lot. At home, I have one telephone on my desk, and I can ring anybody on the world with it, no matter what telephone network that they're on.
That can't be done with VOIP. There's a plethora of different completely incompatible systems. Which leaves you either with having to have a collection of VOIP applications, or arguing with other people to shovel them all onto the same proprietary system.
And, no, buying into some proprietary system which offers to act as a gateway between (some) of them isn't an answer, either. They will not be a gateway to all of them. What about the other systems that they don't/won't/can't gateway. And then there's the quality issues involved in recompressing audio between different schemes. This isn't the 19th century any more, I want damn good voice quality, where I don't have to guess at what someone said through the haze.
We've had a decade of that incompatibility crap with all the different instant messaging schemes, and people just will not learn how dumb, stupid, moronic, idiotic, annoying, absolutely brain dead that attitude is.
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 10:27 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
And thanks to NAT-hatred in the standards process, most of those require finagling firewall forwarding fritters..er... rules
Well, to be fair, *NAT* is an obstacle, in the real meaning of the word. It does make it difficult to do anything that must accept an incoming connection. The only real way to get around that is for your client to make use of a server, so that means true peer-to-peer is out of the question, some external (or on the border) management is required. NAT, *itself*, is the major problem.
And on the other hand, various protocols do require far too many ports, and sometimes unplannable port numbers, open in various directions. So, never mind NAT, they're a networking nightmare in themselves. Making your webserver accessible, for instance, is rather easy; you just open port 80. If other clients would stop being NAT *stupid*, and be more simple in design, this would be less of an issue. We're stuck with NAT, for the long term, so clients and protocols would be better designed not to be so damn over-complicated.
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:52 -0700, JD wrote:
With the kind of money they have, they can buy all three branches of the government :)
Ah, so *that's* what's wrong with government. It's all branches, and only branches. No roots, no trunk, no flowers, no fruit. Just sticks...
On 05/11/2011 05:19 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Actually there are, notably SIP. However one is reminded of Andy Tanenbaum's well-known remark: "The good thing about standards is that if you don't like one of them, you can just use a different one".
And, as somebody else (I don't know who.) pointed out, "Microsoft follows standards like migrating salmon follow caribou."
On 05/11/2011 08:32 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
There iS No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TSNTAAFL).
And that is Yet Another Way to mangle a perfectly good acronym: There *Ain't* No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). Bob Heinlein knew what he was doing; second-guessing him just messes things up.
On 05/11/11 09:22, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 08:32 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Here is some serious food for thought (and no this is not to induce a flame war, but for those who have a problem with companies 'making money')
There's a big difference between making money, and being an ass about it. Though /some/ companies just don't seem to get that...
Would any of us go to a major computer manufacturing company and DEMAND the same thing that we DEMAND of software? That is: Give me your latest/greatest for free?
Well, I wish more people would do with computer industries as we expect of other companies. When you sell me a product, it had better bloody work properly and safely. If you sell me a dodgy product, you (the company) have to fix it at your cost.
Or would you (the customer) like to shoulder the additional burden of fixing up your *new* car's lousy design having crappy brakes, fuel injection, seat belts, or anything else? Simply because the manufacturer doesn't give a damn about the product actually being any good.
Microsoft, et al, probably even the entire computer industry, have justly earned the contempt that they receive. Decades of experience, billions of dollars, and still a continual cock-up.
And no, I don't mind that they are going to take it 'propriatary' either. They have to do something above and beyond the standard to make us want to purchase it.
I do, I mind that a lot. At home, I have one telephone on my desk, and I can ring anybody on the world with it, no matter what telephone network that they're on.
That can't be done with VOIP. There's a plethora of different completely incompatible systems. Which leaves you either with having to have a collection of VOIP applications, or arguing with other people to shovel them all onto the same proprietary system.
And, no, buying into some proprietary system which offers to act as a gateway between (some) of them isn't an answer, either. They will not be a gateway to all of them. What about the other systems that they don't/won't/can't gateway. And then there's the quality issues involved in recompressing audio between different schemes. This isn't the 19th century any more, I want damn good voice quality, where I don't have to guess at what someone said through the haze.
We've had a decade of that incompatibility crap with all the different instant messaging schemes, and people just will not learn how dumb, stupid, moronic, idiotic, annoying, absolutely brain dead that attitude is.
+1
On 05/11/11 09:33, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:52 -0700, JD wrote:
With the kind of money they have, they can buy all three branches of the government :)
Ah, so *that's* what's wrong with government. It's all branches, and only branches. No roots, no trunk, no flowers, no fruit. Just sticks...
Aye!! Sticks that we are stuck with :)
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
On 05/11/2011 08:32 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
There iS No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TSNTAAFL).
And that is Yet Another Way to mangle a perfectly good acronym: There *Ain't* No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). Bob Heinlein knew what he was doing; second-guessing him just messes things up.
