[JDEV] Videoconferencing with jabber

[Carsten Breuer]

Hi Bart, hi all,

> Hmm, in theory, yes.. In practice approx 1 in several million Internet 
> users is able to create his own server so IMO this is not really an 
> argument ;) 

Yes it is. Because i cant do anything against microsoft decission not to
support windows 98 anymore ... except ... to by windows XP.
You hvae the freedom to doing so and if the market is there, people will 
pay for the server. Not 10$ a month liek freecom, but perhaps 20 cent 
per call.

> If Jabber would be primarily aimed at the technology savy Internet user 
> then I would agree, but IMO it's time to 'give Jabber to the people', 
> the average (computer nitwit) user that is :D They won't be able to 
> setup such a server and I don't know that many people that soley (sp?) 
> communicate with family members either ;) Hehe

ROFL! However ... in my company nearly all developer's use linux at 
home, the have a strong feeling for it and some even doesn't have
windows anymore. It's only a question of time. And if the people can do 
it, the will pay for it (but a smal amount).

> Are you sure that MSN6 (or whatever it's called) doesn't run on 98? 
 > Haven't tried it btw. anyway, an old netmeeting version should still
 > work :D

Well, it runs fine on 98 except that it blocks video conferencing.
The big problem ist that Netmeeting is now part of XP and the other 
problem is that it can only be started with the MSN-Messenger and the
next problem ist that it doesn't allow connections to 98. Do you 
understand, what the friendly marketing devision at microsoft do?

> Indeed because your xDSL connection is probably saturated in no time if 
> this becomes a popular Jabber feature ;)

Could be, but since i have the control to follow the invitations or not,
i doen't care.

> The 100ms is not that big an issue. Wasting lots of bandwidth is IMO. 
> IMO that's just bad netizenship :D It's pretty silly sto route all my 
> traffic through the inter continental lines just to talk to someone at 
> the other side of town :D

I dont care either. People waiste bandwith for HTML-emails, Viruses,
Spyware, Real-Audio-Player *ullsh** and more. So why not wasting a bit
more with usefull stuff <vbg>.

> What about UPnP? IMO that's designed to deal with these issues?

Yes, but if i read the "we dont care if this violates our handmade 
patents" and "copyright by microsoft" stuff, i think this is not the 
right way to go. I love the way the jabber people done it when they say
that you are not allowed to bring in any propertary stuff.

> But if it's possible to use a direct connection then we should use a 
> direct connection IMO.

Yes, if onla 2 people making the conference this is fine.

>>> Same thing goed for filetransfer BTW.
>>
>> That's true. But timing is not so important here.
> 
> How do you mean?

It's not important if a file comes with a delay of 5 seconds to a use.

> BTW IMO there is a lot of overlap with filetransfer, especially with the 
> stream initiation, IMO you should take a look at those JEPs :D

I dont think that it is a good idea to embedd the audio and video stuff 
in the jabber protocol. But i think it is good to embedd the control 
stuff there (like the B chanel in ISDN).

> BTW it's possible to get the IP of your mother with the SOCKS or Stream 
> Initiation JEPs IIRC.

That's good to hear :-)).
Thanks.


Best wishes,



Carsten