18 Mar
2005
18 Mar
'05
4:44 p.m.
I know very little about skype and don't have much time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
18 Mar
18 Mar
5:09 p.m.
On Friday 18 March 2005 15:44, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
I know very little about skype and don't have much
time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
Free software VOIP typically takes the form of SIP, or Session
Initiation Protocol, which is as close to a standard for end users as
VOIP really has. Skype doesn't have any SIP gateways as far as I
know, though they're supposed to offer something called "SkypeIn"
this summer to do that. Personally, I'd rather just avoid them
altogether, as it seems what they've brought to the mix is primarily
marketing.
I would say Linphone is the most widely used free SIP client software,
at least under Linux. Linspire seems to be throwing some money at
PhoneGaim, though, so maybe it'll be grandmother-friendly before
Linphone.
Rob
5:59 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 04:08:55PM -0500, Rob wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 15:44, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki
wrote:
That is my impression as well. But, how to convince management that the
current most popular solution is not the best thing for the organization
to roll out just because it's what has made the first big splash in the
general population ....
I know very little about skype and don't have
much time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
Free software VOIP typically takes the form of SIP, or Session
Initiation Protocol, which is as close to a standard for end users as
VOIP really has. Skype doesn't have any SIP gateways as far as I
know, though they're supposed to offer something called "SkypeIn"
this summer to do that. Personally, I'd rather just avoid them
altogether, as it seems what they've brought to the mix is primarily
marketing. I would say Linphone is the most widely used free SIP
client software,
at least under Linux. Linspire seems to be throwing some money at
PhoneGaim, though, so maybe it'll be grandmother-friendly before
Linphone.
I'm afraid of management getting caught up in hype, offering a service
to users and down the road realizing that they are locked into a
proprietary protocol. I just did some googling and realize my fears are
founded. The skype protocol is entirely closed as far as I can tell.
I'm aware of SIP and h.323. We just had a DC linux user's meeting here
on Wednesday night about asterisk and how VoIP interfaces to the PSTN.
Basically what is wanted is a way for people (most of whom probably
don't run linux or care at all about Free Software) who aren't able to
get through during our call-in shows to leave messages without paying
the toll free (for the caller) charges of using the PSTN. Skype offers a
viable option for that, _now_. While I can't help feeling that it is a
slippery slope that will come back to bite the organization in the
future ... I also cannot offer a Free alternative with the same ease of
use and practically non-existant barrier to entry for the potential
callers.
/me scratches head and stares into the screen ....
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
6:44 p.m.
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 16:59 -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
I'm afraid of management getting caught up in
hype, offering a service
to users and down the road realizing that they are locked into a
proprietary protocol. I just did some googling and realize my fears are
founded. The skype protocol is entirely closed as far as I can tell.
It's only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers it. I would
not be worried.
Lee
7:57 p.m.
Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 16:59 -0500, Eric Dantan
Rzewnicki wrote:
is true ...
and i know people disagree, but i don't see much point in the Skype
creators keeping it closed-source - seeing as most people aknowledge
that it is mainly about marketing, then as soon as skype has that
market-share, what would be the point in keeping it closed/proprietary?
i mean, once the majority of people are using Skype's program, why would
anyone change to a different one (of which there is bound to be many
after opening the source) when *everyone* they know is using Skype?
also, the avalanche and speed of improvements that would eventuate would
mean the next step in Skype's evolution after they've obtained a
monopoly market-share - and it would almost be a self-perpetuating
cycle. that's what i reckon, anyway, though i doubt the Skype team would
see it that way :(
however - when someone *does* reverse-engineer it, they might not have
much choice!
shayne
if skype is "evil", then i would prefer a "good" program
I'm afraid of management getting caught up in
hype, offering a service
to users and down the road realizing that they are locked into a
proprietary protocol. I just did some googling and realize my fears are
founded. The skype protocol is entirely closed as far as I can tell.
It's only a matter of time before someone reverse engineers it. I would
not be worried.