My apologies to Mr. Heinlein. And yes, he was very, very correct. Living that nightmare everyday.
James McKenzie
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/11/11 09:33, Tim wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:52 -0700, JD wrote:
With the kind of money they have, they can buy all three branches of the government :)
Ah, so *that's* what's wrong with government. It's all branches, and only branches. No roots, no trunk, no flowers, no fruit. Just sticks...
Aye!! Sticks that we are stuck with :)
All planted in a document our 'Government' continues to ignore: The US Constitution.
However, this has nothing to do with finding a FOSS alernate to Skype.
James McKenzie
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 08:32 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
Would any of us go to a major computer manufacturing company and DEMAND the same thing that we DEMAND of software? That is: Give me your latest/greatest for free?
Well, I wish more people would do with computer industries as we expect of other companies. When you sell me a product, it had better bloody work properly and safely. If you sell me a dodgy product, you (the company) have to fix it at your cost.
Agreed.
Or would you (the customer) like to shoulder the additional burden of fixing up your *new* car's lousy design having crappy brakes, fuel injection, seat belts, or anything else? Simply because the manufacturer doesn't give a damn about the product actually being any good.
Nope. However, we seem to tolerate this in the software industry.
Microsoft, et al, probably even the entire computer industry, have justly earned the contempt that they receive. Decades of experience, billions of dollars, and still a continual cock-up.
Yep. I've been through the MS-DOS 4.0 mess and the WindowsME mess and .....
And no, I don't mind that they are going to take it 'propriatary' either. They have to do something above and beyond the standard to make us want to purchase it.
I do, I mind that a lot. At home, I have one telephone on my desk, and I can ring anybody on the world with it, no matter what telephone network that they're on.
That is because their are strict standards on how a phone MUST work. Not so for most of our in-use computer products. There are only two standards that have existed over the years: ISA (created by IBM) and the connectors that are in use. Everything else is a "Request for Comment" type document. This is how we ended up with the mess we have today. Back in the 'simple' days, one port -> one product. SMTP is a good example, HTTP is another. Look at the number of ports needed for some of the products I work with on a daily basis and they use dozens if not hundreds.
We've had a decade of that incompatibility crap with all the different instant messaging schemes, and people just will not learn how dumb, stupid, moronic, idiotic, annoying, absolutely brain dead that attitude is.
Build a better mousetrap and people will flock to your door. This is what happened with Instant Messaging. However, you cannot move without loosing something. And people don't like that. Just changing Internet Service Providers proves to be a lengthy process. The same may happen when people leave Skype for another service like Vonage.
And I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing, it is the way we've boxed ourselves in.
James McKenzie
On 05/11/2011 10:57 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
My apologies to Mr. Heinlein. And yes, he was very, very correct. Living that nightmare everyday.
I only met the man once, myself, but we did have mutual friends. (See http://www.jerrypournelle.com for an example.)
On 05/11/2011 11:05 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
There are only two standards that have existed over the years: ISA (created by IBM) and the connectors that are in use.
Ha, ha, ha. It is to laugh. Clearly you don't remember "the connector conspiracy." For those of you lucky enough not to go back that far, there was a time when every company had its own proprietary connector and you couldn't connect one company's peripheral to any other company's computer without some sort of adapter, usually sold by a third party.
Everything else is a "Request for
Comment" type document. This is how we ended up with the mess we have today. Back in the 'simple' days, one port -> one product. SMTP is a good example, HTTP is another. Look at the number of ports needed for some of the products I work with on a daily basis and they use dozens if not hundreds.
You think that's bad? I remember hearing, once, about an on-line game that connected to your computer using an *arbitrary* port (over 1024) which means that in effect you had to drop your firewall for it because you never knew what port it would want. I've always suspected that their programmers didn't understand that just because they *could* do something like that didn't mean that they should, or that it was a Good Idea.
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:04 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 05/11/2011 10:58 AM, JD wrote:
I have used Google voice/talk. It is too clumsy, lacks the features of skype.
Curious what features skype has that are missing ?
I think the user search feature is missing ... (not sure that is good or bad .. depends on your privacy views I suppose?) Anything else ?
Group Video for corporate use. We use it because a) it was cheap and b) it was easy to install. It still sucks in a number of ways but it gets the job done.
poc
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 11:31 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
"the connector conspiracy." For those of you lucky enough not to go back that far, there was a time when every company had its own proprietary connector and you couldn't connect one company's peripheral to any other company's computer without some sort of adapter, usually sold by a third party.
Which was only ever partially compatible...
That's been the bane of my life for over twenty years, though I've always called them "profit plugs."
