4:54 p.m.
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
11:22 a.m.
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 08:32 -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> 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.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
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.
1:05 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)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
6:16 a.m.
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(a)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-s...
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(a)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
1:44 p.m.
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.
10:33 a.m.
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(a)yahoo.com>:
Seconding the move in this direction.
Anything is better then a Micro$loth tainted product.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2011 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Best FOSS alternative for skype?
>
> Well, reviving this old thread since I actually got a build of JItsi
> that appears to work just in case anyone's interested. It still needs
> a lot of work to remove some 3rd party files before it could possible
> be included in Fedora though.
>
> http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/jitsi/
> --
> users mailing list
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
--
users mailing list
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
--
PGP: 06853DF7
9:48 a.m.
Seconding the move in this direction.
Anything is better then a Micro$loth tainted product.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>
To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
4:08 p.m.
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/
8:37 a.m.
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.
--
Jerry Feldman <gaf(a)blu.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846
3:37 p.m.
On Fri, 13 May 2011 07:58:58 +0200
Zoltan Hoppar <hopparz(a)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
2:53 p.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:36 PM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)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
1:47 p.m.
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.)
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
12:20 p.m.
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.
10:35 a.m.
Does using skype preclude also using other voip for incoming calls,
or is skype all elbows?
--
Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu
"Pessimist: The glass is half empty.
Optimist: The glass is half full.
Engineer: The glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
9:35 a.m.
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.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
9:02 a.m.
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 :)
8:03 a.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:33 PM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:48, Richard Shaw
<hobbes1069(a)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
2:02 a.m.
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.
12:58 a.m.
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(a)scrye.com>:
On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:16:47 +0200
Zoltan Hoppar <hopparz(a)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(a)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
9:36 p.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 23:33, Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)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
--
"Tools are a way to amplify our senses so that we can expand our reach
in order to expropiate space, compress time, and secure ourselves. A
gun extends the power of our throwing arms. An automobile is an
extension of our legs. Computers amplify our memories". - T.E.D.
"Space Time, and Modernity" J. Rifkin
9:33 p.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:48, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)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
3:13 p.m.
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.
3:37 p.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Richard Shaw
<hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)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
>
> 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
12:43 p.m.
New subject: ***BULK*** Re: Best FOSS alternative for skype?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Steve Underwood <steveu(a)coppice.org> wrote:
On 05/12/2011 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia<fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic<vvmarko(a)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
> 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
11:10 a.m.
New subject: ***BULK*** Re: Best FOSS alternative for skype?
On 05/12/2011 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando
Cassia<fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic<vvmarko(a)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
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
10:48 a.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia
<fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)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
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
9:53 a.m.
On Thu, 12 May 2011 13:16:47 +0200
Zoltan Hoppar <hopparz(a)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
8:10 a.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic
<vvmarko(a)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
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
6:24 a.m.
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 08:12:21 -0300,
Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:08, Zoltan Hoppar
<hopparz(a)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.
5:27 a.m.
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-s...
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?
2:13 a.m.
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(a)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(a)gmail.com>:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD <jd1008(a)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(a)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
--
PGP: 06853DF7
12:12 a.m.
On 05/11/11 21:16, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD<jd1008(a)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
Thanks!! will try it.
11:16 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD <jd1008(a)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
2:05 p.m.
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.
7:01 p.m.
On 05/11/11 16:03, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko
Vojinovic<vvmarko(a)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?
12:03 p.m.
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.
5:48 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 08:49, Alan Cox <alan(a)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
6:03 p.m.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 18:54, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)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
5:46 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 15:31, Joe Zeff <joe(a)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
5:42 p.m.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 19:32, Konstantinos Karantias
<kostis(a)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
3:52 p.m.
On 5/11/2011 1:40 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 11 May 2011 16:32, James McKenzie<jjmckenzie51(a)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.
3:40 p.m.
On 11 May 2011 16:32, James McKenzie <jjmckenzie51(a)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.
--
imalone
3:37 p.m.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)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
2:26 p.m.
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 :-).
2:09 p.m.
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.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
1:54 p.m.
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.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
12:41 p.m.
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 :)
1:36 p.m.
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
1:31 p.m.
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.
1:19 p.m.
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.)
12:38 p.m.
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
12:58 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:41 AM, JD <jd1008(a)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
12:57 p.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Joe Zeff <joe(a)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
11:32 a.m.
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.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
10:32 a.m.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Genes MailLists <lists(a)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
10:04 a.m.
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 ?
9:58 a.m.
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 :)
9:52 a.m.
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 :)
9:27 a.m.
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.
7:58 a.m.
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/
8:02 a.m.
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
7:19 a.m.
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
6:49 a.m.
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
5:30 a.m.
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 $1000
computer as a telephone.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
3:36 a.m.
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(a)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(a)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
9:32 p.m.
On May 10, 2011 10:28 PM, "Thomas Cameron"
<thomas.cameron(a)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
9:27 p.m.
-----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(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk3J9A8ACgkQmzle50YHwaABAACfaLPROTkQaav4DG7t92vUZnQ+
8LAAoKi/aaXwj4hgCSTSv1TF+/88xKv3
=sNSP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6 p.m.
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-be...
So, if anyone believe the MS is friendly to Linux'ers: wake up and smell
the news.
8:58 p.m.
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.
5:49 p.m.
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, JD<jd1008(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
>
6:44 p.m.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko(a)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.
--
Suvayu
Open source is the future. It sets us free.
6:43 p.m.
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.
6:19 p.m.
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 :-).
5:32 p.m.
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(a)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(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
--
Konstantinos Karantias (http://gtklocker.com)
Twitter:
https://twitter.com/gtklocker
5:15 p.m.
<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
4:59 p.m.
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.
10:42 a.m.
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
3:21 a.m.
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...
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
11:59 a.m.
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."
11:33 a.m.
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...
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
6:23 a.m.
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(a)gmail.com>:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:08, Zoltan Hoppar
<hopparz(a)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(a)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
2:08 a.m.
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(a)gmail.com>:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 21:01, JD <jd1008(a)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(a)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
4561
days inactive
4728
days old
83 comments
31 participants
participants (31)
-
Alan Cox -
Bruno Wolff III -
Dmitri Bachtin -
Fernando Cassia -
Genes MailLists -
Ian Malone -
James McKenzie -
JD -
Jerry Feldman -
Joe Wulf -
Joe Zeff -
Kevin Fenzi -
Konstantinos Karantias -
Lamar Owen -
Marko Vojinovic -
Michael Hennebry -
Michael Wiktowy -
mike -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Paul Morgan -
Richard Sewill -
Richard Shaw -
Roger -
Sam Varshavchik -
Steve Underwood -
Stuart McGraw -
Suvayu Ali -
thomas cameron -
Tim -
Tom Horsley -
Zoltan Hoppar