7:37 p.m.
On Friday 18 March 2005 16:59, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
That is my impression as well. But, how to convince
management that
the current most popular solution is not the best thing for the
organization to roll out just because it's what has made the first
big splash in the general population ....
Well, you could take the high road....
"Skype might be popular, but it's not a standard and it's not free
software. Sure, you don't have to pay for it now, but it could be
they'll start putting more and more obtrusive ads in it or charging
per seat or per minute for business users. We would have no control
over any of that."
Or you could take the FUD road.
"Skype? Didn't you know it's from the guys who wrote Kazaa? I sure
hope you're putting more money in the budget for virus cleaning and
intrusion recovery. Not to mention angry users."
I'm afraid of management getting caught up in
hype, offering a
service to users and down the road realizing that they are locked
into a proprietary protocol. I just did some googling and realize
my fears are founded. The skype protocol is entirely closed as far
as I can tell.
I'm sure it'll eventually be broken if it becomes a de facto standard
(c.f. iTunes), but by then they may have been bought by someone
bigger or gotten rich enough to try to suppress open implementations
of their protocol via patents or whatever.
Basically what is wanted is a way for people (most of
whom probably
don't run linux or care at all about Free Software) who aren't able
to get through during our call-in shows to leave messages without
paying the toll free (for the caller) charges of using the PSTN.
Skype offers a viable option for that, _now_. While I can't help
feeling that it is a slippery slope that will come back to bite the
organization in the future ... I also cannot offer a Free
alternative with the same ease of use and practically non-existant
barrier to entry for the potential callers.
Have you tried PhoneGaim under windows? I haven't, but I have
converted dozens of AIM and Yahoo users to Gaim under Windows, with
only one or two people switching back (because of the lack of webcam
support.) Either way you're gonna have to do tech support for
whatever you tell your people to use. If it does come down to "we're
using skype, and that's that", why not support both?
Rob
19 Mar
19 Mar
3:48 a.m.
Rob wrote:
On Friday 18 March 2005 16:59, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki
wrote:
Point of fact, as I have been told from a senior VP, it is in fact
written by the guys who started Napster. Skype uses our backbone for its
bandwidth.
Not sure where all the "land mines" are... It's free! All they want to
charge for is calls terminating on the PSTN. No, it's not open
source....but as I recall, that didn t matter when it was being tested
for Jamming / collaborating across the net? Many still use windows
don't they??
And when its all said and done...do we really care *that* much here? If
the app doesnt do what u want it to do....don't use it. If it does and
they want bux...oh well. You have a choice.
That is my impression as well. But, how to
convince management that
the current most popular solution is not the best thing for the
organization to roll out just because it's what has made the first
big splash in the general population ....
Well, you could take the high road....
"Skype might be popular, but it's not a standard and it's not free
software. Sure, you don't have to pay for it now, but it could be
they'll start putting more and more obtrusive ads in it or charging
per seat or per minute for business users. We would have no control
over any of that."
Or you could take the FUD road.
"Skype? Didn't you know it's from the guys who wrote Kazaa? I sure
hope you're putting more money in the budget for virus cleaning and
intrusion recovery. Not to mention angry users."
I'm afraid of management getting caught up in
hype, offering a
service to users and down the road realizing that they are locked
into a proprietary protocol. I just did some googling and realize
my fears are founded. The skype protocol is entirely closed as far
as I can tell.
I'm sure it'll eventually be broken if it becomes a de facto standard
(c.f. iTunes), but by then they may have been bought by someone
bigger or gotten rich enough to try to suppress open implementations
of their protocol via patents or whatever.
Basically what is wanted is a way for people (most
of whom probably
don't run linux or care at all about Free Software) who aren't able
to get through during our call-in shows to leave messages without
paying the toll free (for the caller) charges of using the PSTN.
Skype offers a viable option for that, _now_. While I can't help
feeling that it is a slippery slope that will come back to bite the
organization in the future ... I also cannot offer a Free
alternative with the same ease of use and practically non-existant
barrier to entry for the potential callers.