I work in video production, just about every camera has different connectors, or has re-used the same connector in a different and incompatible way. The peripherals are all different, too. The lens fittings, the accessories, etc. If a major component dies, everything around it needs replacing.
e.g. The camera head becomes unserviceable, you can't just replace it. You have to replace the camera, the lens, the viewfinder, the studio cable, the CCU. The new lot doesn't really fit in with your other cameras, so you end up replacing a whole system of cameras.
Or, for a non-studio system. You replace the camera, lens, viewfinder, the attached VCR. Now the new one is a different format from the VCRs in your edit suite, so that has to be replaced, too.
I can't say how much I hate manufacturers who play lock-in games.
On 05/11/2011 11:36 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Group Video for corporate use. We use it because a) it was cheap and b) it was easy to install. It still sucks in a number of ways but it gets the job done.
There's one thing, however, that all VOIP services share that makes it a wonderful choice for the discerning sysadmin: nobody can call you to complain that the LAN's down.
Tim:
I do, I mind that a lot. At home, I have one telephone on my desk, and I can ring anybody on the world with it, no matter what telephone network that they're on.
James McKenzie:
That is because their are strict standards on how a phone MUST work. Not so for most of our in-use computer products. There are only two standards that have existed over the years: ISA (created by IBM) and the connectors that are in use. Everything else is a "Request for Comment" type document. This is how we ended up with the mess we have today.
No, not really. I'd say that the majority of the RFC-compliant stuff is interoperable, and opposite of the chaos you describe. Because we have open specifications / long term reliable specifications / a specifiable way to interact between the things that aren't able to directly communicate.
Compare that against ad-hoc multiple manufacturers/designers doing their own proprietary thing. Who only care that their product "A" can talk to their product "A" and "A.1" for a couple of months while they sell them. Then screw you... You want to chat/compute/game next month, buy the new product "B". Rinse, lather, repeat.
The RFC stuff that really works, email, HTTP, etc., is because it was designed to work. Sure, there'll be some proprietary crap that's also published some specifications, but more as a PR stunt than for the good of all.
And I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing, it is the way we've boxed ourselves in.
Um, no. It's how we've *been* boxed in, and how far too few protest about it.
Linux is a bit of a quiet revolution. Every now and then there's a bit of a public flap, but mostly it's in the background. Rather than try to fix the cock-ups the /others/ have made, it's an alternative that does its thing, and lets the rest carry on going to hell in a hand basket, under their own steam. I'm just wondering how long it'll take the "give them enough rope" approach before the other /bad/ ones put the final nail in their own coffin.
On Thu, 12 May 2011 04:39:59 +0930 Tim wrote:
The RFC stuff that really works, email, HTTP, etc.
I do remember one period about a week long many years ago when Microsoft put out a new version of their usenet news server. Because they were Microsoft, of course, ordinary plebian Message-Id: headers were not good enough for them, so they would always re-write the Message-Id: in their vastly superior Microsoft standard way.
Naturally, usenet news feeds all over the world exploded as every message anyone posted that made it to a Microsoft server would get duplicated and posted again (since it was obviously a different message).
That was a fun week on usenet :-).
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I just lost enthusiasm in further use of skype.
...
So which one is on the top of the list, in your opinion?
I was very unhappy with the news also. I am hoping GNU Free Call comes up with something easy to install and configure soon. SIP Witch is not exactly a drop-in replacement for Skype.
I have been using GTalk via the browser plugin and it works quite well. The only problem that I have found is that you cannot call out to POTS phones unless you are in North America (or VPN there). I am not entirely sure why that restriction exists and Skype was happy to take your money to make a call to a POTS line no matter where you were in the world. No so for Google even if you are a North American with a Google Voice account living abroad. :[
/Mike
On 11 May 2011 16:32, James McKenzie jjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
Again, do not take this as anything other than a personal opinion on why this discussion is a waste of time and effort. Skype has been bought and there is nothing out there like it. Not in the Linux world nor the Windows world. People will continue to use it in both worlds.
Regrettably not. Skype in Linux is already several releases behind the Windows version and missing some of the functionality. I don't expect much further development will take place under MS so, as someone else already predicted, the Linux release will drift out of usability.
On 5/11/2011 1:40 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 11 May 2011 16:32, James McKenziejjmckenzie51@gmail.com wrote:
Again, do not take this as anything other than a personal opinion on why this discussion is a waste of time and effort. Skype has been bought and there is nothing out there like it. Not in the Linux world nor the Windows world. People will continue to use it in both worlds.
Regrettably not. Skype in Linux is already several releases behind the Windows version and missing some of the functionality. I don't expect much further development will take place under MS so, as someone else already predicted, the Linux release will drift out of usability.
As I cannot seem to get Skype to work in Linux it is a moot point but, I am now considering removing it from my remaining MS platform.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 19:32, Konstantinos Karantias kostis@gtklocker.com wrote:
Am I the only believing that they will just make the development for Linux slower and will not cease it at all? I don't think they are that bad.