Have you tried PhoneGaim under windows? I haven't, but I have
converted dozens of AIM and Yahoo users to Gaim under Windows, with
only one or two people switching back (because of the lack of webcam
support.) Either way you're gonna have to do tech support for
whatever you tell your people to use. If it does come down to "we're
using skype, and that's that", why not support both?
Rob
2:28 p.m.
On Saturday 19 March 2005 00:49, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
Point of fact, as I have been told from a senior VP,
it is in fact
written by the guys who started Napster. Skype uses our backbone
for its bandwidth.
He was incorrect. "Skype was created by Niklas Zennström and Janus
Friis, founders of KaZaA", says Skype themselves.
http://www.skype.com/company/founders.html
Not sure where all the "land mines" are...
It's free!
It's not free software. SIP clients like linphone and PhoneGaim are.
All they
want to charge for is calls terminating on the PSTN.
All they want to do is own the VOIP market. It seems disingenuous to
pretend otherwise.
No, it's not
open source....but as I recall, that didn t matter when it was
being tested for Jamming / collaborating across the net? Many
still use windows don't they??
I don't use Windows, and I haven't heard anything about jamming over
the net with or without free software. Playing live isn't something
I'm interested in or would pay attention to, though I hope to come up
with a nice web-based collaboration tool eventually.
And when its all said and done...do we really care
*that* much
here? If the app doesnt do what u want it to do....don't use it.
If it does and they want bux...oh well. You have a choice.
Sure I do. I have another choice, too: whether or not to encourage
the use of free software over shady, secretive proprietary software.
I'm exercising that choice here. If enough people use proprietary
software, eventually (as was the case in the desktop OS market until
recently) there will effectively be no choice. Surely even "u" can
see that.
Rob
3:18 p.m.
Rob wrote:
We have a different definition of "Free" I downloaded both Linux and
Winblows versions of this client app. Didnt pay anything for them. Can
call other PC's with Skype for nothing all day long.
Trust me...this ~IS~ virtually impossible. My companies current business
model depends on it. Far too many Big Billion dollar investements been
made in VOIP starting late 2003 to current day by all the big players.
Collaborating with Skype was what started this thread.
To each their own. I guess my point is sometimes we get so very far from
the *audio on linux* topic base.
Cheers,
R~
On Saturday 19 March 2005 00:49, Russell Hanaghan
wrote:
I subsequently stand corrected.
Point of fact, as I have been told from a senior
VP, it is in fact
written by the guys who started Napster. Skype uses our backbone
for its bandwidth.
He was incorrect. "Skype was created by Niklas Zennström and Janus
Friis, founders of KaZaA", says Skype themselves.
http://www.skype.com/company/founders.html
Not sure where all the "land mines"
are... It's free!
It's not free software. SIP clients like linphone and PhoneGaim are.
All they
want to charge for is calls terminating on the PSTN.
All they want to do is own the VOIP market. It seems disingenuous to
pretend otherwise.
No, it's
not
open source....but as I recall, that didn t matter when it was
being tested for Jamming / collaborating across the net? Many
still use windows don't they??
I don't use Windows, and I haven't heard anything about jamming over
the net with or without free software. Playing live isn't something
I'm interested in or would pay attention to, though I hope to come up
with a nice web-based collaboration tool eventually.
And when its all said and done...do we really care
*that* much
here? If the app doesnt do what u want it to do....don't use it.
If it does and they want bux...oh well. You have a choice.
Sure I do. I have another choice, too: whether or not to encourage
the use of free software over shady, secretive proprietary software.
I'm exercising that choice here. If enough people use proprietary
software, eventually (as was the case in the desktop OS market until
recently) there will effectively be no choice. Surely even "u" can
see that.
Rob
20 Mar
20 Mar
9:47 a.m.
Russell Hanaghan <hanaghan(a)starband.net> writes:
We have a different definition of "Free"
People in the free software community generally refers to the
definition as defined the free software foundation,
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
--
Esben Stien is b0ef(a)esben-stien.name
http://www.esben-stien.name
irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact
[sip|iax]:esben-stien.name
18 Mar
18 Mar
6:22 p.m.
Rob schrieb:
On Friday 18 March 2005 15:44, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki
wrote:
yes, but contrary to SIP and h232, skype uses some p2p protocol,
that minimizes their server load (according to skype). thats no big
deal for the user, as long as he / she can still find an free sip / h323
service provider, but as bandwith does cost money, this might be a
problem.
another point of skype is that it can (does) "missuse" some skypers
that are not behind a NAT as some sort of server to connect two
NAT'ed skype users - that means: skype just works, without any
configuration, and no matter if u and the person u are calling is
behind a NAT. this might be the reason 4 skype's popularity, and
there is no OS software i know of that has similar features.
I know very little about skype and don't have
much time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
Free software VOIP typically takes the form of SIP, or Session
Initiation Protocol, which is as close to a standard for end users as
VOIP really has. Skype doesn't have any SIP gateways as far as I
know, though they're supposed to offer something called "SkypeIn"
this summer to do that. Personally, I'd rather just avoid them
altogether, as it seems what they've brought to the mix is primarily
marketing.
I would say Linphone is the most widely used free SIP
client software,
at least under Linux. Linspire seems to be throwing some money at
PhoneGaim, though, so maybe it'll be grandmother-friendly before
Linphone.
Rob
6:33 p.m.
Hallo,
Rob hat gesagt: // Rob wrote:
Personally, I'd rather just avoid them
altogether, as it seems what
they've brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
And they bring proprietary protocols hidden in closed source softwarei
to monopolize a market share. Skype is evil(tm).
Ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
_ __latest track: "scans" _ http://footils.org/cms/show/41
19 Mar
19 Mar
12:45 p.m.
Skype doesn't have any SIP gateways as far as I
know, though they're supposed to offer something called
"SkypeIn" this summer to do that.
they did a protocol of their own, and they will never publish
it, I guess...
Personally, I'd rather
just avoid them altogether, as it seems what they've
brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
Their protocol has the advantage that it works very well even
on low bandwith connections.
And what they did very well was to make their software easy to
use on every platform. Simply visit the homepage, download it
and a wizard will help you configuring it.
While the others still discussed SIP they did the market -
they simply did it clever enough.
Best regards
ce
20 Mar
20 Mar
12:06 p.m.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 17:42 +0100, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I may be off-base here, but as I understand it the bulk of the
transmission of any VOIP transmission is the audio data itself. In that
case, what matters is the codec. I don't remember the name of it, but I
do know that asterisk supports the same codec that skype uses. So
asterisk doesn't (yet?) support the skype protocol, but it should be
able to sound just as good over the same bandwidth (perhaps even better,
since IAX is a good and lean protocol).
Personally,
I'd rather
just avoid them altogether, as it seems what they've
brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
Their protocol has the advantage that it works very well even
on low bandwith connections. And what they did very well was to make their software
easy to
use on every platform. Simply visit the homepage, download it
and a wizard will help you configuring it.
This is definitely important and not to be overlooked.
While the others still discussed SIP they did the
market -
they simply did it clever enough.
Also a good thing to do. Asterisk did something similar with IAX.
--
.O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est.
..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
5:25 p.m.