If they did such a thing, Skype would lose its Linux users. And, AFAIK they're some.
OF COURSE THEY WON´T. If they did the DOJ will come after them on antitrust law grounds. What I suspect they will do is drag their feet, leave it in perpetual beta, compile it with some akward requirements, and eventually, a couple years down the line, when everyone has forgotten about the acquisition altogether, discontinue it: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Until that day, the neglected child will serve as a decoy "see, we support non-Windows OSs" just like MS IE 5.0 for Solaris served them while the DOJ was investigating the Redmond Juggernaut (it was dropped after a few years).
FC
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 15:31, Joe Zeff joe@zeff.us wrote:
Ha, ha, ha. It is to laugh. Clearly you don't remember "the connector conspiracy." For those of you lucky enough not to go back that far, there was a time when every company had its own proprietary connector and you couldn't connect one company's peripheral to any other company's computer without some sort of adapter, usually sold by a third party.
The Amiga and Apple computers were paramount.
In fact, even the parallel port in the Amiga is non-standard, although it is a DB25.
For Video, they used a 23-pin db25-like connector... so people creating adapters at home had to use a DB25 female connector and saw off two pins in one end...
FC
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:49, Alan Cox alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk wrote:
Microsoft is an advertising company so it'll be able to make very good use of that data to manage and target adverts better.
Not to mention having a VPN pipe to desktops behind firewalls, continuously sending and receiving encrypted traffic without their owners or LAN admins having a clue about the payload being transmitted.
FC
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
http://jitsi.org/index.php/Main/Download
Works on Windows, Linux, Mac OS-X. RPMs are provided.
FC
FC
On 05/11/11 16:03, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovicvvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take
You mean like Vonage or MagicJack?
Has anyone heard of lingo (http://www.lingo.com/) voip provider? What is/was your experience with them?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take You mean like Vonage or MagicJack?
Has anyone heard of lingo (http://www.lingo.com/) voip provider? What is/was your experience with them?
Exactly, SIP is an open protocol. So that means that you can use any VOIP "softphone" that you want (or a hardware terminal with RJ11 output sockets to plug an analog phone)
Basically any SIP connection (hardware or software) needs 3 parameters:
Your SIP User name Your SIP password the SIP server providing you service.
I´m based in Argentina so for local calls I use a local SIP provider, which provides me with a local Buenos Aires number +54 11 ... (www.metrotel.com.ar)
But with JITSI I can have several SIP accounts logged in at once with phone numbers around the globe (like a local US number, another in UK, etc) for inbound calls.
Here´s some: http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/41_UnitedKingdom_numbers. http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/42_USA_numbers.html
I´m sure if you Google around you´ll be able to find many options for SIP telephony. Also, it´s possible to do IP-to-IP SIP calls without a monthly fee.
On 05/11/11 21:16, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JDjd1008@gmail.com wrote:
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take You mean like Vonage or MagicJack?
Has anyone heard of lingo (http://www.lingo.com/) voip provider? What is/was your experience with them?
Exactly, SIP is an open protocol. So that means that you can use any VOIP "softphone" that you want (or a hardware terminal with RJ11 output sockets to plug an analog phone)
Basically any SIP connection (hardware or software) needs 3 parameters:
Your SIP User name Your SIP password the SIP server providing you service.
I´m based in Argentina so for local calls I use a local SIP provider, which provides me with a local Buenos Aires number +54 11 ... (www.metrotel.com.ar)
But with JITSI I can have several SIP accounts logged in at once with phone numbers around the globe (like a local US number, another in UK, etc) for inbound calls.
Here´s some: http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/41_UnitedKingdom_numbers. http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/42_USA_numbers.html
I´m sure if you Google around you´ll be able to find many options for SIP telephony. Also, it´s possible to do IP-to-IP SIP calls without a monthly fee.
Thanks!! will try it.
HI Fernando,
Yesterday night I have tried out your suggestion, and works surprisingly well. By the way, a far as I know there is an possibility to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right?
How can I acitvate this?
Cu,
Zoltan
2011/5/12 Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take You mean like Vonage or MagicJack?
Has anyone heard of lingo (http://www.lingo.com/) voip provider? What is/was your experience with them?
Exactly, SIP is an open protocol. So that means that you can use any VOIP "softphone" that you want (or a hardware terminal with RJ11 output sockets to plug an analog phone)
Basically any SIP connection (hardware or software) needs 3 parameters:
Your SIP User name Your SIP password the SIP server providing you service.
I´m based in Argentina so for local calls I use a local SIP provider, which provides me with a local Buenos Aires number +54 11 ... (www.metrotel.com.ar)
But with JITSI I can have several SIP accounts logged in at once with phone numbers around the globe (like a local US number, another in UK, etc) for inbound calls.