Hans Fugal wrote:
this is exactly what *is* being overlooked in favour of using
open-source software at any cost. on a political level, i would agree
with this - however, politics havn't sat comfortably on this list
before. also overlooked is the fact that not everyone in the world uses
Linux ... in fact, i'm the only person i personally know who uses Linux
(i'm proseletysing, so hopefully that will change), so unfortunately any
solution that i find has to be simple enough and functional enough that
any of my obviously dumb Windows friends can use it. it goes without
saying that none of the previously provided "real alternatives" are
actually that at all (phoneGaim would be the closest).
shayne
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 17:42 +0100, Christoph Eckert
wrote:
I may be off-base here, but as I understand it the bulk of the
transmission of any VOIP transmission is the audio data itself. In that
case, what matters is the codec. I don't remember the name of it, but I
do know that asterisk supports the same codec that skype uses. So
asterisk doesn't (yet?) support the skype protocol, but it should be
able to sound just as good over the same bandwidth (perhaps even better,
since IAX is a good and lean protocol).
i may be off-base here as well, and i'm sure that the codec has a lot to
do with it, but i was under the impression that Skype works as well as
it does because it is based on P2P technology that distributes the
network load amongst the clients?
if that is the case, or if it is at least a part of the case, i was
wondering if an open-source alternative could build itself from a
BitTorrent base where once you are connected you are providing a small
amount of bandwidth to the general pool?
Personally, I'd rather
just avoid them altogether, as it seems what they've
brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
Their protocol has the advantage that it works very well even
on low bandwith connections.
And what they did very well was to make their
software easy to
use on every platform. Simply visit the homepage, download it
and a wizard will help you configuring it.
This is definitely important and not to be overlooked.
7:36 p.m.
Shayne O'Connor schrieb:
this is exactly what *is* being overlooked in favour of using
open-source software at any cost. on a political level, i would agree
with this - however, politics havn't sat comfortably on this list
before. also overlooked is the fact that not everyone in the world uses
Linux ... in fact, i'm the only person i personally know who uses Linux
(i'm proseletysing, so hopefully that will change), so unfortunately any
solution that i find has to be simple enough and functional enough that
any of my obviously dumb Windows friends can use it. it goes without
saying that none of the previously provided "real alternatives" are
actually that at all (phoneGaim would be the closest).
shayne
Hans Fugal wrote:
but i think that SIP also does use p2p connection from client to client,
at least if that is possible. one example of that not being possible is
when both clients are behind some kind of NAT (that is called "router"
most often), without support of upnp or similar.
skype will use some (non-NATed) users as servers to connect this two
clients together, without the need for some dedicated gateway servers
(that cost bandwith).
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 at 17:42 +0100, Christoph
Eckert wrote:
I may be off-base here, but as I understand it the bulk of the
transmission of any VOIP transmission is the audio data itself. In that
case, what matters is the codec. I don't remember the name of it, but I
do know that asterisk supports the same codec that skype uses. So
asterisk doesn't (yet?) support the skype protocol, but it should be
able to sound just as good over the same bandwidth (perhaps even better,
since IAX is a good and lean protocol).
i may be off-base here as well, and i'm sure that the codec has a lot to
do with it, but i was under the impression that Skype works as well as
it does because it is based on P2P technology that distributes the
network load amongst the clients?
Personally, I'd rather
just avoid them altogether, as it seems what they've
brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
Their protocol has the advantage that it works very well even
on low bandwith connections.
if that is the case, or if it is at least a part of the
case, i was
wondering if an open-source alternative could build itself from a
BitTorrent base where once you are connected you are providing a small
amount of bandwidth to the general pool?
This would mean that we must only find some way to
connect two nat'ed users together ...
And what they did very well was to make their
software easy to
use on every platform. Simply visit the homepage, download it
and a wizard will help you configuring it.
This is definitely important and not to be overlooked.
21 Mar
21 Mar
1:50 a.m.
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 05:42:48PM +0100, Christoph Eckert wrote:
I'm reading another list that discusses research in the networking e2e
area. According to a very recent discussion on that list skype is
probably using iLBC (RFC 3951) as a codec.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3951.txt
- Bengan --------------------------------------------------------------
- KTHNOC/SUNET/NORDUnet | http://www.sunet.se/~bengan | +46 8 7906586 -
Skype doesn't have any SIP gateways as far as
I
know, though they're supposed to offer something called
"SkypeIn" this summer to do that.
they did a protocol of their own, and they will never publish
it, I guess...