Here´s some: http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/41_UnitedKingdom_numbers. http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/42_USA_numbers.html
I´m sure if you Google around you´ll be able to find many options for SIP telephony. Also, it´s possible to do IP-to-IP SIP calls without a monthly fee.
http://www.ipkall.com/ http://www.callcentric.com/ FC -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Hi guys,
Is there a perfect setup or description where we could set up an Asterisk under Fedora? Our FPL wasn't worked at Digium?
Cu,
Zoltan
2011/5/12 Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com:
HI Fernando,
Yesterday night I have tried out your suggestion, and works surprisingly well. By the way, a far as I know there is an possibility to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right?
How can I acitvate this?
Cu,
Zoltan
2011/5/12 Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD jd1008@gmail.com wrote:
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take You mean like Vonage or MagicJack?
Has anyone heard of lingo (http://www.lingo.com/) voip provider? What is/was your experience with them?
Exactly, SIP is an open protocol. So that means that you can use any VOIP "softphone" that you want (or a hardware terminal with RJ11 output sockets to plug an analog phone)
Basically any SIP connection (hardware or software) needs 3 parameters:
Your SIP User name Your SIP password the SIP server providing you service.
I´m based in Argentina so for local calls I use a local SIP provider, which provides me with a local Buenos Aires number +54 11 ... (www.metrotel.com.ar)
But with JITSI I can have several SIP accounts logged in at once with phone numbers around the globe (like a local US number, another in UK, etc) for inbound calls.
Here´s some: http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/41_UnitedKingdom_numbers. http://www.mydivert.com/buy_telephone_numbers/42_USA_numbers.html
I´m sure if you Google around you´ll be able to find many options for SIP telephony. Also, it´s possible to do IP-to-IP SIP calls without a monthly fee.
http://www.ipkall.com/ http://www.callcentric.com/ FC -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
-- PGP: 06853DF7
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 19:46 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
The Amiga and Apple computers were paramount.
In fact, even the parallel port in the Amiga is non-standard, although it is a DB25.
It'd been my observation that most parallel ports were very non-standard. There were different modes of operation, and many were only suitable for connecting a printer (they were an output, only).
Though, the usual wiring to connect a printer to computer was usually the same on most computers. It were the extra pins that different.
My Amiga had a really annoying aspect to its parallel port, one of the pins shared with the ring indicator signal from the serial port.
For Video, they used a 23-pin db25-like connector... so people creating adapters at home had to use a DB25 female connector and saw off two pins in one end...
The 23-pin connector is unusual, but not unobtainable. It was also used in other places, particularly with equipment with numerous multi-pin connectors (they'd use different pin numbers and genders, so that plugs could only be connected to the right sockets).
Various home computers fail the general design credo of not putting voltages on exposed pins. Not that there's a dangerous voltage on them, but the pins are exposed to being easily short circuited, and the equipment often couldn't tolerate that. They're also easily physically damaged.
Then there's the connectors that are wired up to highly static-sensitive electronics, without any precautions against it. And circuitry that doesn't survive hot-plugging. Or circular connectors with weak pins that get bent off by people rotating the plug around until it fits...
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 02:08:56 AM Zoltan Hoppar wrote:
HI Fernando,
Yesterday night I have tried out your suggestion, and works surprisingly well. By the way, a far as I know there is an possibility to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression Fedora talk has been "retired".
Please see URL: https://insight.fedoraproject.org/content/kevin-fenzi-fedora-talk-first-stat... then-silence-talkfedoraprojectorg-closing-2011-05-05
If Fedora talk has indeed, been retired, could someone update the wiki and other references to Fedora Talk?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:08, Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right? How can I acitvate this? Cu Zoltan
Hi Zoltan,
Sorry I don´t get what you mean. What is "our Fedora SIP" and what is FAS?
FC
Well guys,
After we prefer freedom, and much easier to you and make meetings in voice, and skype has been bought by MS.... We have an opportunity to all fedora users keep contacted with each other. I really would like to see an hassle free opportunity instead of fighting with google talk/empathy/decoders and this renew can be our glue inside the community. Also I think this phone server can be our podcaster, and an tool not just for us users, else mentors, and between other communities. I think it's time to expand this to other distros, and let it cooperating with others through this, and we don't need anymore skype. I know that one is still an closed network, and many of our contact has been stayed because there are no other possibility.
So anything that I could do for this, to be resurrected - I'll be here. Let it be the newest feature for F16, an be promoted as a possibility, and we don't need skype at all.
Cu,
Zoltan
2011/5/12 Rick Sewill rsewill@gmail.com:
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 02:08:56 AM Zoltan Hoppar wrote:
HI Fernando,
Yesterday night I have tried out your suggestion, and works surprisingly well. By the way, a far as I know there is an possibility to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression Fedora talk has been "retired".