Personally, I'd rather
just avoid them altogether, as it seems what they've
brought to the mix is primarily marketing.
Their protocol has the advantage that it works very well even
on low bandwith connections. 
19 Mar
19 Mar
8:09 a.m.
On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 03:44:18PM -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
I know very little about skype and don't have much
time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
Skype offer two things currently, the actual noises-over-internet stuff,
and the gateway out to the 'real' telephony system. The former you can use
one of the free voip implementations, the latter you need some kind of
account for. There are services that offer SIP+RTP to phone gateways that
should interoperate with the free VOIP implementations. I posted the URL
of one a couple of weeks ago, but I forget what it was.
- Steve
11:12 a.m.
Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk> writes:
services that offer SIP+RTP to phone gateways
A small list is on http://voip-info.org
It's best to check and email your local companies and ask them if they
provide SIP or IAX accounts.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef(a)esben-stien.name
http://www.esben-stien.name
irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact
[sip|iax]:esben-stien.name
2:28 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] OT: fighting skype ...
On Saturday 19 March 2005 07:09, Steve Harris wrote:
you need some kind of account for. There are services
that offer
SIP+RTP to phone gateways that should interoperate with the free
VOIP implementations. I posted the URL of one a couple of weeks
ago, but I forget what it was.
SIPphone.com is one such service, also spun off from Lindows/Linspire,
and I haven't heard any bad things about them. They've sued
companies that sell phone to VOIP adaptors that are locked to one
vendor (i.e., Vonage.) I'm sure given enough time they'd become like
Skype, but they use and support open standards and free software, so
I feel good about them at present. Haven't actually used them,
though, since my mobile phone has so many minutes on it that I
haven't had to worry about long distance costs since about 1998.
A friend of mine uses Vonage and apparently they offer a plan that
lets you use your Vonage service from any SIP softphone as well,
though you still have to have an account with them. Naturally, any
vendor I talk about is going to be pretty US-centric (SIPphone makes
you dial PSTN numbers as though you were calling from an American
phone, for example.)
While this started as an audio topic, I think we're veering into
telecom territory here, so I'm marking this as OT.
Rob
11:36 a.m.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 at 15:44 -0500, Eric Dantan Rzewnicki wrote:
I know very little about skype and don't have much
time or personal
interest in learning about it. But, it's making inroads. I want to
understand what it does and what free software alternatives are
available. Is it possible for free software alternatives to inter
operate with the skype world?
Asterisk.
Skype seems to be the most visible among normal people at this point, or
so I hear (nobody I know uses it). But Asterisk is what is truly making
inroads in corporate America. That's a good thing, because Asterisk is
free, Free, excellent quality, extremely versatile, and has a vibrant
community. Others have discussed what skype is and its problems and
strengths.
There are plenty of quality softphones available for windows that will
talk some of the protocols asterisk understands. SIP being the most
common, but also one of the more difficult protocols to get working
behind NAT. IAX is Asterisk's own protocol that works very well behind
NAT and in most other ways. A "just work" solution should be very easy
for your users - grab one of those softphones[1] that is Free and package
it preconfigured to connect to your Asterisk server. Use IAX and you
don't have trouble with NAT.
On linux the situation is not so pretty - most of the softphones that do
work are lame beyond compare. Those that aren't lame in other ways just
don't work. :-) But that is changing, as you can expect. I can almost
guarantee that whatever linux softphone that isn't lame surfaces, will
support SIP and/or IAX.
1. This one looks good, though I haven't tried it:
http://www.virbiage.com/firefly/download/
--
.O. Hans Fugal | De gustibus non disputandum est.
..O http://hans.fugal.net | Debian, vim, mutt, ruby, text, gpg
OOO | WindowMaker, gaim, UTF-8, RISC, JS Bach
---------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG Fingerprint: 6940 87C5 6610 567F 1E95 CB5E FC98 E8CD E0AA D460
12:17 p.m.
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> writes:
what free software alternatives are available.
SIP:
http://www.sipfoundry.org/sipXphone/ (never really played with it)
http://www.wirlab.net/kphone/ (use it sometimes, making calls through asterisk)
http://www.gnophone.com/ (devel seized)
IAX:
http://iaxclient.sourceforge.net/iaxcomm/ (use sometimes; calls through asterisk or p2p)
H.323
http://www.gnomemeeting.org/
Also take a look at http://voip-info.org/wiki-VOIP+Phones and
generally on http://voip-info.org
There are many trying to lure you;). Always locate the license and
make sure it has p2p calls. I don't know of a list of libre software
voip phones and since voip-info wiki is not publicly editable, it's
such a hassle to make one.
It's maybe preferable to have an account with a SIP provider. Then you
would have the number like sip:sip-provider.void/your-username or if
dialed from a POTS telephone, maybe 1-800-CALL-ME-TOTO. You would
then use your account your-username(a)sip-provider.void to register using
your softphone enabling you to make and break calls from and to
anywhere in the world.
I currently have an asterisk box reachable through my FQDN at
sip:esben-stien.name - this translates to sip:esben-stien.name/s as s
is the default extension; it reaches the main menu system. You could
also call sip:esben-stien.name/777 to directly call the
my_house_built_on_stilts hotline. Please call me sometime and we can
test your setup. I test a lot at the moment so please try again if you
can't reach me.
Asterisk, http://asterisk.org is a software PBX, supporting the major
SIP (and H.323) plus some other protocols, like IAX. It has an
interactive interface allowing you to make and break calls over any
protocol that asterisk supports.
I've never played with sipXphone, but a little with kphone
I use asterisk (SIP/IAX) myself for dialing since there is no proper
client, but I have many friends that still use windows. I give them
iaxcomm. I've had great deals of problems and still have with some
users. I'm currently doing heavy testing to have a stable SIP and IAX
solution.
What I really need is a client daemon hooked up to jack that I can
interface to with a non-interactive interface or an interactive
ncurses app (and maybe a graphical gtk+ frontend for some eyecandy).
It would also be nice to have a sip softphone on my web page. I took a
look at mozphone, but have not played with it yet.
Proprietary software is not an option.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef(a)esben-stien.name
http://www.esben-stien.name
irc://irc.esben-stien.name/%23contact
[sip|iax]:esben-stien.name
23 Mar
23 Mar
1:54 p.m.
New subject: Thanks to all Re: [linux-audio-user] fighting skype ...
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 04:36:33PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote:
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org>
writes:
Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread. I was able to get
agreement in principle that free and open standards are better for the
long term. But, since skype has the greatest market penetration at the
moment it will be used in the short term as the quick and easy solution.
Not my preferred outcome, but at least I was able to present a
reasonably well informed argument with the help of this list. I think it
was enough to plant a seed for the future.
For what it's worth I'm attaching notes from last week's DCLUG meeting
about asterisk and VOIP. For some reason the archives of that list are
subscriber only ...
Thanks,
--
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki | Systems Administrator
Technical Operations Division | Radio Free Asia
2025 M Street, NW | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-530-4900
CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
This e-mail message is intended only for the use of the addressee and
may contain information that is privileged and confidential. Any
unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly
prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error, please contact
network(a)rfa.org.
what free software alternatives are available.
What I really need is a client daemon hooked up to jack that I can
interface to with a non-interactive interface or an interactive
ncurses app (and maybe a graphical gtk+ frontend for some eyecandy).
It would also be nice to have a sip softphone on my web page. I took a
look at mozphone, but have not played with it yet.
Proprietary software is not an option.
7187
days inactive
7192
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
22 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Bengt Gördén -
Christoph Eckert -
Eric Dantan Rzewnicki -
Esben Stien -
Frank Barknecht -
Hans Fugal -
Lee Revell -
Rob -
Russell Hanaghan -
Shayne O'Connor -
Steve Harris -
tommy