Please see URL: https://insight.fedoraproject.org/content/kevin-fenzi-fedora-talk-first-stat... then-silence-talkfedoraprojectorg-closing-2011-05-05
If Fedora talk has indeed, been retired, could someone update the wiki and other references to Fedora Talk?
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Hi Fernando,
Due to less promoting of this fine service (talk.fedoraproject.org), and many of us has only heard about this at Fudcon Zurich by Jarred an asterisk demonstration - there was an opportunity to use your Fedora account system (FAS) registration to call anybody if it's has been registered and activated an SIP account inside.
Zoltan
2011/5/12 Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:08, Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right? How can I acitvate this? Cu Zoltan
Hi Zoltan,
Sorry I don´t get what you mean. What is "our Fedora SIP" and what is FAS?
FC
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:12:21 -0300, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:08, Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
to use our Fedora SIP inside at FAS, right? How can I acitvate this? Cu Zoltan
Hi Zoltan,
Sorry I don´t get what you mean. What is "our Fedora SIP" and what is FAS?
Fedora ran an asterisk server that accepted inbound SIP connections from contributors and could forward calls to contributors who ran SIP clients that were registered with the server. There were also a few inbound numbers for accepting inbound calls from normal phones. This system provided conference calls and could record them. I used this system to participate in a couple of FADs and tried using it for the Community Gaming experiment.
The usgage of the system was very low though and didn't justify the cost.
It would have been nice for FUDCONs, but people didn't plan ahead for its use and it didn't get used much. If people wanted to make remote participation in FUDCONs useful, some sort of live streaming of the on site discussions really needs to be done. IRC can't keep up without dropping a lot.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
Do you (or anyone) know if someone has volunteered to make an official Fedora package? I might volunteer if no one else has...
I'll check for a review request in bugzilla.
Richard
On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:16:47 +0200 Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
Well guys,
After we prefer freedom, and much easier to you and make meetings in voice, and skype has been bought by MS.... We have an opportunity to all fedora users keep contacted with each other. I really would like to see an hassle free opportunity instead of fighting with google talk/empathy/decoders and this renew can be our glue inside the community. Also I think this phone server can be our podcaster, and an tool not just for us users, else mentors, and between other communities. I think it's time to expand this to other distros, and let it cooperating with others through this, and we don't need anymore skype. I know that one is still an closed network, and many of our contact has been stayed because there are no other possibility.
So anything that I could do for this, to be resurrected - I'll be here. Let it be the newest feature for F16, an be promoted as a possibility, and we don't need skype at all.
Yes, fedora talk has been retired.
It was not used very much at all, and didn't have any interested folks willing to fix it and maintain it moving forward. ;(
I'd suggest looking instead at Sip Witch: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SIP_Witch_Domain_Telephony (added as a feature in f13)
This basically allows you to run your own sip server and let others connect to it to talk to you.
kevin
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
Do you (or anyone) know if someone has volunteered to make an official Fedora package? I might volunteer if no one else has...
I'll check for a review request in bugzilla.
No review requests but I think I know why, it appears to be dependent on Sun Java, I'm not sure if it will work with Iced Tea... This could get interesting.
Richard
On 05/12/2011 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassiafcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovicvvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
Do you (or anyone) know if someone has volunteered to make an official Fedora package? I might volunteer if no one else has...
I'll check for a review request in bugzilla.
Richard
There were Fedora RPMs for it under its old name - SIP Communicator.
Steve
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Steve Underwood steveu@coppice.org wrote:
On 05/12/2011 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassiafcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovicvvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
Do you (or anyone) know if someone has volunteered to make an official Fedora package? I might volunteer if no one else has...
I'll check for a review request in bugzilla.
Richard
There were Fedora RPMs for it under its old name - SIP Communicator.
Can't find anything now, at least on F14...
Richard
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:03:56 PM Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/11/2011 08:32 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
There iS No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TSNTAAFL).
And that is Yet Another Way to mangle a perfectly good acronym: There *Ain't* No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL). Bob Heinlein knew what he was doing; second-guessing him just messes things up.
And as much as I enjoy reading Heinlein and Niven, the term predates them both.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic vvmarko@gmail.com wrote:
Thus the question: is there a FOSS VoIP app that provides roughly the same quality, reliability and free-as-in-beer service?
I´ve been lately becoming a fan of "Jitsi". It´s an open source client that does SIP VOIP (including video), Google Talk, Jabber, AIM, ICQ, and Facebook chat, all in one.
Plus, I can configure it with my local SIP VOIP service, and take calls from the phone network with a local number (and make calls as well).
Do you (or anyone) know if someone has volunteered to make an official Fedora package? I might volunteer if no one else has...
I'll check for a review request in bugzilla.
No review requests but I think I know why, it appears to be dependent on Sun Java, I'm not sure if it will work with Iced Tea... This could get interesting.
I got it to compile with the free java but the install is manual (no "make install" or equivalent) and I compared the output of the build to the files in the provided generic RPM and there's quite a few missing. I guess I could pull them from the generic RPM but that would get messy.
Richard
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:48, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
No review requests but I think I know why, it appears to be dependent on Sun Java, I'm not sure if it will work with Iced Tea... This could get interesting.
OpenJDK is, for all intents and purpoes, Sun JRE. In fact, the differences should be minimum. And when JDK7 is released in a few weeks, the final code will be contributed back to OpenJDK (in fact, one can get an OpenJDK v7 now, although the code is not finished).
So... the only difference will be if you get the freeware binary from Java.com, or the OpenJDK release from your favourite package manager...
AFAIK "IcedTea" only includes a free implementation of the browser plug-in glue, and Java Web Start, which were not included as part of OpenJDK.
FC
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 23:33, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
So... the only difference will be if you get the freeware binary from Java.com, or the OpenJDK release from your favourite package manager...
AFAIK "IcedTea" only includes a free implementation of the browser plug-in glue, and Java Web Start, which were not included as part of OpenJDK.
FC
Second thought: JITSI (formerly known as SIP communicator) makes use of native code for certain routines (surely having to do with webcam support and audio, to avoid the mess that was Java Media Framework (JMF)).
You should ask in the Jitsi-developer mailing list, I´m sure they´ll be more than happy to help get Jitsi built smoothtly for Fedora repos using OpenJDK.
http://www.jitsi.org/index.php/Documentation/FAQ#ml-subscribe FC
HI Kevin,
Well, yes - if we have this already in system - I won't lose it again this opportunity. We all of the ambassadors have the SIP number on our business card, and if I give it away - then I (we) would like to use it. There is only 2 question has left: The first - most of us has an mobile phone, and mobile handset - is there any java based SIP client that can be binded with my Fedora? Second one - this has the same capabilities as Asterisk?
CU,
Zoltan
PS: I would like to update the wiki, with this info,
2011/5/12 Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com:
On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:16:47 +0200 Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
Well guys,
After we prefer freedom, and much easier to you and make meetings in voice, and skype has been bought by MS.... We have an opportunity to all fedora users keep contacted with each other. I really would like to see an hassle free opportunity instead of fighting with google talk/empathy/decoders and this renew can be our glue inside the community. Also I think this phone server can be our podcaster, and an tool not just for us users, else mentors, and between other communities. I think it's time to expand this to other distros, and let it cooperating with others through this, and we don't need anymore skype. I know that one is still an closed network, and many of our contact has been stayed because there are no other possibility.
So anything that I could do for this, to be resurrected - I'll be here. Let it be the newest feature for F16, an be promoted as a possibility, and we don't need skype at all.
Yes, fedora talk has been retired.
It was not used very much at all, and didn't have any interested folks willing to fix it and maintain it moving forward. ;(
I'd suggest looking instead at Sip Witch: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SIP_Witch_Domain_Telephony (added as a feature in f13)
This basically allows you to run your own sip server and let others connect to it to talk to you.
kevin
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Take care of using SIP clients at industry PBX systems. A lot of them write "supports SIP" nowadays, but interpret and extend SIP in such a way that nothing but their own periphery and software works with their infrastructure. It's worse than with html&javascript in browsers a few years back.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:48, Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com wrote:
No review requests but I think I know why, it appears to be dependent on Sun Java, I'm not sure if it will work with Iced Tea... This could get interesting.
OpenJDK is, for all intents and purpoes, Sun JRE. In fact, the differences should be minimum. And when JDK7 is released in a few weeks, the final code will be contributed back to OpenJDK (in fact, one can get an OpenJDK v7 now, although the code is not finished).
So... the only difference will be if you get the freeware binary from Java.com, or the OpenJDK release from your favourite package manager...
AFAIK "IcedTea" only includes a free implementation of the browser plug-in glue, and Java Web Start, which were not included as part of OpenJDK.
Yeah, for some reason I was confusing/substituting openJDK with IcedTea. I guess because in previous Fedora versions I recall having to install sun Java for web applets because IcedTea/openJDK didn't work for everything (Juniper VPN for one).
Like I mentioned I have it compiled now but their rpm includes many files that are not in their source (binaries, man pages, etc) and the rpmlint isn't clean on their provided RPM so I'll see what I can do.
Richard
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 09:02 +0200, Dmitri Bachtin wrote:
Take care of using SIP clients at industry PBX systems. A lot of them write "supports SIP" nowadays, but interpret and extend SIP in such a way that nothing but their own periphery and software works with their infrastructure. It's worse than with html&javascript in browsers a few years back.
Hmm, "sip" as in you can have a taste, but not a whole drink... ;-)
How appropriate the name "sip" would seem.
Does using skype preclude also using other voip for incoming calls, or is skype all elbows?
On 05/13/11 08:35, Michael Hennebry wrote:
Does using skype preclude also using other voip for incoming calls, or is skype all elbows?
I believe each voip client uses a specific port. So you can have multiple voip apps, listenning for packets on different ports. Also, since pulseaudio allows multiple audio clients, you will have quiet an orchestra of sound when answering mutiple incoming voip calls and asnwer all of them at the same time (roughly speaking) :) Of course, you will really need CPU bandwidth for such an orchestra :)
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 07:02 -0700, JD wrote:
since pulseaudio allows multiple audio clients, you will have quiet an orchestra of sound when answering mutiple incoming voip calls and asnwer all of them at the same time (roughly speaking) :)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how pulseaudio handles multiple sound capture devices.
Does it handle them as well as it handles multiple sound generating applications? (Yes, that's a leading question.)
On 05/13/11 11:47, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 07:02 -0700, JD wrote:
since pulseaudio allows multiple audio clients, you will have quiet an orchestra of sound when answering mutiple incoming voip calls and asnwer all of them at the same time (roughly speaking) :)
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is how pulseaudio handles multiple sound capture devices.
Does it handle them as well as it handles multiple sound generating applications? (Yes, that's a leading question.)
Good question. I hope a developer familiar with pulseaudio internals will proffer some insights.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Fernando Cassia fcassia@gmail.com wrote:
Second thought: JITSI (formerly known as SIP communicator) makes use of native code for certain routines (surely having to do with webcam support and audio, to avoid the mess that was Java Media Framework (JMF)).
You should ask in the Jitsi-developer mailing list, I´m sure they´ll be more than happy to help get Jitsi built smoothtly for Fedora repos using OpenJDK.
http://www.jitsi.org/index.php/Documentation/FAQ#ml-subscribe
I've subscribed to the dev list we'll see where it leads, but one problem I can see already is that it bundles ffmpeg, so the package would have to be hosted on a 3rd party repo (RPMFusion or atrpms). Even then, bundled libraries are still discouraged. Hopefully they don't customize it and can use the system installed ffmpeg...
Richard
On Fri, 13 May 2011 07:58:58 +0200 Zoltan Hoppar hopparz@gmail.com wrote:
HI Kevin,
Well, yes - if we have this already in system - I won't lose it again this opportunity. We all of the ambassadors have the SIP number on our business card, and if I give it away - then I (we) would like to use it.
Yes, it should be available in Fedora. ;)
I've not set it up here, but it looks promising at least.
There is only 2 question has left: The first - most of us has an mobile phone, and mobile handset - is there any java based SIP client that can be binded with my Fedora?
No idea there. There are SIP clients on various phones. You may be able to connect that to your home sipwhich install. Not sure.
Second one - this has the same capabilities as Asterisk?
No, it's different.
CU,
Zoltan
PS: I would like to update the wiki, with this info,
Please do anywere you see it out of date. ;)
kevin
On 05/11/2011 08:58 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
$8.5 BB is a pretty serious premium for a company with zero revenue (ever) which sold 2 times previously - first to ebay for $2.5 BB and after that something < 1 BB ... still no revenue but a decent enough brand.
What Skype has is technology that MSFT can use for its Lync products as well as the subscriber lists.
Well, reviving this old thread since I actually got a build of JItsi that appears to work just in case anyone's interested. It still needs a lot of work to remove some 3rd party files before it could possible be included in Fedora though.
Seconding the move in this direction. Anything is better then a Micro$loth tainted product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Best FOSS alternative for skype?
Well, reviving this old thread since I actually got a build of JItsi that appears to work just in case anyone's interested. It still needs a lot of work to remove some 3rd party files before it could possible be included in Fedora though.
http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/jitsi/
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Let it be the default added software. Also I suggest to check out Chandler (www.chandlerproject.org) - maybe it improves our communication through this. Chandler is barely written in python, so please check it out.
Thx,
Zoltan
2011/10/24 Joe Wulf joe_wulf@yahoo.com:
Seconding the move in this direction. Anything is better then a Micro$loth tainted product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Shaw hobbes1069@gmail.com To: Community support for Fedora users users@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Best FOSS alternative for skype?
Well, reviving this old thread since I actually got a build of JItsi that appears to work just in case anyone's interested. It still needs a lot of work to remove some 3rd party files before it could possible be included in Fedora though.
http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/jitsi/
users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
On 10/24/2011 09:33 AM, Zoltan Hoppar wrote:
Let it be the default added software. Also I suggest to check out Chandler (www.chandlerproject.org) - maybe it improves our communication through this. Chandler is barely written in python, so please check it out.
The Chandler project appears comatose and no longer developed.